"wrong call by the editor?" Topic

The comparison between being LGBT and being a Mormon is not really a valid one.

I think you miss the point of what I wrote…

I vote that henceforth, Mr Editor in chief is the referee in this game and RebelYell2006 and TrenchRaider are his official flag waving ' I' ll report you!' Linesman .
They can have considerable more clout when using the (!) button and the TMP game will be a safer match for all concerned.
Who will second this?
Hopefully the new uber power reports will stop this train and let us get on with gaming .
Starting with this post of course.

My paint has dried up and I am behind on my deadzone enforcers now thanks to this thread.

Bill,

That is not the point. An employer who dismisses his duty to protect his employees by stating "They are adults. They can defend themselves" is setting himself up for a shedload of legal pain if those employees ever become disenchanted with him.

No Bill,

I got the point of what you wrote very clearly.

What the? Now that was weird.

I posted a reply to Londongamer above. It was there when I left work half an hour ago. Now it's gone and something I did not write about aircraft is in it's place. Did the site hiccup?

Well, I haven't the time to retype it at the moment as I have to go out for the evening.

Strange stuff…

Martin

Did the site hiccup?

It's happened before, when two people hit the submit button simultaneously the posts will switch around. Somewhere on the website is your actual post.

The stuff about aircraft was far more interesting

That is not the point. An employer who dismisses his duty to protect his employees by stating "They are adults. They can defend themselves" is setting himself up for a shedload of legal pain if those employees ever become disenchanted with him.

The point is that you are patronizing them. Please stop.

I got the point of what you wrote very clearly.

Then you understand that whether it is something you are born with or a choice is not germane to the point – that someone's opinion is not an attack.

I could say that African Americans suffer from a higher rate of kidney disease than white people.

Would anyone regard that as a group attack?

Maybe. It might be true or not. I feel like it is the case from what I remember of medicine. It is my opinion at any rate that it is true.

Now, someone else seems to have alleged that another group is also more prone, or 100% prone, to having another disease. In this case mental illness.

Other than the complexity of treatment and understanding of disease process there is no difference between so-called mental illnesses and other forms of disease other than where they occur.

And that gap is closing as we understand more about the brain.

It would seem that if Rebelyell2006 and Don kyoteblue would have a more progressive understanding people who are mentally ill then this would not be such an issue.

As it is, taking it as an attack on someone when one suggests that they are ill somehow seems very closed-minded and prejudicial.

I have to wonder if they would treat me differently if I had a mental illness, or a physical illness for that matter.

That they seem to think that it is somehow wrong to be mentally ill is troubling.

Equating saying a group of people are "terrible" with saying that a group of people are sick seems to be the height of intolerance.

If anyone is guilty of group attacks here it would seem to be rebelyell2006 and Don kyoteblue for their implication that there is something wrong with being sick. That somehow diseased people are morally inferior.

In my opinion you have got a mental illness.

Pictors Studios I'm not sure what your getting at.

It's the boring canard that we are the real bigots for recognizing someone else's bigotry.

"That is not the point. An employer who dismisses his duty to protect his employees by stating "They are adults. They can defend themselves" is setting himself up for a shedload of legal pain if those employees ever become disenchanted with him.
The point is that you are patronizing them. Please stop."

Sorry? How is that patronising them?

"I got the point of what you wrote very clearly.
Then you understand that whether it is something you are born with or a choice is not germane to the point – that someone's opinion is not an attack."

Actually, it is germane, and an opinion can be an attack. For example, if I was to state an opinion that all Jewish people are thieves and liars (please note that I do not actually hold that opinion), that would clearly be an attack on Jewish people. I do not see how that is qualitatively different from saying that all transexuals are mentally ill; that is clearly a group attack on transexuals, not just on your assistants.

Londongamer, you can say anything you want in this thread as long as you precede it by "it is my opinion that…". After all, Bill has stated that opinions cannot be attacks, and thus he cannot DH you for it without being dishonest.

Rebelyell2006,

That does seem to be the rather bizarre logic; very strange (in my opinion, of course).

I find it striking that a member can accuse people of being 'mentally ill' if they are transvestites – an opinion I find both disturbing and horrifying, on a site dedicated to adults playing with toy soldiers.

You know what? I hold a few opinions that people here might find offensive (usually based on religion) Guess what? I don't tend to post them.

You see?
This thread shows why we are not allowed to have nice things.
Now, all of you. Go to your rooms and THINK about what you have written.
If this were Frothers I could call you all s but it's not and I can't.

