But that's because we treat them as such, not because they are such-and-such a thing.

I apologize, I am not really following your view on a nature. How can something be such-and-such a thing if there is nothing it is to be that thing? Your explanation of ‘tendencies’ seems to deploy realist semantics to convey your point; and it is tripping me up.

If humans do not share a nature, then we cannot say that there is such-and-such a way a human will tend to behave because there is no such thing in reality as a human—no?

Why does it require realism?

I'd say it just requires wanting a tranquil life. For Epicurus he went out and actively recruited people due to his realist commitment, but I don't think we have to be realists to utilize an ethic. We could just want what the ethic wants.

Because you were saying it is eudaimonic: that’s an Aristotelian term that refers to happiness as a biproduct of realizing one’s nature; and you description of Epicurean thought seemed to imply the same thing. I think I just need to understand how you are analyzing what a nature is and then I can circle back to this.

"Natural function" is the same as teleology

They are conceptually distinct. Biology admits of functions of the organs (e.g., the heart pumps blood) but not that there is a design to it (e.g., the heart should pump blood). Which leads me to:

Sure it is! And it's just a way of organizing our thoughts rather than the ontology of speciation

Are you saying you deny that the heart functions in a way to pump blood? I don’t understand how one could hold that: can you elaborate more?

I think we have plenty to discuss in the above, so I will refrain from further comment until I understand your position better.

Your explanation of ‘tendencies’ seems to deploy realist semantics to convey your point; and it is tripping me up.

If humans do not share a nature, then we cannot say that there is such-and-such a way a human will tend to behave because there is no such thing in reality as a human—no? — Bob Ross

Sure we can.

Because you were saying it is eudaimonic: that’s an Aristotelian term that refers to happiness as a biproduct of realizing one’s nature; and you description of Epicurean thought seemed to imply the same thing. I think I just need to understand how you are analyzing what a nature is and then I can circle back to this. — Bob Ross

I think that's not quite right :D

I'd rather say that your response here is exactly where we're missing one another.

Epicurus follows along with Aristotle's assumptions, which is why I choose him as a foil to Aristotelian philosophy.

I think Epicurus has a point about human nature that's much more limited than what he thought, though still applicable in all cases where someone wants to live a tranquil life.

I'd say that this is still eudaimonic because once one accepts they want tranquility all the other components of character-development towards one's nature come into play.

In a sense I'd say that there is more than one nature a human can pursue, even if they contradict one another in terms of what all humans can be. (I'm still persuaded by the existentialists)

Are you saying you deny that the heart functions in a way to pump blood? I don’t understand how one could hold that: can you elaborate more? — Bob Ross

I deny that there's a teleology to an organ: once the heart stops pumping this is as natural as any other function our body undergoes. We have the capacity to pump blood with our heart, and due to natural selection we're endowed with that power, but there is no truth to our teleology -- one day all of humanity will be extinct in the same way that the heart stops pumping. There is no purpose which secures these capacities.

No, so long as it’s taken to be an oversimplification of real-world applications, where the criteria that determines better or worse is context-dependent and often multidimensional: Take intelligence for example. Einstein’s intelligence is not Darwin’s intelligence, such that each is far better than the other’s in the relevant context addressed. Neither are these two intelligences equal nor is one intelligence better than the other in any objective sense. Then there’s the artistic intelligence of, say, Michelangelo. The architectural intelligence of Gaudi. That of Kafka’s. And so forth. — javra

Okay, but I included the proposition, "If X is better according to some criterion, then X is preferable according to that criterion." Perhaps you would prefer that I explicitly include another proposition, one which I took to be implied, "If X is better according to some criterion, then X is not necessarily better in general." I of course agree with this proposition.

But even when assuming that 100% of the human population is in fact bisexual — javra

But I have not assumed such a thing. I literally said, "if we accept that there are bisexual people who can choose..." I did not say, "If we accept that 100% of the human population is in fact bisexual." Indeed, my argument makes no use of such a premise, nor do I see it as plausible.

...your post neither addresses why homosexuality ought to be exterminated from the population nor the how this ought to then be done. — javra

Because I don't think such a thing should be done. Why would you assume that I think such a thing should be done? Nothing in my post says anything to that effect. Isn't it strange and uncharitable to simply assume that your interlocutor wants to exterminate an entire class of people?

