[Khar]

Brenda Brenda:

Khar, you have a tendency to state your opinions as facts, and your Devil's advocate thing is no different.
It is your OPINION. Just like my 'don't pussify society' is mine. I'm over people constantly yelling they want others to be punished because they don't agree. My opinion.

I have no problem with equal rights, and I do not necessarily understand why you brought gay rights into this.
Are gays more in their right to be insulted when people are being assholes? Doubt it. Btw, when people say something nasty about gays, it is hate speech. Illegal.

Just fyi, I am not interested in anyone's sexuality. Whatever floats your boat, none of my business. Don't try to make it personal.

Exactly how am I stating my opinion as fact? Just because I do not begin each sentence with "I feel" or "I believe" does not mean I am turning an opinion into fact, it's a statement of opinion. Hell, I went out of my way in my first post to make it very clear that everything within was my interpretation of the article.

"So, without further ado, why nothing in this thread is even illegal and what this law is used for, at least from my perspective."

Further, I actually did provide you a factual basis in describing exactly what constituted an insult as directly prescribed by the law. Secondly, I corrected what was a factual error visible in this thread alone when you conflated an insult with compliments. Sometimes statement of facts are statement of facts, and it tends to be clear when they are. I don't have to highlight the facts to make them facts, or segregate them from opinion to make those other statements opinions.

People are going to tell you your opinions are wrong. This is a forum. The whole point is for people with different opinions to discuss things. I thought your opinion was wrong and I thought the factual underpinnings of it were also wrong. I challenged you on it. Just like what happens a dozen times on this site every day, just like what happens in every long-running non-game thread on this forum. Just because it's your opinion, doesn't make it special and sacrosanct. The moment you share it, it's as open to scrutiny as whatever I share, and I welcome that scrutiny on my posts.

For the record, your "don't pussify society" stance is fairly different from your original commentary, on how you should just "accept compliments and move on," that everyone is a sexual object, and that this is not a ban that doesn't fix a problem. You've moved your goalposts fairly significantly, even though the arguments I've shared in this thread on my stance that have gone generally ignored still serve as an adequate response.

Actually, I'm also not sure it really serves as a response to your own cited posts I linked in my last. Exactly how was Brenda from a few months ago wrong? Have you just generally changed your stance on the issue? It's fine if you did, I'm just confused.

I didn't bring gay rights into this as anything important. I pointed out to a fellow poster how his commentary was similar in another thread and how it was funny seeing the parallels between the "I'm against this because it doesn't treat men equally" (when it does) and "I'm against this because it doesn't treat straights equally." If you're all for equality then you should get the distinction here anyways. Since you, like me, also repped that post, I figured you especially would also get it.

The person who turned literally a sentence in dozens of others into something important was you, not me. It wasn't an underpinning to a single argument, opinion or fact provided in this thread, it was a friendly comment. Your underhanded comment added nothing but vitriol. How does it help a discussion to say "Ah, now it is a gay issue, and if it is not, you just make it one. "

Finally, you're right, it is illegal as a hate crime. Now why is it illegal when it comes to gays, and not illegal when it comes to women? Isn't that what this law is trying to rectify, give protections to women that don't currently exist, provide them some degree of equality when it comes to how they are treated in society? The same with some underprivileged men, like stay-at-home Dads?

$1:

I guess what I am saying is that you cannot fine disrespectful behaviour. People are assholes. Fine everyone? How is that a solution? How are you going to enforce this? How do you prove in court you were 'insulted' when physically abusive people are not even held accountable? when death threats are not being taken seriously?

Can you fine abusive behavior? That's the point of this law, isn't it? It's not to stop you or me or anyone else from being an asshole, it's to stop us from being abusive to them on the basis of their gender or sex, which as I've outlaid above I view as being fairly different. Even an imperfect method, with the same rate of success as our current abuse laws, still provides some remedy and recourse for people facing that form of abuse, no?

Fines change people's way of thinking, it incentivizes them to stop those actions, and it does provide a method for the cops to get involved. As I've already said, "It would be the same way you handle assaults on parking enforcement officers and so forth. Caught on camera, pay the fine. Lots of witnesses, pay the fine. Write it on a website, pay the fine. Even then, I'm betting it'll be handled in most situations like loitering. How do you prove someone loitered? It provides an incentive for people not to, and a reason for police to get involved where they might not otherwise be able to in concerning situations."

Further, I already stated a lot of issues with things like stalking (and yes, I did provide evidence to back this and the figures I used up) came down to where the line with free speech is and where the line with evidence is. Abuse can be hard to pin down, but if you have evidence, you can be charged with abuse. Sometimes, death threats are vague enough or are written in just the right context to avoid getting prosecuted. Men and women right now have a lot of leeway with the current laws not to be charged. I view this as a way of closing that loophole.

Even if it can't be enforced, or used perfectly, it is still better than nothing.