I also don't believe that my Grand Daughter suffers from a mental illness because she is LGBT, she is saner than I am!!

Maybe you should learn more about mental health?

That is quite insulting.

Don equates "sanity" with having no mental health issues. That is at odds with the modern understanding of mental health, and insulting to people who suffer from mental problems.

"Pictors Studios I'm not sure what your getting at. I am not saying that any one with a disease is morally inferior."

You are both saying that. By saying that it is an insult to say that people are sick you are implying that it is somehow wrong to be sick.

"It's the boring canard that we are the real bigots for recognizing someone else's bigotry."

No it is not.

You are taking someone saying someone is mentally ill as being some sort of insult.

It is not. It is an illness. Mentally ill people could be insulted by your opinion on the subject.

You actually equated what TrenchRaider said with your statement about Christians being "terrible."

You have basically then said that being mentally ill is somehow equivalent to being terrible.

I'm not saying you are wrong to think those things.

Please feel free to think as you want. I'm just pointing out that the two people casting aspersions on groups (in this case the mentally ill) are Rebelyell2006 and Don kyoteblue.

"Don equates "sanity" with having no mental health issues. That is at odds with the modern understanding of mental health, and insulting to people who suffer from mental problems."

That is exactly what I'm saying. Both Don kyoteblue and Rebelyell2006 have been quite insulting to those suffering from illness. Specifically mental illness in this case but who knows what they might say about people with cancer or MS. There really isn't much of a difference. They are all caused by physical problems in the body somewhere.

Page 5! Woot.

That is exactly what I'm saying. Both Don kyoteblue and Rebelyell2006 have been quite insulting to those suffering from illness.

That is an absurd statement.

"That is an absurd statement."

So absurd that you can't even say it isn't true.

It isn't absurd. Earlier in this thread you made a statement about Christians being terrible people. You made this statement in an attempt to show that you could make group attacks or to see if you could and get away with it.

You were equating this with what Trench Raider did.

So you are equating him saying that some people have a mental illness with people being terrible on some level.

You are at least claiming that saying that people are sick is an "attack."

I'm not going to say you can't say that, you can say what you want about sick people or anyone else in my book. But it is certainly insulting to people who are ill.

"I do not mean to insult any one with any illness."

Well, intentional or not you have managed to do it. I'm sure everyone would feel much better if you apologized to TrenchRaider and people suffering from mental illness. Then we could all move on.

Earlier in this thread you made a statement about Christians being terrible people.

Yes, because Bill said "opinions" were not group attacks. I proved him wrong. That has nothing to do with mental illness, unless you think Christianity is a mental illness.

You said that people being mentally ill was a group attack.

Are you taking that back now? Or are you going to continue to say that struggling with mental issues is something to be ashamed of or to feel guilty about?

You said that people being mentally ill was a group attack.

No. TrenchRaider claimed transgenderism was just a mental illness. I said he made a group attack for belittling transgenderism.

Are you taking that back now?

I cannot take back something I never said. I also cannot take back statements you make.

So you are admitting that you are saying it is belittling to have a mental illness.

I mean, that is fine if you think that, but it is pretty insulting to those struggling with some pretty difficult situations.

Also nice that you keep editing your posts after you post them.

The polite thing to do is to note where it has been edited.

So you are admitting that you are saying it is belittling to have a mental illness.

No I am not. But you are. Your feeble attempts at twisting my words to fit your feelings is absurd.

The polite thing to do is to note where it has been edited.

Or you could slow down and wait five minutes before I finish. I only add more sentences to the end of my posts.

I'm not twisting anything. You are equating saying that someone has a mental illness with being an attack on that person.

You state it again right here:

TrenchRaider claimed transgenderism was just a mental illness. I said he made a group attack for belittling transgenderism."

Your words.

mental illness = belittling.

No, because transgenderism is a core aspect of their existence, like ethnicity or skin color. TrenchRaider was insulting in his group attack by claiming a core element of their existence was a mental illness.

You are claiming that saying having a mental illness is insulting.

That is insulting.

You are claiming that saying having a mental illness is insulting.

No, that is your claim. And nice personal attack:

I apologize if I was thinking too quickly for you. I will slow down.

I won't hit the complaint button, but this is oddly reminiscent of how we both were DH'd in the Holocaust denialism debates, as back then I responded to such an attack with my own.

And yes Dear Editor(s) I am puzzled, If a year or so ago you defended the LGBT Editor(s) from Frothers, But now say they are Adults and can defend them selves, what changed????
Where they not Adults then ????