You actually seem to have managed to ignore almost the entirety of my post, along with imputing to me strange and uncharitable positions. Specifically, I explicitly asked you four questions. You only answered one or two of them, namely the preliminary ones.

(This is why I don't tend to argue these topics on TPF. Over the years it has become a place where one cannot present an argument and have that argument addressed without being imputed with all sorts of strange, uncharitable, and extraneous positions.)

CC: @Leontiskos

@Banno, @RogueAI, @Jamal, @ProtagoranSocratist

Also, come to think of it, that transgender person I mentioned to @ProtagoranSocratist agreed with me that transgenderism is caused by gender dysphoria, that it is bad, and they even went so far as to say it is immoral to transition; but they believed, as a Christian, that Jesus would forgive them since it saved their life (and so there was an element of consequentialism going there). By your own words and logic, that transgender person is a bigot, transphobic, and prejudiced.

There are a lot of LGBT individuals who disagree with the sexual ethics of Western Europe, though they are denied a voice:

The kicker for me is that I know lots of gay people who agree with Bob, and we have had great conversations about these topics. I realize it is very hard for the activist to reckon with such a fact, and of course when the fact is spied out coercion from the LGBT activist follows almost immediately. It would be hard to overemphasize the extent of bullying and coercion such people feel at the hands of LGBT activists, even to the point of falsely speaking for them and refusing to grant them any voice at all. They are subject to some of the most vicious attacks if they fail to fall into line with the cultural orthodoxy. Two of the people I have in mind are afraid to "come out" publicly because they fear the LGBT community. Their support meetings have been pushed underground after the meetings were infiltrated by reporters who doxed certain members, destroying their careers and lives. — Leontiskos

Also, come to think of it, that transgender person I mentioned to ProtagoranSocratist agreed with me that transgenderism is caused by gender dysphoria, that it is bad, and they even went so far as to say it is immoral to transition; — Bob Ross

This is exactly the sort of thing I want to combat: it's not immoral to transition. This is a false belief passed down from an ancient world where bigoted beliefs could easily be passed on.

To consider it immoral is to hate onself if they want to transition. That's a bad ethic.

Would you consider that transgender person a bigot then even though they were pro transitioning as a necessary evil?

Would you consider that transgender person a bigot then even though they were pro transitioning as a necessary evil? — Bob Ross

A bigot? No. They're clearly in a place of conflict. I'd only want them to feel it's OK to transition while they don't think it is.

it's not immoral to transition. — Moliere

But it doesn't solve anything. "Transitioning" only became a thing in the past few decades. Humanity has existed for tens of thousands of years. Can't you see the lunacy in assuming a life-changing and often permanent and irreversible procedure that hasn't had the time for any actual lifelong studies to be done is the "first, best, and only option"?

Forget morality, it's just not a sound belief to be so "gung ho" about. Not yet. Unsound beliefs like yours turn vulnerable people into guinea pigs. How can you not see the immorality in that?

Just because humanity can do something doesn't mean they should.

Check out the link I gave in that post, where I answer this sort of question. — Leontiskos

I read it. It does not address the question I posed. Which I would still like answered.

But even when assuming that 100% of the human population is in fact bisexual — javra

But I have not assumed such a thing. — Leontiskos

And so your argument then had nothing to do with homosexuality, but, instead, with strict bisexuality. Two utterly distinct sexual preferences. First off, I was addressing homosexuality, not bisexuality. Secondly, arguments regarding how swayable bisexuals might be in terms of their sexual preferences are utterly disconnected from those regarding homosexuals (and heterosexuals).

Because I don't think such a thing should be done. Why would you assume that I think such a thing should be done? Nothing in my post says anything to that effect. Isn't it strange and uncharitable to simply assume that your interlocutor wants to exterminate an entire class of people? — Leontiskos

Hmm. Maybe it is because the very quote from me you chose to reply to stated the following:

So why then "try to eliminate" these expressions of being human? And then, if an alternative rational reason is provided, "eliminate" them how? — javra


Consider X and Y. If they are equal, then neither one is preferable. If X is better than Y, then X is preferable. If X is better according to some criterion, then X is preferable according to that criterion. If the proportion of X-outcomes and Y-outcomes is beyond our control, then it is pointless to prefer one to another even if it is better.

