As to damage, one of the things identified as damaging was use of language such as husband and wife when discussing 'adult partnerships' as it introduces expectation and bias.
I can understand that. But language changes slowly--the results of forcing it to change faster are usually only good for laughs, such as "Ebonics" for AAVE (African-American Vernacular English). Patience is as much a virtue for an entire culture as it is for individuals.
Of all the memes in our society that cause grief to the LGBT community (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender, apparently the official new term in the USA where acronyms are more safely coined than new words), I don't think that husband-wife is anywhere near the top of their list.
Legally married lesbians seem to routinely refer to their spouses as "wives" without complaining, and I've seen a few gay men call each other "husband" too. Why not?
Teasing, baiting, adding nothing beside petty resentment and a superiority complex. Not to mention the :shrug: and
emoticons you're so fond of. It begs the question:
What are you doing here, wynn?
She is little more than a textbook example of a
troll.
- She adds no information or other value to the discussions she enters.
- When challenged, she claims to be the injured party.
- She makes people angry, which impedes the progress of the discussion.
- She criticizes the words of others in a vague way without actually offering an alternative.
- When asked for elaboration, she responds either A) that it is unnecessary because her point is obvious, well-known and not controversial or B) that there's no point to it because every other member of SciForums is hostile to her for reasons she carefully avoids explaining.
How about any detail? How about instead of just criticizing others, you actually support your criticisms with a competing idea?
Trolls don't do that. It's in their handbook.
How is sex objectification? In typical fashion, you've made a claim without supporting it. Pretend I'm an idiot and explain to me exactly how sex equates to objectification.
Trolls don't do that. It's in their handbook.
I can't fathom how you, of all people, could possibly get upset by someone talking down to someone else. 95% of your posts are blatantly condescending.
Trolls love it when they manage to bring the discourse down to their own level, because it means they've succeeded in reducing or even destroying its value.
Since when does a good excuse pardon actual harm?
How about: all the time? The USA has destroyed what little stability there ever was in the Middle East (by turning Iraq into a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran and Syria), turned most of the world's Muslim population against us (even in "moderate" countries like Indonesia people are sending money to charities that build madrassas for Al Qaeda), antagonized most of our allies, destroyed our own economy (spending $3T that we got by borrowing it from China), and created an unaccountable power structure that reads our e-mail and looks at our naked bodies in airports... and the
excuse is that Saddam and Osama are dead... although the power vacuum they left was quickly filled with even crazier people.
You cannot be emotionally hurt by an opinion unless you think, or are afraid, it may be true.
Huh??? I traveled in Europe during the Vietnam War and I was very hurt by the anti-American opinions that were hurled at me. Even though I was as opposed to the war as they were, I had to take some of the responsibility for my country being the way it was.
Maybe I should have marched on more picket lines, I dunno. I always marched for civil rights, but I was a little reluctant to participate in the anti-war demonstrations. If you disagree with someone who believes that violence is a permissible way to resolve a disagreement, it seems like the stupidest possible thing you can do is
tell him that you disagree with him.
I never anticipated that being able to understand several foreign languages would not always be an asset. Many Americans simply told people they were Canadian.
You have declared that homosexuality is not right. You have yet to explain what makes it wrong.
And she never will. She is extremely careful to reveal as little as possible about herself and her personality. Again, classic troll profile. If you let people know who you are, then it will be more difficult to switch sides in an argument for the purpose of derailing it.
And as Spider has correctly pointed out what you clearly refuse to acknowledge is that AIDS/HIV is not caused by homosexuality. It is simply a disease.
It's been pretty firmly established that the arrival of HIV into the human population was caused by a human eating the meat of a monkey infected with SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) which then mutated. They've even identified the date and the spot where it happened with surprising precision. (A major port on the Congo River early in the 20th century, whence people took it everywhere.)
Then stop hiding and answer the question.
Trolls never give real answers. They just obfuscate.
Is this why you were so offended when I called you a homophobe and commented on your homophobia?
Indeed. It seems that despite the opacity of her writing, you've nonetheless managed to divine one of her traits.
But you haven't expanded. You never do. Fraggle as much as begged you to do elaborate, and you've done nothing but excuse yourself since.
Not the first time. Again: classic troll behavior.
What the hell are you talking about?
Sometimes trolls sink so deeply into obfuscation that even they forget what they're talking about.
You have yet to explain how or why homosexuality is immoral.
Trolls never explain.
You seem to want us to be upset.
Bingo! Trolls draw their energy from other people's confusion, frustration and anger. It's a form of
parasitism.
