Moderation, censorship and protectionism.

[ulli]

The one thing wrong with homosexuality is that it has become a movement, predatorial, organized,
with the extreme end made up of men and women at war with the bigots in society.
The two are like opposite sides of the same coin.

So I have some thoughts about it...opinions. Having worked in the fashion world some of my best and oldest friends are gay.
(They love astrologers, lol)
One thing I noticed over the decades...I have yet to meet one happy OLD queen.
Gay marriage is one way for them to remedy that.
Having given themselves to indulging their bodies they have become dependent on physical beauty and attractiveness...
which like everything else that is engrained soon becomes a habit and keeps soul growth stuck.
Life style is always a choice, always.
If one has tendencies that could lead one down a path of unhappiness one might want to take a closer look at what fed those tendencies in the first place. Not for the sake of society, but one's self.

[Anchor]

I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

I am sick and tired of people using this "someone might be offended" line to stifle conversation.

This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Difficult subjects take a little bit of courage. Being made to walk on eggshells is not appropriate.

Remember: Offense is taken, not given. (Said by Ricky Gervais among others)

If someone is trying to cause offense, then throw them off the forum. The moderators will take care of this - so dont worry about it. Just tell the truth and be respectful, that is all you need to do.

If someone is trying to talk about a difficult subject then so long as its appropriately in context and conducted respectfully, if anyone takes offense then that is their problem - and perhaps one they need to deal with.

The subjects spoken of in this thread do need to get covered by us all sooner or later.

The whole messy gamut of a subject is interwoven with some of the most distorted and dissimilar views you will encounter on anything, ie. it is encapsulated in those "offensive" topics. Real harm has been done to man, and real healing is needed to get past this.

I wonder if this forum lacks the maturity to do this successfully, and the wildly differing views on this subject will always end up being confronting to some others - quite possibly beyond their comfort zone - prompting and shouts of "I am offended". This forum claims to be a safe place, I am not sure yet its safe enough to do this subject justice.

This topic has gone so far away from its purpose its actually getting silly - and it now needs a title change to stay on topic!

Bill invited a thread on the subject right at the start.

As an ex-homophobe (!), a product of poor sex education, and a boys school at my formative age, I have plenty to contribute to that debate when it happens in the right place and in the right context - and I may well offend some people by describing some of my past behaviors and attitudes which were essentially born of ignorance and the social conditions in which I developed.

These issues which are common and potentially significant blocks for many people on the spiritual path. We don't all have the skills and experience to remove these blocks without pain to ourselves or others. From time to time that pain will manifest consciously as offense for many.

The meta-offense we should all feel is finding out that none of it was real in the first place! All humanity in all its forms is beauty and light. Finding that out is hard for a lot of people - letting go of hard won judgements and modes of thought. Applying the principles of purity to the human condition is painful.

It is also offensive to the powers that would like you not to do that and realize who you are and your place in light.

And to those powers, I say f**k you !

[christian]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Apart from that, there are many extremely interesting models that I suggest you to explore, such as Libertarian Socialism, which of course comes from Marxism, and is a system that I truly believe to be a much better alternative to our current one.

Libertarian Socialism promotes a "non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property," which I absolutely do not want. If I create a wooden chair, I don't think anybody has the right to take it away from me, only death or Mother Nature. This kind of freedom that I mean where you can keep what you build is the soil on which the highest achievements can grow, I think, when humanity is able to maturely handle the responsibility that comes with freedom. For that, people need inspiration, not laws. They need to see the bigger picture, then they will naturally act responsibly. For humanity to get there is my goal, and I'm patient, it may take bazillion human lifetimes, but I'm in no hurry.

Posted by Freed Fox (here)

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Which comments? Please clarify, let's figure this out.

I don't want to go pointing fingers, Christian.

Well, you already did, like a sweeping finger-pointing around the room, saying that some comments were offensive. If you don't really want to talk about that, then I'd say don't point in the first place, even if you point unspecified. This is kind of passive-aggressive behavior, I reckon, no offense. If you'd know me personally, you'd know I'm far from perfect in my personal interactions with others. I think all of us, even the best, display some kind of 'personality disorder' to some degree.

