4 ms·

You seem to have a bone to pick, and are injecting tangential arguments into the conversation. But as a matter of fact, it wasn't about bakers not baking a cak

You seem to have a bone to pick, and are injecting tangential arguments into the conversation. But as a matter of fact, it wasn't about bakers not baking a cake for gay people, or whether you should be allowed to make rape jokes - all topics that maybe have a bit more nuance to them, and can be discussed elsewhere. The question was "would it be wrong for Facebook to ban LGBT content"? I contend that it would be wrong, i.e. immoral. If you disagree with that, we can try to have an argument about that. If you agree or don't care, I don't see the point in this mental exercise. It is of zero interest in any discussion ever that there are hypothetical people who disagree with opinion X, because I'm not arguing with hypothetical people. I'm having an argument with specific individuals with specific beliefs.

jedimind 6y ago
> I contend that it would be wrong, i.e. immoral. If you disagree with that, we can try to have an argument about that. Read again what you have formulated above. You just asserted that it's 'immoral' without giving any argument or evidence for it. Surely, you should formulate an argument yourself first, before asking for one.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  Well, it depends a bit on what is meant by "banning LGBT content", but suppose that a gay couple wouldn't be allowed to post their wedding pictures. Since, presumably, all straight couples can do so, Facebook would effectively imply that gay couples are somehow "wrong" and should not be shown to people. I would find that deeply immoral because gay people are not worth less than straight people. However, I would have thought that this line of reasoning is self-evident on a forum such as this one...
  - jedimind 6y ago
    Your argument is convoluted and confused, the worth of the individual has nothing to do with the action/event being 'right' or 'wrong'. Furthermore what relevance does it even have when something is 'deeply immoral' (according to you)? Will they be punished by Zeus or Karma or neither? Since assuming it's perfectly legal and morally good in their locality, they couldn't care less about what you think of it. What is self evident to you might be self evidently wrong to others, let your arguments speak instead of appealing to your local culture. this is an international forum and one shouldn't just assume that everybody thinks and values the exact same things. maybe start off by explaining why your moral framework is supposedly 'absolute' and not just some arbitrary choice you made that is convenient to you and how it's supposedly better or more valid than the moral framework of the people you lazily vilified as 'crazy' just because they oppose you on certain issues.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      I don't care if those people don't care about my moral assessment of them. I still get to choose what I find moral and what I don't find moral, and I get to fight for what I think is right. And now I'm done talking to homophobes.
      - jedimind 6y ago
        Quite the convenient cop-out, not even surprised. You failed to deliver any arguments (valid or invalid) for your 'morality' and resorted to name-calling. See that makes your 'moral assessment' as worthless as your infantile name-calling. If you had any valid arguments, you would have given them. Thanks for the exchange anyway.
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
Why is banning LGBT immoral, but banning nipples is moral? Who decides what is moral and what is not? Who should have the power to decide what 2.7B (or whatever number of) users see? LGBT is just an example, because in many cultures it is immoral. As is the nipple. I just don't think it's a good idea for a private company, to be able to decide arbitrarily what is moral and what is not. Especially facebook.... there are many bakeries, but not many social networks with billions of users.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  > I just don't think it's a good idea for a private company, to be able to decide arbitrarily what is moral and what is not. You seem to be under the illusion that if Facebook banned nothing (or at least nothing that goes beyond what is illegal), they would not make a moral decision. But that is wrong. Deciding to allow absolutely everything is a decision (e.g. by placing higher moral value on freedom of expression than on other things) just as much as deciding to disallow some other content is a decision. In the end, there is no escaping morality. As a human being, it is your responsibility to make decisions according to your own moral standards (and the limits of the law) and if you're someone with power, these decisions will affect more people and will be scrutinised more. > Who decides what is moral and what is not? Everyone decides for themselves. And then we come together as a society and we figure out what to do about the messy differences between our positions and find some sort of compromise - that's really the only way it goes.

jedimind 6y ago

> I contend that it would be wrong, i.e. immoral. If you disagree with that, we can try to have an argument about that. Read again what you have formulated above. You just asserted that it's 'immoral' without giving any argument or evidence for it. Surely, you should formulate an argument yourself first, before asking for one.

Tainnor 6y ago
Well, it depends a bit on what is meant by "banning LGBT content", but suppose that a gay couple wouldn't be allowed to post their wedding pictures. Since, presumably, all straight couples can do so, Facebook would effectively imply that gay couples are somehow "wrong" and should not be shown to people. I would find that deeply immoral because gay people are not worth less than straight people. However, I would have thought that this line of reasoning is self-evident on a forum such as this one...
- jedimind 6y ago
  Your argument is convoluted and confused, the worth of the individual has nothing to do with the action/event being 'right' or 'wrong'. Furthermore what relevance does it even have when something is 'deeply immoral' (according to you)? Will they be punished by Zeus or Karma or neither? Since assuming it's perfectly legal and morally good in their locality, they couldn't care less about what you think of it. What is self evident to you might be self evidently wrong to others, let your arguments speak instead of appealing to your local culture. this is an international forum and one shouldn't just assume that everybody thinks and values the exact same things. maybe start off by explaining why your moral framework is supposedly 'absolute' and not just some arbitrary choice you made that is convenient to you and how it's supposedly better or more valid than the moral framework of the people you lazily vilified as 'crazy' just because they oppose you on certain issues.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    I don't care if those people don't care about my moral assessment of them. I still get to choose what I find moral and what I don't find moral, and I get to fight for what I think is right. And now I'm done talking to homophobes.
    - jedimind 6y ago
      Quite the convenient cop-out, not even surprised. You failed to deliver any arguments (valid or invalid) for your 'morality' and resorted to name-calling. See that makes your 'moral assessment' as worthless as your infantile name-calling. If you had any valid arguments, you would have given them. Thanks for the exchange anyway.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

Why is banning LGBT immoral, but banning nipples is moral? Who decides what is moral and what is not? Who should have the power to decide what 2.7B (or whatever number of) users see? LGBT is just an example, because in many cultures it is immoral. As is the nipple. I just don't think it's a good idea for a private company, to be able to decide arbitrarily what is moral and what is not. Especially facebook.... there are many bakeries, but not many social networks with billions of users.

Tainnor 6y ago
> I just don't think it's a good idea for a private company, to be able to decide arbitrarily what is moral and what is not. You seem to be under the illusion that if Facebook banned nothing (or at least nothing that goes beyond what is illegal), they would not make a moral decision. But that is wrong. Deciding to allow absolutely everything is a decision (e.g. by placing higher moral value on freedom of expression than on other things) just as much as deciding to disallow some other content is a decision. In the end, there is no escaping morality. As a human being, it is your responsibility to make decisions according to your own moral standards (and the limits of the law) and if you're someone with power, these decisions will affect more people and will be scrutinised more. > Who decides what is moral and what is not? Everyone decides for themselves. And then we come together as a society and we figure out what to do about the messy differences between our positions and find some sort of compromise - that's really the only way it goes.