Well, in this particular instance, given that this thread was started for no purpose other than to stir up hatred against a particular group of people then I would recommend locking it and infracting the op.

Well I am not sure about that, I think the purpose may be one of projection, in which case the hatred is directed at himself. It does seem a rather common occurance on the subject of homosexuality
As for infracting, well....Giving infractions is gay! So lame. I hate this site......
and it will only lead to another internet forum suicide note which apparently is a plea for help.

A personal plea for help, in a hope to supress the feelings in others he feels so strongly but resists due to societal and/or religious reasons.

It's only gay if you kiss back Garren. :haha:

I though I spouted stupid crap, but this guy makes me look like Stephen Hawking.

Whoa! Hold on now. Almost any political thread could be taken as "hate" on here. I don't hate these boys the article is about, nor do I hate gays. I just don't agree with these parents using their sons as political pawns to push their personal agenda. No way in hell are these boys old enough to choose a sexual preference. 3 years old? Come on now.

Time for a good lock... :nope:

Ok, I am really not a fan of garren... but he has a point here. I don't feel it is about the kids, it is more about parents doing a terrible job. Someone mentioned it: Toddlers & Tiaras... same 'sick' bullcrap...

Geez, thanks I guess. :hmmm:

Nah, honestly, and no joke I can see where he is coming from.

It is a viewpoint, and we debated it, even made fun of it.

Locking threads is lame, and an easy out rather dealing with something with debate and fact exchange..

Like that Zimmerman thread....
Oops!
Subsim should never be about locking...maybe muting troublemakers, but not nuking discussions because they are too hot to handle.

We are better than most boards.

Prove a person wrong, don't silence them, even mock them when proving wrong fails, but as long as they do not violate rules, why lock?

Threads here are not usually locked lightly, or for bad reasons. That thread was worn out. No one was contributing anything new, and people were down to trading barbs with each other. One of the things we look for is overall civility. Even GT is not the place to be insulting people or calling them names, and that doesn't just include members.

Any time you disagree with policy decisions you can PM Neal Stevens. It's his forum and his opinion is the only one that matters.

Sorry Steve, I wasn't trying to be an ass towards you, you know your my pal, and I like ya lots.:up:

I just never in my time here seen a thread locked, and it kinda disturbed me. Considering it never even got that bad, just that it was so polarizing politically.

So here is people asking for a lock for Garren.

His views are a touch...Uhh repulsive, but is it any less valid? Prove it wrong! Not just lock because you hate what he is saying.

For the record, I hate his views, but he should be able to have them debated, not just summarily locked.

I never said you were. I don't know where that came from.

There have been quite a few threads locked since you've been here. I'm not sure how you missed them. Usually it will be because things have become too heated, and sometimes after a cooling down period they'll be opened again with a warning. Other threads serve no purpose at all except to be inflammatory, so they're locked for cause.

That's the way they feel, and it's their right to say so. It may be locked if it gets out of hand.

Nobody gets infracted and no thread gets locked just because someone disagrees with his opinions, though many trolls will claim otherwise. We do have rules regarding hate speech, personal insults and some other things, and breaking those rules is what brings trouble.

The reason the Zimmerman thread was locked because there was no debate left. More and more people were stooping to nothing but insults. At that point it serves no further purpose.

And I agree, but when anyone makes wisecracks about other members he is warned. If he steps over the line he is infracted. It's not about the opinions, it's about the way they are expressed.

Heck, I've had several threads locked, no fault of my own of course...

I could'n't be a mod, I'd already banned the lot of you, including myself.

Back to the original topic....

If - as the article claims, these children are not able to "identify" their gender at 3 years old - do doctors need to explain to parents about the different gender "plumbing"?

Also, does it not then logically state that the parents - by virtue of putting their 3 yr old, confused child into a camp where they are changing outfits, modeling dresses, applying makeup, etc throughout the day - aka feminine activies - choosing for the child? After all - if the kid doesn't know and the parents dress him up like a girl, they are telling that child he is a girl, regardless of everything else. The same parents that screech in horror that society is "forcing" gender identification down their kids throats - are doing exactly the same thing the other direction by sending their confused kid to camp.

Let the kid figure it out on their own - otherwise your just replacing one dogmatic decree from society with another dogmatic decree from the parents. What ever happened to just loving and accepting your kid for who they are while you bring them up right?

I can see garren's point...it's just the wording that might stir the pot and cause problems.

It's a good point, I just don't want this to get out of hand and people start getting infractions left and right.

I couldn't be a mod either. I would try if offered, but I probably won't be offered. I don't think I would go as far as to ban a lot of people...but keep them in line. :smug:


If we can have a serious civil discussion that doesn't result in infractions/locks/etc that would be a miracle. :doh:

Yeah me too, I am a hothead! This board would be me and Yubba if I had my way! (MORE FOR MY OWN PERSONAL AMUSEMENT)

Thanks Sailor Steve for adressing me. I understand:salute:

No love lost?

That is how it should be. Let the kid decide for himself.

I get warned when others make wisecracks about other members? :doh:

Guys, please don't insult one another on here. I'm taking a lot of abuse from Steve when you get out of line with one another.

It's because I'm black isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDOPJawut4Y

What I love about this GT forum is that the subjects are diverse, and anyone is free to submit their comments no matter their opinion. I read some threads and despair at the narrow mindedness or naivety but welcome the freedom to say what you think.

I have my own worldview based on life experience, culture, ethics, etc, but I welcome other viewpoints as it challenges my ideas and opens up my mind to look at a subject in a different way.

I was taught that at the dinner table you should not discuss religion, politics or sex. I save those subjects for the bar, where you can create a better world over a few social drinks.

If I have strong opinions I try to keep them to myself, rather than add to the mix, although the odd sarcastic comment or minor troll can be amusing to see who bites or runs with the idea. Debating is interesting, and I can be surprised by what I read from more knowledgeable or literate members.

The most important thing for the forum is civility, not getting too personal over a posting (even if the poster is a complete f-wit :03:) because politeness and respect does not cost anything. I accept the rules here because I want to be part of this Subsim society. :arrgh!:

You were warned about your own comment, nobody else's

Good advice, which you should heed yourself.

Please show where.

I assume you're making a joke. If not, then no, that doesn't enter into it. Besides, we have only your word for that. You've taken no abuse from me. You've gotten into trouble because of the way you post, not for your opinions or any other reason. Much of the time you seem to post just to stir the pot and see how much trouble you can cause.

In all fairness I whacked you harder than Steve has.

I think you are taking my defense of you the wrong way.

I am not defending your closed minded opinion, just your debate of it.

Mind you, as long as it is a reasonable debate, and not chock full -o- bigotry.

My tolerance is higher than most here, I appreciate a good troll, so maybe you amuse me, but trust me Garren, there is ways to convey the same beliefs without invoking such hate., or projecting intolerance.

You kinda are a firebrand, calm down man. We will listen.

The one man to make me look like a reasonable fella. Silly willy ;)