Anyways, in my opinion it's perfectly fine to talk about things in a mature way, I'm still interested in what statements may be offensive. I realize that it's inappropriate to discuss certain topics too much because of the stuff that it triggers in some people, but in general I strongly believe in clear and open communication in order to figure things out.

I know that my views on homosexuality might offend people, but they are surely not meant to. All I'm saying against homosexuality is that if everybody would only have homosexual sex, humanity would die out. And that shows how rigid homosexuality should not be the norm, in my opinion, cause I'd like to see humanity evolve.

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
We sure are messed up about sex. We can't even admit it is fundamentally governed by our own desire to orgasm, not on a sexual partner.

Posted by ulli (here)
To find out if sex and procreation are linked we might want to ask those who engineered our genes in the first place.
They must have had a terrible fear of humanity dying out one day....hence they ensured the fun part, and even made the sex instinct stronger than the mind.

I do sexual kung fu (see here), so I don't do sex for the orgasm, but rather to refine energies in an ecstatic way. I do enjoy sex a lot, but I can happily live without it for virtually any amount of time, also without masturbation, I can do energy work combined with a movement of the PC muscle and be just fine and enjoy it a lot. That's also what our bodies are capable of, they're not just treacherous machines that make us behave stupid endlessly, the power of consciousness can elevate us beyond that.

[DeDukshyn]

Interesting pov's here, although, admittedly I only read the first few and last few posts. I never judge a person's character by a specific post or whatever, because I sometimes play devil's advocate, stir the pot a little here and there just to get people thinking and expanding their thoughts. There have been posts from some members that I totally disagree with or even sickened by, but it doesn't mean I won't thank and support their very next post if it has value for me. The value of the individual is never questioned, the timing of that value, perhaps.

So I try not to have this issue at all, and no matter who says who is right or wrong, at the end of the day if we can't set our judgements aside or stop holding these judgments past the point of it's initial appearance within oneself, then we are all guilty. The solution to this problem is a) stop assigning judgement to an individual for a personal POV, and b) when judgment does exist, do not carry that energy forth. If everyone did this Raf's issue vanishes for the most part, and thus does any reaction to that viewed as offensive.

So on that I agree that protectionism isn't the right answer either, but encouragement for the individual to seek value in other's pov and where it cannot be found, find what you value elsewhere or add to the discussion constructively even if opposing in view.

Taking things too seriously or caring too much what others think is always a root of issues ...

My 2 cents.

[Beren]

And when you round things up even this talk we have here is all about moderation, censorship and protectionism.

An atmosphere is being heavily created in the world about gay rights. Every human has a right of free will to do as he/she so please.
But there will always be a consequence - good or bad.

As Ulli said modern homosexual groups are predatory and they live of their loud attack on opposite group. Does it really help people who identify as homosexual?
No. It makes them look like cheap drama queens. Which most of them aren`t in the long run.

Some realized that either gay or straight they are human and they want to overgrow sexualizing the everyday life and choices they make.

Predatory mindset is always the same - the attack.
Hence everybody who do not support homosexual life style are named bigots of homophobes. Now this is a classic judgement. This is offensive and name calling.

Why someone is offended if other human who also have free will is not agreeing in their choices?
We don`t need to be equal because we aren`t but we need to have unity in soul and spirit so that everyone can show their uniqueness not identical and uniformal attitudes , thoughts and reactions- just like from the text book.

Men and women are not equal but if each side treats the other with respect we live in harmony. But if you threaten me with a fine if I don`t agree with your lifestyle then what that makes you?

Who gives you the right to judge me and else?

That is censorship or thought and prohibition of freely expressing is moderation. We have this in big scale in the world.
And protectionism?

So I say I don`t support homosexual lifestyle and marriages and adoption, then one comes and judge me because of this, brand me as bigot and homophobe and tries to enact laws which will fine me because of what? Of my own personal opinion and vocalization of the same?