They are perfectly capable of defending themselves here on TMP, where they work and are familiar. Going into a hostile situation on Frothers was a different situation, but they did so and defended themselves there as well.

I mean how old are the LGBT Editor(s) I hope they are at least 18.

How old do you think they are, Don? Why would you think they were under 18?

…unless you think Christianity is a mental illness.

Well, it might be, right? If someone claimed they saw chariots of fire ascending to the heavens, he'd be considered mentally ill today, right?

As for transgenderism, does anyone know the cause? Mainstream psychiatry does not currently consider it a mental illness. Genetics seems to have been ruled out. Something in the environment? A sign of evolving humankind? A blessing? A curse? It is dangerous to be too dogmatic when the answer right now is: "We don't know."

No, because transgenderism is a core aspect of their existence, like ethnicity or skin color.

Like religion, then? Or integrity? Or wargaming?

Hi Bill,

I think that the editors should not have to defend personal traits or characteristics in the work place.

"The Miniature Page, A Web Magazine for Miniature Wargamers".

Genetics seems to have been ruled out.

Not necessarily. Many things occur in the womb while pregnant, and it most likely is the result of odd things happening either due to chromosomes not replicating in a typical manner, or due to outside chemicals interacting with the fetus.

That is core to their existence. They don't choose to be that, just as I did not choose to be straight, nor did I choose to be white. However, I did choose my (lack of) religions, and I chose to be a wargamer. I can stop being a wargamer, but I cannot stop being straight.

Actually you can't choose any of those things. If you can't choose to be gay or straight you probably can't choose which religion, if any, is appealing to you, nor which foods you do or do not like.

Honestly, would I choose to like Chocolate chip cookies over broccoli? I'd love to love broccoli. Would I choose to love wargaming over biochemistry?

If I knew as much about biochemistry as I do about Wargaming I could make some serious money.

Could you really choose to be religious? You could maybe choose to join the Catholic church, but that is different.

"I won't hit the complaint button,"

Complaint button? You are the one that said you needed me to slow down so you could keep up.

"No, that is your claim."

Someone made a statement. You added a moral judgment to that statement by saying that the thing stated was bad.

I'm not sure if you just aren't understanding this because your bias against people with mental illness is so strong that you just don't even understand how insulting you are being or what.

I would like you to stop saying things that imply that having a mental illness is bad though. Although I would defend your right to continue saying it.

Many things occur in the womb while pregnant, and it most likely is the result of odd things happening either due to chromosomes not replicating in a typical manner, or due to outside chemicals interacting with the fetus.

And you're saying those could cause changes to the brain…

I would like you to stop saying things that imply that having a mental illness is bad though. Although I would defend your right to continue saying it.

Weapons-grade projection, with just the right amount of concern.

And you're saying those could cause changes to the brain…

The brain contains chromosomes, doesn't it?

I still don't understand why Frothers gets vilified but Trenchraider gets a pass.

Well, let's compare.

Frothers…

• "outs" the editors against their stated desires
• compares Editor Claire to a monkey
• calls Editor Julia a prostitute
• calls Editor Dianna after a type of pill
• makes continued sexual references to the editors
• belittles the editors' skills

TrenchRaider…

• Says he thinks transgenderism is a mental illness

The brain contains chromosomes, doesn't it?

And you're saying that could cause a mental problem? To make someone identify with a gender other than their biological gender?

Again, genetics. Gender is a social construct, not a biological construct.

Although the stress from the social stigma and discrimination could cause anxiety disorders.

Again, genetics.

Maybe… link

And inborn or choice? The article had this interesting bit:

In 2012, Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon caused a stir when she told The New York Times that her lesbianism is a "choice." When she faced pushback for this statement from the LGBT community, Nixon held her ground saying, "Why can't it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we're ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don't think they should define the terms of the debate." Simon Copland of The Guardian agrees, noting that lesbian and gay people should refuse the nature-or-nurture dialectic and demand respect regardless of how homosexuality comes about. To accept these terms, Copland rightly argues, would be to constrain both the freedom of LGBT politics and the fluidity of sexuality itself.

"Gender is a social construct, not a biological construct."

This is tautology. Society is a biological construct.

One person claiming to choose lesbianism does not mean all LGBT people made a "choice". For all we know, she might be bisexual.

That is probably the wisest course.

One person claiming to choose lesbianism does not mean all LGBT people made a "choice". For all we know, she might be bisexual.

For some, it seems to be a choice. For others, it seems to be inborn, even if no "gay gene" has been found.