[Etc. ...] — Leontiskos

You actually seem to have managed to ignore almost the entirety of my post, — Leontiskos

You mean your arguments that strictly regarded bisexuality? You seem have completely missed the significance of my reply to it. In a nutshell, homosexuality is not bisexuality.

Specifically, I explicitly asked you four questions. You only answered one or two of them, namely the preliminary ones. — Leontiskos

Yes, specifically the ones I found pertinent following my reply to your post. Which two questions do you still deem pertinent and unanswered?

(This is why I don't tend to argue these topics on TPF. Over the years it has become a place where one cannot present an argument and have that argument addressed without being imputed with all sorts of strange, uncharitable, and extraneous positions.) — Leontiskos

On one hand, welcome to life. On the other, I find nothing in my reply that was "strange, uncharitable, and/or extraneous". Your verbiage here presented you as victimized and me as victimizer. Let's see, this then being "ordinary, charitable, and pertinent"?

- Take care. :roll:

Yea, you too. :up:

"Transitioning" only became a thing in the past few decades — Outlander

Supposing that's true: So what?

Can't you see the lunacy in assuming a life-changing and often permanent and irreversible procedure that hasn't had the time for any actual lifelong studies to be done is the "first, best, and only option"? — Outlander

Can't you see that the life-changing decision is truly life-changing one way or the other? That to not-transition is as life-changing as to-transition?

Yes, people have to make decisions for themselves and live with that.

No, others who have feelings elsewise about those decisions don't have much of a say in what they do, and ought not to.

So if I express interest in banning Christian parades, then I am a Christianophobe? — Bob Ross

Yes.

Being a ________ phobe means simply that you are afraid of the category. If you wanted to ban a Nazi costume party, then you would be a naziphobe if it's on the basis of it being Nazi.

I wasn't intending to insult anything other than the opinions of people on here as nonsensical and delusional, kinda like how you say transgenderism is a mental illness, i think denying that fear of transgender people is a form of transphobia shows some sub-par logical reasoning...yet it's common for people to be able to be unable to relate in such matters.

The long-term effect is that it loosens the anus which makes it have a hard time keeping poop in. — Bob Ross

I spent a few minutes looking this up. There is an issue, but mainly with rough, forced, unlubricated entry, i.e. rape. This completely fails to support the absurd claim that anal sex is like smoking and drinking every day.

Not necessarily, unless you are doing stunts or something. One can safely bike through mountain bike trails without hurting themselves; and just because doing something opens up one to the risk of injury does not mean that it is immoral to do. If that were true, then everything we do would be immoral basically. — Bob Ross

Mountain biking is notoriously dangerous, even taking precautions, and among my mountain biker friends there is no one who has not accumulated a resume of injuries and wear. Devastating injuries like paralysis, and death, are not uncommon. Yet, you dismiss these dangers, while being fixated on the somehow unique harm of the activities of one particular population. Why is that?

A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral. Ideally, all men would be masculine to a perfect degree and same for women with femininity. — Bob Ross

What do you think of eugenics? Perhaps it gets a bad rap?

I read your reply, just not going to dive into it to distract from the topic. :)

And I responded. Words change all the time, that's what language does. This does not make a definition a substantive claim. Definitions are claims about words, not claims about the world. — hypericin

That's right, and that's why you are mistaking a predication for a definition. A claim like, "Schizophrenia is a mental illness," is a predication, not a definition. Someone could say, "I am defining Schizophrenia as a mental illness," but the basic claim we are talking about is a posteriori, not a priori. Bob is obviously not saying, "Homosexuality is_df a mental illness." He is using "is" in a predicative manner, not a definitional manner.

Here's the problem: How can a claim which depends on a substantive claim be non-substantive? For example:

1...
2...
— Leontiskos

You are mistaking a definition for a logical argument. That isn't remotely how words work. — hypericin

You're just avoiding the argument. You claim that something which is known tautologically, by definition, depends on extrinsic a posteriori knowledge. That's a logical contradiction.

Not a new claim — hypericin

It is a new claim given that you have never made that claim in the thread prior to this point.

The idea is not exactly that it is false, but that it falls into to a conceptual pattern of harmful, prejudicial, demeaning claims, which are additionally seldom (if ever) true. That bigotry is noxious should be well evident from its history. — hypericin

Bigotry is noxious, but we are asking whether Bob's claim is bigotry. You are still begging the question.

