I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. — Uglydelicious

I’m very confused how this statement of opinion comes off as “I think you did this”. Can anyone help explain it to me?

Just as a point of interest and perhaps, an additional perspective on the notion that moderation is "necessary"...

Way back in the olden days, there existed a Yahoo Group entitled AlasBabylon. It was a bunch of peak oil theorists, baby boomers, doomers, and know-it-alls. :yum:

The creator, owner, and sole moderator was Scott Meredith.
One time over period of 5? or so years, I witnessed Scott impose some moderation. It was in a very extreme case.

Otherwise, the site was UNMODERATED.

It never burned down while Scott owned it. Apparently [?] the members felt a bit of personal ownership in the place.

It seems to me that the one of beautiful benefits of knowing a thing to be true is that you never have to expend any more precious effort or expense on research or investigation into it. It seems that when the "case is closed", it is CLOSED, Jack. The only thing that might remain is to inform all the ignorant souls who have been denied or otherwise deprived of this knowledge.

I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality.
— Uglydelicious

I’m very confused how this statement of opinion comes off as “I think you did this”. Can anyone help explain it to me? — Uglydelicious

I will attempt to. In a previous post you wrote:

“effected [affected :yikes: ] by homosexuality” is vile — Uglydelicious

Presumably you consider it vile because this brief statement has the effect of:

stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. — Uglydelicious

This may be an oversimplification and seem unappreciative of the more subtle points you’ve brought to light, but if it’s a reasonable interpretation, it’s unclear how the offending statement expresses what you seem to believe it expresses.

By way of example I’ll try to illustrate my confusion. I have an astigmatism. I realize that the astigmatism is not something external to me and that it’s part of my physiology. I’m even willing to accept the idea that it ‘manifests from my being’ though I’m not entirely sure what that’s supposed to mean. Sounds profound so it must be gloriously virtuous.

The astigmatism affects my vision, the effect of which makes things look a little blurry. I don’t believe that I would be stigmatizing myself if I were to say that my astigmatism affects me, even though astigmatism is normally regarded negatively. I sometimes joke that I prefer a soft-focus on life, incidentally, like old films where they blurred the lens for closeups in order to make actors look better. Perhaps the effect of being affected by an astigmatism is aesthetic enjoyment? That’s not so vile, is it?

I bet you are only affecting that you were effected by affecting.

Your affectation for effecting conundrums is effectively unaffecting. :razz:

Show-offs.

You think our affecting an attraction for implementing "Affectation" ineffective?

As a matter affect, yes.

I forced it. :zip:

Philosophers have the worst humour. Nerds.

Philosophers have the worst humour. Nerds. — Benkei

I like thinkers sense of humor, especially when it is processed through the mind of an attorney.

I bet you are only affecting that you were effected by affecting. — Banno

I know you're joking, but this is serious: he wasn't effected by "affecting'' he was affected by "effecting'. But it was merely an affectation in any case. And unlike some of those above, I'm not joking.

@Janus. For my part, I was thoroughly entertained by this word-play, and especially since it was participated in by someone who might one day “virtually” cut my throat.

I would rather see him enjoy himself in a controversial thread than bring the hammer down.

The PC Police got sass AND attitude.

Come to order, please. The moderation in question is in question, question standing, answer pending. Or it's answered by default, which is substantively no answer at all, but avoidance.

And as a matter of group dynamics, it appears the topic is fraught enough to cause flight into nonsense and humor.

The moderation was anti-philosophic. A question was asked about blocking a discussion from taking place. Central (as I recall, subject to correction) was whether something, lets call it X, was a "defect." X was never defined for present purpose. Within this lifetime X was defined as a defect, and I believe in parts of the world even now still is. So there is an issue of definition. And underlying definition is - should be - the attempt to know what something is, that also being called a definition. And X notoriously resists definition in this second sense. Next (as I recall & etc.), defect itself was never defined or assigned any meaning.

The OP should have provided these, either as determinative or as points of departure. It didn't. But then, neither do most posts. And we even have a member of long and good standing rabidly opposed to definition in any sense, relying instead on use.

To be as brief as possible, all that's left that I can see is that the moderation was based in a very subjective assessment of a flammability index. If that's the case, I submit the standard needs work.