Should posts asking for or promoting Ladyboys/transsexuals be banned from the forum?

[patman18]

I personally dont like ladyboys or reading about them but I have the choice to change the channel or thread in our case. I am a semi homophobe and dont want to see the boards moved in on and taken over wich I dont think would happen in a thousand years but you never know. I want to read about women and pussy not chicks with dicks. on the other hand there are reasons for discussion. for instence in nuevo laredo the trannys use to be real bad pick pockets and muggers this is info a newbie needs to know. In the End there are pros and cons of wich you will have to make a desision. IMHO Moderating not cincership is your answer here. Just my opinion

[Cowboy mike]

they have their own gay banging forum. We are getting way off target talking about rimmin a guys ass or tossing salads.

Stick to what got you here Mr. Banker. If they want gay play, let em find it.

I'm not interested in gay play. The occasional Hot Dog Cart joke is OK but no pic's or stories of gay play.

[godofaccu]

What the hell? Where did all these new votes come from all of a sudden? Last time I checked we were under a hundred, and now we at 185? Did I miss something?

[Gladiator]

I personally would like to see this forum as a source of information on straight sex only, that is, on sex with women.

The Banker and the majority of members are also interested in straight sex only, so I don’t think banning all gay orientated information (including that on TS) would represent any loss, on the contrary it would be a step ahead and would contribute to focus on the real purpose for which this forum was originally designed.

[larue1]

Larue Is A Firm No No

I Larue1 Dissapprove Of Form

[joecoolfrog]

In General I am in favour of free speech but isn't it odd that those who rant loudest about censorship often shout down those they dont agree with.

[Xelasin]

If the leader of a country decides that certain discussions should no longer be allowed on the radio and bans them, and then goes back and tries to erase all previous evidence of such discussion, what would you call it?

Did Bush asked for TS threads to be banned ? lol In this case, better example would be that the owner of the radio station decided to take out some program from the schedule cause it`s not in the station`s niche and they don`t make money with it. Would that be censorship ?

You have a very strange way to see free speech. So in your mind, you can go on any forum and whatever the forum`s main topic, talk about whatever you want without respecting rules ? And if they then erase your off topic messages, that would be censorship ? You must see censorship everywhere then !

That is a very simplistic way to understand freedom of speech so this debate is pretty much useless... so ok, Banker is a facist censor trying to eliminate your freedom of speech. He even cheated on the vote.

Banker is a dictator ! Revolucion ! No pasara !

[bajaotaku]

Lets see how much of your post is not a loigical fallacy. Either a strawman or a false analogy. (For those not aware a strawman is defined as "to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it.") http://www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm

Did Bush asked for TS threads to be banned? lol

Never said bush. As far as I am aware bush has NOT gone into archives and removed radio messages. I was actually thinking of the WWII governments who actively removed all information on atomic power from as many mediums as they could. Straw man #1

In this case, better example would be that the owner of the radio station decided to take out some program from the schedule cause it`s not in the station`s niche and they don`t make money with it. Would that be censorship ?

I said that removing PAST...please read my Posts....PAST articles is definitely censorship. Changing a radio schedual list deals with future events. The messages being considered for removal have allready been posted and DO NOT violate any rules. False Analogy#1.

A closer Analogy would be a radio station owner going into his archives spending hours if not days and erasing all coments on certain subjects, that were perfectly legitimate and within station rules, and insuring that the public never sees them because they might OFFEND some people. But I can see why you wouldn't want to use that analogy. It strikes of censorship.

You have a very strange way to see free speech. So in your mind, you can go on any forum and whatever the forum`s main topic, talk about whatever you want without respecting rules ? And if they then erase your off topic messages, that would be censorship ? You must see censorship everywhere then !

I never claimed this was a Free Speech issue (that term generally applies to 1st Amendment and this is NOT a violation of that. Not unless The Banker secretly works for Bush ) Likewise I have never advocated being able to go on a forum and ignore the rules and having your posts deleted as being a form of censorship. Straw man #2

That is a very simplistic way to understand freedom of speech so this debate is pretty much useless... so ok, Banker is a facist censor trying to eliminate your freedom of speech. He even cheated on the vote.