But if I support homosexual lifestyle then I am good guy?

Protectionism.

Political correctness or who ever makes the rules decides what we are going to think-right?

Thus we continue to discuss what are moderation and protectionism and censorship...even in this issue about human sexuality.
Remember all is a choice at higher places from where we came. Negating this is also a choice. But it looks like uninformed choice, running away from responsibility by stating that "we didn`t chose this hence we are not responsible"...

Someone once said Karma is a bitch... It`s not. It`s just whatever you ever sown - you will definitely reap. Cause and effect- Universal law.

[Freed Fox]

Posted by Anchor (here)
I am sick and tired of people using this "someone might be offended" line to stifle conversation.

That doesn't really apply to my post. I may have used that line, but I didn't then subsequently withhold my opinions because of that sentiment. I have said everything I care to say on the matter.

Also Anchor, I actually agree with your statement that this thread's title should be changed to reflect the course of conversation. However, that's a decision which is to be made between the moderation, and the threads creator, not you or I. Furthermore, if the creator of this thread is open and willing to discuss what is being discussed, it is not off topic.

Based on what I clearly wrote, christian, you should be able to extrapolate on your own which posts I was referring to. I didn't mince words by not naming names. The thread about Hagmann was closed because he was accused of homophobia, and now you want me to specifically state individuals who have exhibited similar positions. It isn't because you intend to moderate them. If the moderation in this regard was to be consistent, I would be the one expecting to be moderated.

Of course, it should be common sense that Doug Hagmann's homophobia doesn't automatically invalidate everything he puts out and brings forth. Just like DeDukshyn's sentiment above that we should not condemn and demonize one another based on our individual points of view should be common sense. But perhaps like Anchor suggested, this forum isn't ready for that.

Posted by Anchor (here)
This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Chelley says hi.

[Bubu]

Hi Raf my friend,

First I’d like to say sorry for using strong words but to me that is the most accurate way of telling you how Mr. Hagman felt with your words that is stronger than mine.

If in case you find bad in my post or my behavior now or in the future please do correct me in any manner you wish. I will be glad to say “I stand corrected” people do it here all the time and that is the right thing to do. We are here as students and teachers as well. We help each other to learn. We debate to learn and not for any other reason.

The mod team has done an excellent job in handling this, we shall commend them for that.

Julian

Because we need, as a society, to solve small stuff first.

[ulli]

This statement is so loaded... Gotta love it.
Not only in that it addressed bigotry,
But also divisiveness.

[Anchor]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Chelley says hi.

LOL - thanks for that chuckle.

You could certainly say that her approach and mine are somewhat different! Nevertheless we are both pointed in the same direction.

To be clear, I wasn't trying to aim at you, but that "offended" thing rears its ugly head whenever the going gets tough.

I have a lot of time invested in this forum. It remains a wellspring of good thought and I do still see it as a valuable collection of gifted and clever people. I like to contribute if possible to any ideas that will help keep it that way. I don't like seeing people offended. I don't like accidentally causing offense - but sometimes it will happen.

Sometimes I think we fool ourselves by winding the bands of tolerance too narrow. Its hard to have an open and frank discourse in those narrow bands.

[gripreaper]

This thread is still going?

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Beren (here)
And when you round things up even this talk we have here is all about moderation, censorship and protectionism.

An atmosphere is being heavily created in the world about gay rights. Every human has a right of free will to do as he/she so please.
But there will always be a consequence - good or bad.

As Ulli said modern homosexual groups are predatory and they live of their loud attack on opposite group. Does it really help people who identify as homosexual?
No. It makes them look like cheap drama queens. Which most of them aren`t in the long run.

Some realized that either gay or straight they are human and they want to overgrow sexualizing the everyday life and choices they make.

Predatory mindset is always the same - the attack.
Hence everybody who do not support homosexual life style are named bigots of homophobes. Now this is a classic judgement. This is offensive and name calling.

