blogs_blog_146

The issue is pretty simple to me. The moment you use hateful speech and try to take away someone's rights you pretty much lose the right to have an opinion. Calling someone a "bigot" is a statement and a fact(assuming they have actually said intolerant/hurtful things).

 

Sadly, sitting down and talking about a lot of issues has gotten us nowhere in the world. Not allowing hateful speech would not be impossible, it would be the right thing to do.

 

But what do you define as hateful speech? Westboro Baptist Church, or someone simply saying 'I don't support gay marriage' (like Barack Obama did for his presidential campaign and the first half of his presidency)? The fact of the matter is, by lumping everyone into one camp or the other and having one camp be 'awesome heroes' and the other 'disgusting bigots', you don't get anywhere. Aside from failing to recognize that around half of the 'disgusting bigots' side favor civil unions (essentially 'marriage' with a different name), it also lumps them in with the true 'disgusting bigots' (like Westboro), which actually cheapens just how disgusting and bigoted groups like Westboro are.

 

I never said not allowing 'hateful speech' would be impossible. I said having a reasonable, constructive discussion that doesn't devolve into 'you are a terrible bigot' or 'you are immoral' is, and would be, impossible under both current rules and any rule change. It has clearly been shown, very repeatedly, that this topic can not be discussed constructively here, at all. And part of it is due to the attitude that sitting down and having a constructive discussion on such an important issue will 'get us nowhere'. It depends on what you define 'nowhere' as. Is it going to change many minds? Probably not. But it would maybe, just maybe, spread a little bit of understanding. Understanding is a bit lacking on both sides if you ask me.

I think the rule against political discussion still has a place here. Bringing up a fiery political debate with no intention of starting that debate here, compare the issue of abortion. BOTH sides of that debate view the issue as one of human rights (the rights of women vs. the rights of the unborn). The reason they find themselves on opposite sides is the pro-choice side thinks the notion of embryos having rights is dubious (or at the very least, the rights of the living take priority), whereas the pro-life side views abortion as murder, which is something people really don't the right to do. Similarly, the gun control debate is viewed as an issue of rights by the pro-gun ownership side (the right to bear arms).

 

My point is that when you pick "human rights" as a qualifier that negates the political discussion rule, you basically scuttle that rule. Because, legitimately or not, most people view issues that pertain to them personally as a fight for their rights. So while I am 100% in support of those folks in California who can now marry, and the folks in other states who now have the freedom to change the law in their favor, talking about specific laws and Supreme Court decisions might be cutting it a bit too close as far as the political discussion rule goes. And, as B6 stated, members here have been perfectly able to express their happiness and excitement without issue.

1) Human rights isn't debatable, sorry. If a group of members respond to the additional amount of rights, freedoms and equal avenues granted to a group of people who lack those by saying "no that's wrong" then... no, we're not even going to humor that. It's absolutely no different than people who marginalize other minorities to where the terms "sexism" and "racism" may be applied (hint: BZPower tolerates neither). BZPower is a website that condones equality, that condones treating your fellow human beings as humans, that condones decency; this website does not condone the very concept of condoning the opposite.

 

2) If everything deserves people's opinions to be posted, then by myself very much saying "I'm gay" or "I'm trans" then everyone deserves to post their opinion on that, right? Even if that opinion causes me distress, feeling uncomfortable, feeling insulted, targeted, or harassed? Right? After all, we must let absolutely everyone voice their opinion on everything, no matter the consequence it holds on the person who only wanted to share in their happiness. (hint: No. If an opinion is doing damage, it's hardly an opinion you're allowed to express on this family friendly website).

 

3) No, others on the side of being treated nicely really aren't "putting down" anyone. I've never seen anyone put down on that side of the fence and I've followed every single one of the discussions, way back when they happened a couple of notable times on the old forums. Those people are called "bigots" they're called "sexist" they're positions are called "hurtful" and they're called out for hurting others. Additionally, no: the label "bigot" and "sexist" are definitely not insults. They're accurate terms to describe an attitude someone puts forth, namely when that attitude is actively demeaning and harming other members for absolutely no reason. If someone is going to have the audacity to insult someone else, to hurt them, then they don't deserve to be placed in a super fluffy box safe from being called out on it. At best, they deserve a deleted comment and a "You're not to post insulting and degrading rhetoric on our website."