Banker is a dictator ! Revolucion ! No pasara !

Never claimed ANY of those things. I have not called him a dictator, a Fascist, a cheater or anything else. Straw man #3.

Looks like your entire post is a logical fallicy.



You are either missing the point I have made several times or blatantly ignoring it in order to troll.

The banker is going to REMOVE POSTS LEGITAMATLEY MADE ACCORDING TO THE RULES AT THE TIME. All of your protests that the posts are breaking the rules are FALSE!!! As of this moment according to the bankers own words the post are quite valid and within the rules set down.

Please address that issue. You seem to be able to dance all around it. You seem to have figured out how to do Emote Eyerolls. You seem to want to put words in my mouth and do what is known as create a Straw man. You seem to be trying to use various logical fallacies here to try to take pot shots at me since you can't actually debate my points.

But you have yet to address my point, that being...

The banker is proposing TO EXAMINE past post that were well within the rules at the time IN ORDER TO DELETE ANYTHING he CONSIDERS OBJECTIONABLE.

This fits the exact definition of "CENSORSHIP" found in The Marion Webster English Dictionary.

"TO EXAMINE IN ORDER TO suppress or DELETE ANYTHING CONSIDERED OBJECTIONABLE."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/censorship

So be it. I will leave you to respond to this post and have the last word as I find it pointless to debate with you.

Baja Otaku

[George90]

I haven't read all the posts, nor do I plan to. I am only going to respond to the survey.

Since the name of the forum is "World Sex Guide", as opposed to "World Heterosexual Sex Guide" or "World Conventional Sex Guide", I am not opposed, on principal, to allowing threads on transexuals in the forum.

However, the same way threads about teenage girls are forbidden due to legal issues, it may be that elements of the TS commuity may push the legal envelope in a way that the forum doesn't want to deal with. I am referring to the illegal possesion of prescription drugs that aid the conversion, illegal surgeries, etc.

My suggestion is to let TS threads for a while, let play themselves out but watch where they go. If the posts tend to the legal boundaries, then ban such threads.

[Everhard]

The only thing that would still be allowed would be when transsexuals are mentioned in terms of general conversation such as "my buddy was so drunk that he almost went with a ladyboy". (The key difference being the intent of the post is not to give or request T/S info.)

Comments?

I have not read this thread, so maybe this is a repeat comment.

What if a post is about how to AVOID transsexuals when looking for P4P? I would like that info, beeing a straigth hetero. On the other hand I realise that these types of post could be used to give info on how not to avoid transexuals.

Tricky...

[Xelasin]

Bajaotaku, I think you take this way too seriously.
Anyway, no offense. See ya.

[hotongue]

this is no gay forum but should be banned only when adjudged that postys are becoming a nuisance

[shadows]

im going to manila and angeles city this june , im not into gays or lady boys, i like women only. i liked the fact that there were post about lady boys in the philippines and world sex guide members gave me that information. i myself dont want to pick up what in my mind is a women and get back to the hotel and find its a lady boy. so i thank all who posted about lady boys . i have nothing against gays or lady boys . so now its heads up baseball when im in the philippines. be checking for big feet and adams apple and if im not 100% shure slip my hand in the panties to find out lol. as a rule i can spot them but there are some lady boys that could fool almost anyone.

[holgerdanske]

Please address that issue. You seem to be able to dance all around it. You seem to have figured out how to do Emote Eyerolls. You seem to want to put words in my mouth and do what is known as create a Straw man. You seem to be trying to use various logical fallacies here to try to take pot shots at me since you can't actually debate my points.

Dude, chill out. You've gotten too worked up over this.

[borgkilla]

I am ok with the idea of having the topics of ladyboys/transexual to continue,
we are all adults and are free to choose whether we want to read or not too.

Just add another thread specifically for the topic of transexuals and let it be

If it makes u happy then why not