[REPORT] Trolling/Flaming in LGBT Belarus thread.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Transgenders have mental disorders, gays are an abomination of life, and love has boundaries.

One post wonder calling gay people abominations, and saying that trans people have mental disorders is a no no considering we have a number of both on here.

[Ransium]

viewtopic.php?p=34067704#p34067704

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

viewtopic.php?p=34068382#p34068382

The inclusion of a link, to Leviticus 20:13, along with the post author's stated opinion, implies a belief an assertion that LGBT people should be put to death. Ergo, advocating for death of people/persons.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

All I can say is,

(Image)

Trolling picspam possibly, too.

[Frisbeeteria]

The inclusion of a link, to Leviticus 20:13, along with the post author's stated opinion, implies a belief an assertion that LGBT people should be put to death. Ergo, advocating for death of people/persons.

There is no way ... no possible way ... that NationStates is going to take the official position that Bible Quotes are trolling or advocating death. Ditto the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Kojiki, the Book of Mormon, or any other 'holy book'. Debate the argument all you wish, but don't ask us to treat ancient texts as players in their own right.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

The inclusion of a link, to Leviticus 20:13, along with the post author's stated opinion, implies a belief an assertion that LGBT people should be put to death. Ergo, advocating for death of people/persons.

There is no way ... no possible way ... that NationStates is going to take the official position that Bible Quotes are trolling or advocating death. Ditto the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Kojiki, the Book of Mormon, or any other 'holy book'. Debate the argument all you wish, but don't ask us to treat ancient texts as players in their own right.

As long as you include other relevant parts of Leviticus, I'd say it's fine. You really shouldn't pick and choose. You'd probably need a spoiler.

⁶ If any turn to mediums and wizards, prostituting themselves to them, I will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people.
¹¹ The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
¹² If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion, their blood is upon them.
¹⁴ If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is depravity; they shall be burned to death, both he and they, that there may be no depravity among you.
¹⁵ If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal.
¹⁶ If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
¹⁷ If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall be subject to punishment.
¹⁸ If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people.
¹⁹ You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to lay bare one’s own flesh; they shall be subject to punishment

Mind you, that's just Leviticus 20. We're not even getting into being forbidden to eat leftovers on the third day (Lev 19.7), wearing a garment made of two different materials (Lev 19.19), or trimming your beard (Lev 19.27). You should really cover (and absolutely observe) each and every one of them.

All that said, if you just want to post Lev 20:13 in isolation, I'd have to call that trolling.

Are you contradicting your own previous ruling here?

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

... but don't ask us to treat ancient texts as players in their own right.

I think that, at most, I asked whether a player's linking to a text clearly advocating death of people/persons, in the context of a post which a reasonable person can interpret as that player being supportive of that action, should constitute the violation.

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

As long as you include other relevant parts of Leviticus, I'd say it's fine. You really shouldn't pick and choose. You'd probably need a spoiler.

Emphasis added, of course.

Indeed, I'd assert that Leviticus 20:13 was specifically picked and chosen within the context of the post in question for a specific purpose that is difficult (if not impossible) to overlook.

Unless we really are to be satisfied with the conclusion that calling a specific set of people an "abomination" followed by a statement that they should be put to death somehow isn't intentional advocacy for death by the poster merely because said poster partially hid the statement behind a hyperlink.

I must respectfully request a second opinion.

[Audioslavia]

I appreciate the point you're making, but there's a significant difference between both rulings.

The previous ruling you mentioned was with regards to putting said link in the user's sig. There's no space to debate an offensive link in someone's sig, so it's considered trolling. The post you've reported has the link in a regular post. It's being put there for people to question and attack, and there is a definite space in which to do so. There's a distinct difference between the two. As such, I'm denying the appeal.

Cheers,

Audio.

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

I appreciate the point you're making, but there's a significant difference between both rulings.

