why did he/she close the debate about homosexuality?
what where his/her motives??
I don’t know. What are your motives for posting in the wrong forum?
(taken from the last message before it was locked). Sounds like a good reason to me. What about it don’t you understand?
You didn’t contribute anything of substance to that debate - just “homosexuality isn’t basic/normal/natural etc.” with no supporting evidence and no regard for arguments that said:
[list=#][li]It is basic/normal/natural, and[/li]If you want to claim it isn’t, you’d have to define “basic/normal/natural” in a manner so restrictive as to be useless and would end up catching a great many heterosexuals in the process.[/list]
For future references you might want to open threads concerning Moderator actions in **The BBQ Pit **. Here is its simple description:
If you gotta flame, do it here. This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB
I have reported this so the mods may move it to the proper location.
My conjecture on why **Tom ** close it, is that **he ** probably felt a Debate actually required the Op to provide some debate. Of course that is what he told you.
Jim
why did’t he move my thread to the pit instead?
You misunderstand. This thread belongs in the pit, as it is a complaint about administration of the SDMB.
Echoing Regallag: complaints about moderators belong in the Pit. I am therefore moving this thread.
I assume this one will be soon (I’m surprised it’s taking this long). The other was locked (as tomndebb said) because you were only giving very simplistic poorly thought out comments and not responding to the others rebuttals.
You should link to closed thread in question, so people know what you are talking about.
This is wildfire’s basic modus operandi.
Your actually making some efforts toward reasoned argument and debate would be appreciated.
Being more skeptical about simplistic conspiratorial-based views of world affairs and a little work on your grammar* would be nice too.
I realize you are apparently not a native English-speaker, but jeez.
nice to have solid proof that all europeans aren’t enlightened gods, isn’t it?
This would be a great time to pit the relative lack of value that Wildfire**MM represents as a poster, but than I can that like me, no ones really thinks he is even worth it.
Wildfire**MM , when you return, please bring content.
Nah, tomndebb is a pretty nice guy, for a moderator. What you have a problem with is the English language and rational thought.
WildfireMM**, “C Europe” doesn’t in your definition extend to Glasgow University by any chance, does it?
Had this ‘debate’ with someone on my course the other day who asserted that being gay just wasn’t “natural” by his standards, which he assumed extended to everyone.
I’ve only skimmed your original thread, but I’m sure someone must have give the same point as I repeatedly tried to get into his skull. Screw this concept of ‘naturalness’. I likes me some hetero sex that doesn’t result in babies. Is that wrong? You, like him, seem to have nothing other than your insistence on it not being natural to counter it, hence no debate. Hence closed thread.
Trying (kind of) hard to not to turn this back into your original thread, but what’s this obsession with this very very loose term ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ (might be confusing your argument with the guy above’s argument there)? Surely if humans are from nature, anything we do/create is, too. Even the things that other people disagree with. But then even as I’m writing this, I’m struggling to comprehend how you can even think you had a debate in your original thread. If you can just say “Right, basically, I think homo sex is icky and nasty and I don’t like it. Hence I don’t like gays”, then I’d accept that as at least being borderline coherent. If dumb.
[DEL]JERRY[/DEL] BOARD: But there - but there was no debate! I - I did not debate! There was no debate!
[DEL]TIA[/DEL] WildfireMM**: I gotta go. (Quickly changes subject of thread)
[DEL]JERRY[/DEL] BOARD: No! No debate!
CMC fnord!
Jeez, he won’t even debate if there was a debate :(.
A review of this poster’s previous threads ought to demonstrate to anyone who doesn’t know him that the thread in question was no different from many of his posts. More than a handful of those he opens wind up locked.
I have a basic problem with your argument intellectually. I’ll start by saying that my education is in post-graduate work in sexual differentiation and behavioral neuroscience and homosexuality can certainly be considered “natural” in the sense that it happens “naturally” or can be experimentally induced in lots of different species.
That said, I have a problem with calling anything “unnatural”. Humans are a primate species and whatever we come up with is as natural as something a bonobo chimp does in the wild.
In any case, there could have been an actual debate there but not based on those arguments which leads us to wonder whether the poster in question had to undergo some kind of “artificial” brain damage experiment.
Well, if we’re all upset about the lack of debate then I can try to get something going on now. My ideas on homosexuality are pretty standard modern Catholic, though, so I doubt I can provide the type of answers that the Straight Dope usually likes. For me, it all comes down to reproduction I suppose. Homosexuals cant, so one could make the argument that it’s unnatural in the sense of ‘against Divine Law’ God, it’s been a while since I’ve had this debate with intellectual people, so I hope that made some sense.
If people dont want a debate, and they just want to pile on Wildfire, then I suggest those posters instead use that energy to see if their own posting habits need improvement. I have been guilty of the occassional pile-on myself, but I really dont think this warrants it.
Playful teasing, however, is perfectly fine. Hey Wildfire, where did you learn how to debate? The George Bush Skool of Debatery?