Yes Lawlz, we get that you don't agree with Pulsey, neither do I.

I can manage that without insulting over a billion people though.

Acting like this is going to disappear is the same as simply gritting one's teeth as you get called a fag in the public chat before a game,

Someone calling you a fag is not a hate crime. It's offensive and uncivil yes, but it's no better or worse than other insults and does not deserve a special category.

A group of forum-goers or general WL players should take up some sort of open-acceptance, for everyone, not just LGBT, and should stand against general harassment and hate.

Hate is another word that's getting thrown around way too much. You don't know someone's inner feelings, just because they are anti-gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gay people. (Just for an example: You can be opposed to smoking without hating people who smoke. Thus, you can be opposed to the concept of homosexuality in general without hating people who are homosexual)

Homophobia seems to be pretty straightforward, a hate/disdain/fear of homosexuality. A good defense against sort of discrimination is to act like a reasonable human being.

People have every right to be opposed to homosexuality, and just because someone is doesn't make them a horrible person.

>but homophobia by itself is just a trait, a natural preference of something over the other.

>No no no, see it's fair because racism isn't technically immoral since it's a natural thought to hate other races.

Do you understand my point now? -.-

@Eklipse

Read my above post, I mentioned nothing was wrong with homophobia or being opposed to homosexuality, but the line is drawn when human rights are infringed upon. You have your right to like or like not homosexuality, but when you are attempting to control or end the lives of others because of this, that's when it becomes unacceptable.

You only have two rights:

Not to die
Not to be tortured.

Gays don't get that in most countries.

Edited 4/2/2015 14:08:46

I'm pretty sure there are more than that, that the United Nations agrees upon.

So, no. You have more.

Now you're changing the subject, I thought we were talking about the behavior of players on Warlight? Have human rights been infringed upon on Warlight?

I have never advocated murdering anyone, and I haven't seen anyone else who has either. So I don't know why you're pulling that up.

The UN doesn't matter, these are your two rights, and if those are broken, you have right to cry and whine and write a book and say your rights are infringed.

The point is the comparison. The two things I suggested was a group of WL players form a group that believes in love and acceptance to counter immaturity and discrimination, and reporting insults/slurs. Though I'm not sure on the policy for what should and shouldn't be reported. I was also debating and countering everyone else I was talking to.

People shouldn't be harassed or insulted in general on Warlight. Again, the point is homophobia applied.

Simply banning flaming/harassment in general is sufficient. Homophobia doesn't need to have a separate rule, if it did people would abuse it just to report political views they don't like regarding the subject.

@ Жұқтыру

I'm guessing you live in a country where the inhabitants have very few rights. I'd suggest moving out of North Korea as soon as possible. Many countries are part of the UN, the UN has a list of basic human rights that it's member countries must allow for the country to still have membership in the UN. Therefore, the UN's list of human rights supersedes the individual countries list of human rights, unless the country guarantees more than the UN minimum.

So, in general, you have more rights. Were you being kept from marriage, kept from entering certain establishments, and harassed because of X trait you have, I think your tone would change.

Hey, if homosexuality is allowed, then it should be a two-way street. Not completely biased towards the minority.
If pro-heterosexualism was censored, that would be like giving the Mexican population of the US the sole right to vote, and stripping voting rights away from everyone else.

Austin, you have made a big mistake. You are now the King of Trolls.

I think you overestimate the power of the UN. Pretty much every country in the world is a part of the UN, yet several member countries abuse the rights and rules laid out by the UN in a grand variety of ways.

The UN is a great step for diplomacy, but it has little enforcement power and it's decisions are only worth as far as member countries are willing to carry them out.

No lawlz I do not. In fact I think you are just as bad.

If you want acceptance, you should be prepared to see people as individuals not denigrate an entire race because you feel one person from that ethnicity does not accept you.

Oh my god, it was pointing out a flaw, not actual fucking racism. His point of view can literally be applied to anything.

If not it's a really bad analogy to homophobia.

I don't really understand you. Perhaps you can elaborate?

I'll give another example in the meantime. Lions. Lions are carnivorous, they hunt and kill for their food. This usually involves violence and much pain on an innocent victim. Does this make lions immoral? No! Because being lions aren't a choice. Lions are born to hunt and kill.

Morality itself is based on virtue, and virtue doesn't exist without choice.

Morality is simply a distinction between right and wrong. It is subjective and relative, merely defined by society.

People, in my opinion, don't choose to be homophobic. Phobia towards homosexuals, just like my example of the man not liking girls with brown eyes, comes naturally. Some homophobics, choose however, to exercise bigotry towards homosexuals, such as harassment, and since harassment is generally negatively viewed by society, hence society distinguishes bigotry as immoral.

Regarding homosexuality, right now there isn't really a general consensus on this, whether is right or wrong, unlike topics such as toture and harassment. Hence its not reasonable to say that homophobia itself is immoral, which was my original point to Austin.

Edited 4/2/2015 14:36:24

Everyone on this page has made sense, except Colonel. I'm not trying to sound cruel, but I didn't get what you were trying to say. Could you rephrase it? The post above the King of Trolls one.

Did you read what I typed before that sentence?

"In this example does the the man display an aversion to anyone that is in a relationship with a girl with brown eyes?"

Your 'analogy' confused a person's individual sexual preference with an individual's belief that all gay relationships / people are unnatural.

So unless your person in the analogy also thinks that anyone in a relationship with brown eyed girls are unnatural, it's a bad analogy.

Pulseys analogy: "Say a man doesn't like girls with brown eyes. So when it comes to having a relationship, the guy displays aversion towards girls with brown eyes. Does this make him immoral? Absolutely not. Its similar to homophobia. Its natural (he has no control over his preference of girls with brown eyes) and it doesn't the man him immoral. "

Edited 4/2/2015 15:04:05

(now you see what I meant just 2 hours earlier, your post "has already derailed" as Thomas would say, congrats)