The previous ruling you mentioned was with regards to putting said link in the user's sig. There's no space to debate an offensive link in someone's sig, so it's considered trolling. The post you've reported has the link in a regular post. It's being put there for people to question and attack, and there is a definite space in which to do so. There's a distinct difference between the two. As such, I'm denying the appeal.

Cheers,

Audio.

(EDIT: the emphasis/bold in the quote above was added by me, of course.)

Thank you for your time. The following is not a continued request for appeal, but rather for clarification.

What I find confusing above is the apparent assertion that a violation has not occurred, because the post in question can be responded to and debated. Since this is technically true of affirmed instances of trolling/advocacy for death too, what is the point of prohibiting or punishing trolling/advocacy for death in any case? What must be the other criteria by which the statement "[group of people] are an abomination and should be put to death" becomes a debatable point?

What is even the debate-worthy response to the claim that I should be put to death simply because I exist? "No I shouldn't?" The idea that the claim "you're an abomination and you should be put to death" is a debatable point is, to be frank for the sake of honesty, patently absurd.

At any rate, the only criteria I can think of, at the moment, that might bring "you're an abomination and should be put to death" into the realm of valid debate is the poster in question lacking the power or resources to actually carry out the threat. But, again, that is probably true of most, if not all, instances of trolling/advocacy of death, so, again, why even bother with the rule then?

(Am I mistaken, and advocacy of death is not actually prohibited? Or, at least not when couched in religious terminology?)

[Auze]

Inb4 spam?

[NERVUN]

I appreciate the point you're making, but there's a significant difference between both rulings.

The previous ruling you mentioned was with regards to putting said link in the user's sig. There's no space to debate an offensive link in someone's sig, so it's considered trolling. The post you've reported has the link in a regular post. It's being put there for people to question and attack, and there is a definite space in which to do so. There's a distinct difference between the two. As such, I'm denying the appeal.

Cheers,

Audio.

(EDIT: the emphasis/bold in the quote above was added by me, of course.)

Thank you for your time. The following is not a continued request for appeal, but rather for clarification.

What I find confusing above is the apparent assertion that a violation has not occurred, because the post in question can be responded to and debated. Since this is technically true of affirmed instances of trolling/advocacy for death too, what is the point of prohibiting or punishing trolling/advocacy for death in any case? What must be the other criteria by which the statement "[group of people] are an abomination and should be put to death" becomes a debatable point?

What is even the debate-worthy response to the claim that I should be put to death simply because I exist? "No I shouldn't?" The idea that the claim "you're an abomination and you should be put to death" is a debatable point is, to be frank for the sake of honesty, patently absurd.

At any rate, the only criteria I can think of, at the moment, that might bring "you're an abomination and should be put to death" into the realm of valid debate is the poster in question lacking the power or resources to actually carry out the threat. But, again, that is probably true of most, if not all, instances of trolling/advocacy of death, so, again, why even bother with the rule then?

(Am I mistaken, and advocacy of death is not actually prohibited? Or, at least not when couched in religious terminology?)

You are comparing apples to oranges here. We're not going to go into it. You HAD your second opinion and now, we're noting going to go down the road of if you stand on one leg, look at it under your arm, and squint JUST right...

Inb4 spam?

No.

[Auze]

Inb4 spam?

No.

Thanks for clarifying! *gives a bar of chocolate*

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

You are comparing apples to oranges here. We're not going to go into it. You HAD your second opinion and now, we're noting going to go down the road of if you stand on one leg, look at it under your arm, and squint JUST right...

Apparently we don't need to squint. We only need clothe it in religious garb and use a hyperlink.

[NERVUN]

You are comparing apples to oranges here. We're not going to go into it. You HAD your second opinion and now, we're noting going to go down the road of if you stand on one leg, look at it under your arm, and squint JUST right...

Apparently we don't need to squint. We only need clothe it in religious garb and use a hyperlink.

Enough. End of this.