It is a widespread view of how a word is used. One can believe that schizophrenia is psychological in origin while still using the word correctly. Just like one can believe that serotonergic, not dopaminergic neurotransmission is the neurotransmitter at fault. But to use the word without knowing that it is a mental illness is to use it incompetently. — hypericin

I mean, "Schizophrenia" was coined in a psychological context to replace the older, "dementia praecox." So you could argue that it is "definitional" ("non-substantial") to claim that Schizophrenia is a mental illness. The problem with your argument is that none of this is true for homosexuality.

Indeed, the claim that a posteriori claims are somehow bigoted is actually rather crazy. We make non-"definitional," "substantive" claims all the time. It is not bigotry to do so.

Do you think "Houses house people" is a substantive claim? — hypericin

Suppose it is. Would it become bigotry?

We're going in circles. Again, the point is that bigotry is not a phenomenon of material propositions. It depends on how someone holds a proposition, not what they hold. Something you never answered:

Whether any claim, "X is Y," is obstinate, intolerant, based on "dislike of other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life," etc., depends on the context. Again, bigotry is a ↪mode of behavior or belief. To give an example, Daryl Davis is a famous black man who convinced dozens to leave and denounce the KKK, simply by interacting with them and showing them that their views were mistaken. Davis convinced some and failed to convince others. The ones he convinced were, in some relevant sense, not bigots. They were not obstinate given that they changed their belief when presented with evidence to the contrary.

If you were right and everyone who says, "Black people are less intelligent on average than white people," is inherently a bigot, then it makes no sense that Davis convinced some and failed to convince others. The fact of the matter is that some of those whom Davis encountered held that belief in a mode that involves bigotry, and some did not. Or if someone wants to insist on a particular definition, they must at least admit that some whom Davis encountered were more bigoted than others, despite holding the same material proposition. — Leontiskos

If you were right and everyone who says, "Black people are less intelligent on average than white people," is inherently a bigot, then it makes no sense that Davis convinced some and failed to convince others. The fact of the matter is that some of those whom Davis encountered held that belief in a mode that involves bigotry, and some did not. — Leontiskos

Incredibly well said. Everyone looks at that story and says, "I'm the black person." But often times we are just as likely to be the white people in the group. Its why dialogue is so important.

With all due respect, are you going to accept the challenge to demonstrate the slanderous names you have called me? I think it is rather disheartening that you call me all sorts of serious names, I respond with a thoughtful post addressing all your points, and all you do is half address one minor point I made. Can you please address what I said?

I spent a few minutes looking this up. There is an issue, but mainly with rough, forced, unlubricated entry, i.e. rape. This completely fails to support the absurd claim that anal sex is like smoking and drinking every day.

Anal sex has been demonstrated to be correlated to an increase risk of getting:

1. Fetal incontinence;

2. STDs;

3. Bacterial infections;

4. HPV;

5. HIV; and

6. Anal trauma.

How much of a correlation is there? Scientifically, there is no consensus; but they definitely increase the risk: the anus is clearly not designed to be penetrated, even if it is morally permissible to do so. Now, how much of an increase is worrying enough to not do it? I think this is a mistaken question, as I’ve noted before, because having anal sex is contrary to the natural ends it has—irregardless of how contrary it may be.

However, I will indulge: if someone is thinking about it in terms of “I won’t do it if it is too harmful to the anus”; then I would say fetal incontinence and anal trauma are the biggest risks. The other ones can be mitigated fairly well; but over time the anus loosens up with more anal sex and if done frequently keeps it loose.

The problem with studies now is that there isn’t a lot of them about the link between the above issues and anal sex due to the sexually private nature of it and the political agendas of liberals. Just as they are trying to wipe out the notion that transgenderism is caused by gender dysphoria (by doing things like removing it from the DSM-V), they are also spitting out unsubstantiated articles trying to claim that anal sex is perfectly safe because we lack data on it. It’s a, at best, argument from ignorance—that is, they are saying something is safe to do because we don’t know if it is unsafe to do (due to lack of sufficient studies).

The studies in existence clearly support a correlation between them and if you ever talk to someone that does anal sex you will find that, anecdotally, they have problems with holding in poop—especially right after having anal sex for a while. Some even do exercises to counter-act the loosening of the pelvic area so they can do anal sex on a weekly basis.