 

4) This isn't debatable political issue. This is a human rights issue. (See my last post, even).

 

(Note: I'm sorry, but when someone is actively hurting people because they are gay or trans* -- claiming they don't deserve to be treated equally, insinuating there's something wrong with them, or posting that it's "unnatural" and such other nonsense, then yes they are being trans/homophobic. "Homophobic" is not some sort of standard insult, it's a description of how people are choosing to behave and present themselves and, I'm sorry, but it's accurate. I'll call a racist a racist and not go out of my way to make them feel better about their viewpoints when they want to oppress a subset of society.

 

1) First off, when I said, "I'm not going to debate about whether or not anybody deserves certain rights...", I, in no way, was implying anything that you just talked about in your first paragraph. I was really just stating that I wasn't going to get very deeply rooted on the subject of homosexuality, because that always starts huge debates that end in hate. Secondly, take a second to read what you said in the areas I added bold font to. It looks to me like you want a place where everyone is equal, and everyone shares the same beliefs. So you're saying that BZP is that very place? I don't think so. Because punishing someone for condoning the opposite idea would unbalance the equality of the people. If you can't condone your own cause because the other side doesn't want you to and feels like you're a bigot or some kind of monster for believing in something different than them, what kind of place is that? That, my friend, is the very essence of a socialist state, and BZP, which does try their best to make sure everyone is equal, has to let everyone have their own opinion because of this.

 

I am not justifying either side for anything they've said. Those that oppose homosexuality have made plenty of hurtful comments. Those that have are extremely intolerant and misinformed. However, I also would like to point out, that those supportive of homosexuality have not handled these insults very well. It feels to me as if those against homosexuality are greatly pressured because they don't agree with the supporting side. Very often, in the supporters' comments, I see a nonchalant sort of attitude, which sometimes can come across as arrogant, as if they definitively know they're are right.

 

2) As I said before, I do not condone the insulting comments posted by those against homosexuality. Even if they do hurt you, or put you down, it's an opinion. What if your opinion offends someone else and ruins their day? That's just going to happen sometimes when you decide to talk about sexuality. If people can't have their own opinions about your comments, then you shouldn't be able to post those comments. @Bolded message: You're really bringing up the whole "family friendly website" thing? That's quite ironic considering we're talking about sexuality right now. If discussions to do with sexuality are allowed on a family friendly website, then I'm pretty sure opinions are allowed within them as well. Any time someone has posted a hateful comment, the staff have called them out and punished them, so I don't see what the huge problem is.

 

3) Perhaps they haven't used insults, but I've seen them be extremely condescending to those opposed to their idea, and that, in itself, can feel like an insult any day.

 

May I remind you that the word "stupid" literally means someone lacking intelligence or common sense, yet people use it as an insult all the time. It's an accurate term to describe the intelligence of someone. But it can be extremely demeaning and hurtful. The same goes for bigot or sexist. They are definitely accurate terms, but I've seen a lot of people hurl those words around at others like they're a monster for not agreeing with them.

 

4) Actually, human rights are very political. Turn on the news, read your local paper. All of the politicians debate about human rights. There are also plenty of laws about human rights, some even constitutional laws like, "Freedom of Speech", "Freedom of Religion", etc.

 

In your last paragraph, you seem very hostile toward anyone that doesn't agree with you. Doesn't that make you sort of like those you call bigots or homophobic? They're hostile toward you, then you return the hostility right back to them?

 

-Rez

1) You implied that people who are against and view the LGBT+ community negatively deserve to have their opinions heard, if the opinions of the LGBT+ community may be heard. My point in my first paragraph is to explain why that line of reasoning is incorrect, for those who oppose the LGBT+ community also oppose the fact that people are to gain rights to be on an equal footing in society and are, in essence, no different than the people who believe race ought to define what you can and cannot have in society. Just like how racist comments are not allowed on BZPower, nor are comments that marginalize and blanketly hurt other groups.