Why someone is offended if other human who also have free will is not agreeing in their choices?
We don`t need to be equal because we aren`t but we need to have unity in soul and spirit so that everyone can show their uniqueness not identical and uniformal attitudes , thoughts and reactions- just like from the text book.

Men and women are not equal but if each side treats the other with respect we live in harmony. But if you threaten me with a fine if I don`t agree with your lifestyle then what that makes you?

Who gives you the right to judge me and else?

That is censorship or thought and prohibition of freely expressing is moderation. We have this in big scale in the world.
And protectionism?

So I say I don`t support homosexual lifestyle and marriages and adoption, then one comes and judge me because of this, brand me as bigot and homophobe and tries to enact laws which will fine me because of what? Of my own personal opinion and vocalization of the same?

But if I support homosexual lifestyle then I am good guy?

Protectionism.

Political correctness or who ever makes the rules decides what we are going to think-right?

Thus we continue to discuss what are moderation and protectionism and censorship...even in this issue about human sexuality.
Remember all is a choice at higher places from where we came. Negating this is also a choice. But it looks like uninformed choice, running away from responsibility by stating that "we didn`t chose this hence we are not responsible"...

Someone once said Karma is a bitch... It`s not. It`s just whatever you ever sown - you will definitely reap. Cause and effect- Universal law.

I think I am supporting your post with this ... as an extension, correct me if I am wrong.

There is no need for anyone to either support or not support. Indifference in this case allows the freedoms that is each our birthright. As another thread brought this topic up, there is far more to reality than something and it's opposite, yet the polarities are strong in this day in age and thus it is sometimes hard to see.

I support peoples personal freedoms, and I am indifferent to other's feelings on this. No polarity to support or not is required by anyone.

[norman]

I don't suppose there is really any way of finding out for sure, but I'd like to know if the proportion of homosexuals, in the total population, has significantly risen in the last 100 years.

I mean a real figure that ignores all the social stigma and hiding of it. And, also ignores rape and violence of warfare.

I'm only guessing, but I think it has, and that would make this subject a hell of a lot more interesting than just 'respect' lessons.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
The thread about Hagmann was closed because he was accused of homophobia

Not true ... honest.

Bill, who closed the thread, and Ilie, who said it perhaps the best of any of us, stated why the original Hagmann thread was closed.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
In my opinion, the opening post from EYES WIDE OPEN was inflammatory, divisive, distracting, ...

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
Unfortunately, the discussion was opened in such a way as to cause much divisiveness and arguments on the forum.

Such topics as homophobia and whether Doug Hagmann is homophobic, like many topics on this forum, can be handled one of two ways:

• With a bit of care and respect supporting a healthy discussion, or
• with the effect of inflamming, dividing or distracting.

Neither the topic, the accusations nor the target of the accusations were the primary reason for my moderation actions (title change and thread move) on the earlier thread, nor (as best I understand) for Bill's closing that thread.

The manner of handling the topic was the primary reason.

This present thread has been and remains a good example of how to handle controversial topics (such as all the above, as well as such questions as whether or not I am a misguided censor) in a healthy fashion.

At the individual level, neither I nor any other mod, nor Bill himself, have a responsibility for "protecting" the "innocent" minds of responsible members from thoughts we deem misguided. Not our job. We couldn't do it if we tried. Only the responsible individual can do that, for themselves.

But moderators in particular, and members in general, do have some responsibility to resist overly inflammatory, divisive, and distracting material, as it harms the forum. Most any of us who have observed several forums on the Internet over a period of time know that this can happen.

In this particular case, in addition to the potential broad spectrum harm to the forum, there was also the specific risk of improperly (see below) distracting us from some possibly valuable testimony coming through Hagmann from an anonymous whistleblower. It is an entirely fair question (not one I'd personally ask, but some might ask) whether Hagmann's views on homosexuality reflect poorly on the value to us of this whistleblower testimony, but that question too is one that can be handled one of two ways, as listed above, one of them proper, one not.