Yet, you dismiss these dangers, while being fixated on the somehow unique harm of the activities of one particular population. Why is that?

Maybe we are thinking of two different activities, but mountain biking does not usually, when done right, have a significant risk of any of those. Again, I am not arguing that if there is a risk of danger that one should not do it—that would mean, e.g., I can’t go drive my car because there’s a chance I will get in a crash. I am saying that you cannot use, purposefully, your faculties contrary to their nature. If you think biking is contrary to the natural ends of the body, then please demonstrate how—I am not seeing it.

What do you think of eugenics? Perhaps it gets a bad rap?

You clearly are trying to bait me into saying something bad so I get banned; but, since I am a good-faith interlocutor, I will give you a brief summary of my views on eugenics and I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on it.

By ‘eugenics’, I understand it to be the selective breeding of humans on the basis of genetics. There are two fundamental kinds of selective breeding: involuntary and voluntary.

Involuntary selective breeding is only permissible when such breeding would produce a grave risk to the state of being and genetics of the offspring and reasonable efforts have been made to respectfully convince the parties involved in that attempted breeding to voluntarily abstain. I am thinking here of examples like incest and inheritable diseases that are extremely bad. The inheritability of the bad condition must be proven to be sufficiently high-risk and the bad condition itself must be sufficiently high-risk.

Voluntary selective breeding is always permissible, as it reflects the right to bodily autonomy. A person has the right to decide who they sleep with and on any grounds whatsoever. People have all sorts of different dating, marriage, and sex preferences; and for many people they do have genetic preferences—especially racial ones.

Having racial preferences in dating and sex may sound weird (maybe?) to Europeans (I am not sure); but in America people of all races here have preferences in terms of who they are more attracted to (which may not even be their own race) and a lot of people in minority groups explicitly prefer their own race preferable. I know a lot of, e.g., black people that will only date black people and want black children. I don’t seek to regulate nor find it immoral for people to choose who they procreate with, have sex with, or date.

I personally do not really care what race a woman is; but I find mixed women usually more attractive then other women.

What are your thoughts?

But, then, why am I bigot? Or why am I, if you prefer, speaking bigotry?

The people in here are trying to claim that I am a bigot or at least speaking bigotry by saying that transgenderism is bad and transitioning is immoral; but yet when it is transgender person that says it now it all of the sudden isn't bigotted. It's almost like bigotry is never demonstrated through the material act because it involves an obstinate attachment to the belief....

But, then, why am I bigot? Or why am I, if you prefer, speaking bigotry? — Bob Ross

I don't believe you're a bigot. I think you're a person of good character: else I wouldn't have engaged.

I'd rather say that sometimes the words we use are used by others in a manner which we wouldn't approve of -- but since we live in a social world we have to find another way to express ourselves.

Make sense? I have faith in you @Bob Ross, but the words you've used are used by others who want more than a philosophical reflection.

The people in here are trying to claim that I am a bigot or at least speaking bigotry by saying that transgenderism is bad and transitioning is immoral; but yet when it is transgender person that says it now it all of the sudden isn't bigotted. — Bob Ross

I'm not following your ending here -- I'd note that there's nothing wrong with being trans or gay for the various reasons I've stated. And I don't think it's who says what with respect to this issue -- i.e. I don't think there is a morally or factually correct stance which states that trans or gay people should not be what they are.

I suspect the reason such sentiments creeped into spiritual texts is that we are the authors of our own spiritual texts and we're as imperfect as they come: Sometimes a bigot got to pen a spiritual passage.

With all due respect, are you going to accept the challenge to demonstrate the slanderous names you have called me? — Bob Ross

Stop with your stupid fucking trolling: nobody reads my posts with a magnifying glass either. You are not entitled to shit. Are you going to try that "nobody contended with the OP" crap again? You like control, and i don't give a shit: you explicitly invited back into the discussion, my "slander" is not my problem.

There's nothing trolling about it. You accused me of the serious offenses of expressing bigotry, transphobia, hypocrisy, and an evangelism; and are refusing to provide any evidence to support it, which is, be definition, slander and defamation. Don't call people nasty names if you are not willing to have a conversation about it.

I understand, and that is respectable :up: .

