Banned for making a statistically supported observation.

dadvocate

I was banned from the Christianity forum today.

Someone posted (in the Gay Megathread):

"Can a male who had sex with another man then marry a woman in a church?
or does it matter?
Like I know can't give blood.
Don't want to give away details."

to which I replied:

"Not only can he marry a woman in a church, but there will be no legal requirement for him to disclose to his new spouse that he was in a gay relationship.

She might have to contract AIDS in order to have the 'right' to that knowledge."

If what I said was untrue then I could understand why a warning or infraction might be warranted but what I said is NOT untrue and a HSE report supports what I have claimed:

http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/HIVSTIs/HIVandAIDS/SurveillanceReports/File,13068,en.pdf

Now, I realise that Benny Cake has a problem with me on the basis that he thinks that I am someone else and this is not the first time he has infracted me for speaking the truth.

In another thread I pointed out:

"Very helpful.

So, in the spirit of helping out your fellow man, what can God do on earth that can't be done by Satan?

How does one tell the difference between God and Satan?

God says 'Join me or be tortured for eternity'. God signed the death warrants of millions of human beings; men, women and children were enslaved in the name of God.

God ordered mountains of possessions to be coveted by the Jews.

God ratified the kidnap and rape of young women.

God had His own son murdered.

H"

all of which is perfectly true.

I think it is unfair of Mr Cake to remove posts or infract posters on the basis that he does not agree with them.

Furthermore, it is reprehensible that he can infract me on the basis of his obvious animosity towards a different user.

By the way, I am neither Masteroid nor She Devil and nor am I Sheldon Cooper.

It is worth noting that I am the only fly in the ointment in what amounts to a mutual validation fest under the guise of a discussion on the Gay Megathread.

Could someone please look into this?

Thank you.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure what your linked document has to do with the statement that earned you the ban.

It is at best ignorant and at worst deliberately offensive to automatically equate homosexuality with AIDS - and that's before getting to the rather spurious claim that people with HIV are obliged to disclose their status with partners/potential partners.

The rules of the forum are clearly spelt out in the charter - I cannot see any reason to reduce or over-turn your ban, your comments seem to me to be clearly inflammatory and in breach of the forum charter.

As with most forums on the site - the Christianity forum has a set of rules and clear ethos that ALL posters must respect while posting there or moderator action will be the inevitable conclusion. The moderators of the forum are charged with ensuring that happens using a range of tools including deleting posts, PMing, general warnings and the official warning/infraction/ban routes. As a very new poster who seems to have a specific interest in that particular topic and who has been unnecessarily abrasive & derisive from the off, I'd recommend you take the time off to acquaint yourself with the both the Christianity charter HERE and the site posting guide HERE to ensure you avoid further actions.

Ban upheld - you are welcome to request that an admin review further.

dadvocate

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what your linked document has to do with the statement that earned you the ban.

Then you probably didn't read it. And I wonder if you took into account the fact that the post I was responding to alluded to some kind of blood disorder, and bearing in mind the thread we were on, I am perfectly entitled to treat that blood disorder as relevant.

The linked document shows that the minority group of homosexual men are by far the biggest contributors to all diagnosed cases of STI's and AIDS in Ireland.

FACT!

So, the document I linked to validates the statement that 'unjustly' got me banned. I most certainly did not 'earn' the ban.

(It is somewhat ironic that my participation in the thread in question is based on my objections to the incorrect use of words.)

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is at best ignorant and at worst deliberately offensive to automatically equate homosexuality with AIDS - and that's before getting to the rather spurious claim that people with HIV are obliged to disclose their status with partners/potential partners.

Quoting facts is not ignorant. Even if they contradict your own point of view or reflect badly on your own lifestyle choices.

The incidence of AIDS's and STI's in the gay population is wildly disproportionate to the distribution of gay men in the entire population.

In my view, it is deliberately lying about fact that is deeply offensive.

On your second point, yes, it would be a spurious claim to make.

And if that claim is spurious then what would you call the opposite of that claim?

NOT spurious?

Read what I said again and you will find that in actual fact, I made the opposite assertion; there is NO obligation to disclose.

Thusly, the first she may know about it, as borne out by the statistics, is when she contracts an STI or becomes infected with AIDS.

FACT.

It was my intention, at some point in the discussion, to direct my opponents to the gay etc. forum, to a discussion where gay men are discussing how they would like to turn straight men and seduce married men. From there, I was going to point out that we should not be surprised at what the HSE report tells us.

The poster I responded to ask some clear questions and all I did was provide a comprehensive, evidentially supported answer.

Well now, now that you understand the significance of the document I linked to, now that you know I made no 'spurious' claim, in the full knowledge that I am far from ignorant, that the majority of diagnosed AIDS infections come from man/man sex (stats for gay man/woman figures don't appear), that speaking truth and supporting that truth with facts cannot be regarded as offence (offence on these grounds can never justify censure)...

...in view of the fact that your interpretation of the situation is precisely the opposite of the situation that actually exists, could you find it in yourself to reconsider your position?

Perhaps you could do justice the service of reading through the last couple of page of the Gay Megathread in order to get an idea of the tenor of the discussion from my point of view. I am responding through gritted teeth to what amount to ad hominems but manage to keep civil; I have made intelligent etymological references and the responses have amounted to personal attacks.

In point of fact, there were a number of places where moderation might have kept this discussion more civil and if other bans had occurred to one or two of my opponents, then you might go so far as to agree that, at the very least, infractions would have been warranted.

You must realise that if I had shown the same level of impoliteness as that which has been directed against me and JimiTime, Benny Cake would have banned me in a heartbeat.

But I didn't, he couldn't and he had to make a spurious presumption in order to do so.

Surely you can see a moderation problem here?

'Those who agree with me can sling mud. Those who don't can sling their hook.'

The thing is everyone ends up covered in mud.

Let's have some even-handedness here.

I am not a 'gay-basher', I am only arguing from the point of view of words and their definitions and I have not strayed from that position even though almost everyone else has been forced to change position by means of logic and reason.

And you will notice how all the successfully refuted points have been quietly dropped.

Just read through the last few pages of that thread that contain contributions from me and tell me, is it really Benny Cake's place to 'nobble' the discussion in this way?

BuffyBot

Thread no longer relevant: OP is a re-reg of a banned user