Thanks for the continued good discussion!

(Not that it matters much anymore, but as to the original question, whether Hagmann is a homophobe: From the little bit that I've seen in the last day, he appears here to be staunchly opposed to homosexuality for religious or moral reasons, and for what he perceives to be its impact on society, but I have no idea whether he fears, is phobic of, homosexuals or homosexuality. But that's just my view, and rather off topic for this thread, except to note, by way of example, that one can address that question without excessive agro.)

[jagman]

Not one mention of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Oh damn I just mentioned it lol
I really don't want to touch this hot potato so i'm leaving quietly.

[gripreaper]

If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

[Sgt-Bones]

Posted by gripreaper (here)
If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

LOL...my just exploded brain this reading

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gripreaper (here)
If there's ...

... now I'm wondering if my propensity for convoluted constructs has inspired gripreaper to another classic

[naste.de.lumina]

Posted by gripreaper (here)
If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

The official writer of Obama's speeches would be envious of this ability to turn a short sentence in a paragraph.

[Sierra]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Cheers,

Raf.

Every government gets converted to a totalitarian state eventually. It kind of does not matter what government we have if the governors are spiritually and ethically grounded. How often does that happen no matter what form of government is in place?

When I see people advocating one form of government over another, because "it would work for the benefit of all", I think two things:
a) It has not been put into practice yet (and corrupted by human nature)
b) It is a Utopian pipe dream

The ONLY country today (that I am aware of) where the leadership is "for" the people is Bhutan. Their standard of measurement is "happiness", I kid you not.

The assessment of gross national happiness (GNH; Wylie: rgyal-yongs dga'a-skyid dpal-'dzoms) was designed in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than only the economic indicator of gross domestic product.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness)

Oh, and Tibet as it used to be, they *are* the only government on the historical record, that stopped their imperial phase for spiritual reasons, walked away from their invasion of China.

The role of Buddhism was significant in the history of Tibet. From about the 7th century on, Buddhism was to play an ever increasing role in Tibetan culture and history. From that time until about 300 years ago, Tibet was one of the only cultures to have turned away from militance to become a totally peaceful society. Tibet was to carry a legacy of seeking power and empire building that was shared by many cultures but it was to transform itself into a society where nearly two-thirds of its expenditures went for education in the Buddhist faith. No longer did Tibet seek to control lands but remained hidden from the world is the isolation of the Himalayas.

No where in human history did a society embark on such a dramatic transformation as did Tibet. It took hundreds of years but Tibet went from one of the most feared societies who attacked China, India, and Persia to a peaceful kingdom dedicated to altruism. This unique transformation left Tibet struggling in isolation yet with a measure of peace found withing the heart of Buddhism.

From http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/t...t_history.html

The point I'm trying to make is that no system of government goes well, unless the collective population of any government style, hold themselves ethically and spiritually accountable, and teaches the next generation to do the same.

So it always falls back to do we have enough individuals in a population group that are clearing themselves, holding themselves accountable for what they put out into the world.

And perhaps sometimes, it does not matter what you do, the center cannot hold, just call it a phase of the Kali Yuga cycle for a lack of a better way to label the situation (that perhaps we find ourselves in today). Perhaps these cycles of golden age to boom and bust happen as a way to determine, are we spiritually responsible no matter what form of government under which we live and die? Perhaps incarnation cycles on earth, include a testing time as a graduation exercise ...

Sierra

[Sierra]

Posted by SGT-BONES (here)

Posted by gripreaper (here)
If there's a meaningful unit of speech which cannot be conjugated within the diagram of the sentence, then the linguistic etymology may be identifying its cognates within a contextual imperative of allusion of an obtuse nature relevant to the languages, having features in common but opposite or inverse in particular complex roots, occurring in the parts of the discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw doubt on its meaning, within the substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect for the topic at hand.

Or, there could just be a dangling participle somewhere

LOL...my just exploded brain this reading

Yeah, that was aweful!