I'm not following your ending here -- I'd note that there's nothing wrong with being trans or gay for the various reasons I've stated. And I don't think it's who says what with respect to this issue -- i.e. I don't think there is a morally or factually correct stance which states that trans or gay people should not be what they are. — Moliere

I agree with you that overall Bob Ross tries to be respectful, yet writing off homosexuality and transgenderism as mental illness or problematic is definetly what i would call bigotry. While i don't personally have an issue with letting bigots post on here (if Jamal could ban all bigots, the nobody would be able to post here), it defies logic that one can keep insisting that nobody should be able to challenge the many flaws in their posts.

For example, i'm personally ignoring everything Bob Ross says to me, as he has pulled me into this thread that i've been sick of for a while now. He has gone back on his tactic before, where he slanderously claims im not actually contending with his posts. This is worse than flaming, this is completely manipulative and narcissistic behavior. He has kept this thread afloat by obnoxiously complaining about how people are canceling him and providing absolutely no evidence to back it up. He has shown a command of how the notification system works on here, and that is the only reason why this thread is over 19 fucking pages long.

Would it be helpful if I formulated objections for you? I think I understand what you would want to say.

Objection 1. “It is unjust to oppose a person for their homosexuality in the same way that it is unjust to oppose a person for their race. It is unjust to oppose a person qua race because people have no control over their race. In the same way, it is unjust to oppose a person qua homosexuality because people have no control over their sexual orientation. Both cases are the same insofar as they impute fault where no fault could exist. (Furthermore, it would be wrong and unnatural for someone to abstain from exercising the sexual desires they experience.)”

Objection 2. “It is unjust to say that the thing in which someone finds their core identity is not good; traditionalists say that homosexuality is not good; some people find their core identity in homosexuality; therefore traditionalists are unjust.”

Objection 3. “The forms of injustice depicted in Objection 1 and Objection 2 are so obvious and self-evident that it is extremely likely that the person who transgresses justice in these ways is a bigot.”

Is that approximately what you would want to say?

No apologies needed: most of it was red herrings and ad hominems. — Bob Ross

I read this at breakfast yesterday and felt it was très à propos:

'Can we then get benefit ... even from one who reviles us?'

Why, what good does the athlete get from the man who wrestles with him? The greatest. So my reviler helps to train me for the contest: he trains me to be patient, dispassionate, gentle. You deny it? You admit that the man who grips my neck and gets my loins and shoulders into order does me good, and the trainer does well to bid me 'lift the pestle with both hands', and the more severe he is, the more good do I get: and are you going to tell me that he who trains me to be free from anger does me no good? That means that you do not know how to get any good from humankind.

---Discourses of Epictetus, Book III, Chapter XX, translated by P. E. Matheson.

Everyone looks at that story and says, "I'm the black person." But often times we are just as likely to be the white people in the group. Its why dialogue is so important. — Philosophim

That's right. Both parties came to the table to engage in earnest dialogue. Those who refuse to do even this do not allow themselves the opportunity to learn whether they are the one who is the bigot. They do not permit any scrutiny of their own beliefs, even by themselves.

A bigot is obstinate. They have not entered into the conversation in order to engage in earnest dialogue. They are not going to change their mind as a result of a rational discussion.

There is a point at which further engaging with bigotry is doing no more than providing them with a platform, or the walls to their echo chamber.

Daryl Davis’s method wasn’t the one seen here. He didn't meet racist propositions with counter-propositions, as though the problem were a matter of epistemic error.

Rather, he dissolved the framework within which those propositions took hold. The racist belief “Black people are less intelligent”, that Black people are somehow other, less human, or outside the circle of empathy was undermined by his calm, articulate, personable, unmistakable humanity. He invalidated the tacit presupposition on which the racist attitude rested.

So the simplistic distinction between “bigoted” and “non-bigoted” believers misses what Davis did. Such beliefs are not neutral cognitive contents that may or may not be held bigotedly. They are modes of dehumanisation. By being human, Davis undermined the core anger of bigotry.

That same hateful attitude can be seen in this thread, from the petty disparaging of the tom boy to the outright perdition of the homosexual. The anecdotal accounts of compromised transgender folk are pathetic, given the profuse accounts of transgender folk being ostracised by their community.

The content of this thread is bigoted. For me, the point has been reached at which further discussion is inappropriate.