Something very important occurred in the lives of many LGBT+ persons, actually two things, and while they do exist within the governmental processes... when people bring them up in excitement, or in celebration, it's not really a golden ticket for other people to go in and start raining on their parade. A huge difference in this situation is that these are rights: I would absolutely adore to be able to talk about a piece of legislation that went into effect to protect trans* individuals from undue harm and discrimination, as it would be a step for their rights and makes society a little bit safer for those people. Just as the recent occurrences are a step for the rest of the LGBT+ community and can, potentially, create a safer environment. It would not be okay to post in an entry, about something of that nature, to say "no, those people deserve to be treated badly" or "those people don't deserve to be on my footing" or "those people are immoral" or "those people are sick and wrong." Those are all insults. Those are all hurtful. Those comments do absolutely nothing except cause tensions to run high and begin huge arguments where those offended could care less about the sensibilities of the other side. Honestly, statements like those are closer to trolling than anything else -- you know you'll get a highly emotional response, why? Because it's downright offensive.

BZPower, from what it purports to uphold, desires to create a community where people feel safe, welcome and comfortable. Any progress in the human rights arena, where marginalized groups of people are slowly getting closer to being equal in society, should be embraced by the website. Whereas dissent for this progression, where other people believe the inequality should continue and that these groups of people are unworthy of their own status, will only serve to alienate other people, hurt other people, insult other people and, on BZPower, it should be made clear that holding opinions that are damaging to people is wrong. Because it flat out is.

It'd be no different than posting on someone's topic "you suck." It's an opinion, but it's damaging and offers absolutely nothing in value to the community and only serves to hurt someone; thus it's an opinion that is expressly not allowed on BZPower.

They aren't valid opinions. They're insults disguised, poorly, as them.

2) Sexuality and gender expression/identity is not this "adult" topic, it's just an aspect of human nature. BZPower is a family friendly website, meaning, I can talk about a boyfriend and not have to worry about a group of people coming into the entry to berate me on how wrong I am. I should be able to talk about wanting to get married, if I wanted to do so, without having to worry about other people coming into the entry and berating me. I should feel safe to post self-taken photographs of me in a dress, or skirt, or done up in drag without needing to worry about someone coming into the entry to berate me. I should be able to say that trans* people deserve to be treated like everyone else, no exception, without that entry turning into a flamewar. Additionally, it'd only be natural if a new law came into place that protected and brought someone's rights to level of everyone else's to want to post something about it, "This law just passed, and now I can legally change my gender on my social security information :>" or "A law recently passed that now allows the school to have a LGBT resource center, and I'm feeling extremely happy about that (and potentially also voice concern if any limitations were introduced unto it)" --- these are people happy that they're being protected like everyone else. Not people who are looking for political debates and drama.

Either way, who am I hurting by expressing those things? If someone takes issue, they ought to follow the old adage of "if you have nothing nice to say, it's better to say nothing at all" rather than harping on me, or a generalized group of people, and claiming they're just "wrong" for no other reason than they exist.

3) Okay, we'll talk about words now.

- Stupid is a shot at someone's intelligence and has been commonly used to belittle people and undermine people.

- Bigot is a term used to refer to someone's belief, or behavior, in which they are actively belittling and undermining people.

- Sexist is a term used to refer to someone's belief, or behavior, in which they are making hurtful and discriminatory remarks about women.

If someone goes and says "you don't deserve those rights because you're gay and gay is bad" then I have every right to say that they're being bigoted, because they are. If they don't want to be called a bigot, they can change their behavior so they are no longer belittling and undermining people.

4) Are human rights discussed in politics? Yes, they are. But are they the same, in nature, as standard political fare (i.e: taxes, candidates, scandals)? No.

Under the current rule, if I made an entry stating "One section from DOMA has been repealed, and this makes me feel happy since now I'm seen as eligible to receive federal benefits that could really help me and boyfriend in the future :>" then it'd be marked as political and locked and against the rules, simply because we can't have members acting out in the comments.

 

In your last paragraph, you seem very hostile toward anyone that doesn't agree with you. Doesn't that make you sort of like those you call bigots or homophobic? They're hostile toward you, then you return the hostility right back to them?

I'm not hostile towards people, I'm hostile towards venomous remarks from people that do nothing more than to belittle and undermine other people. They're hostile to me by directly insulting me, so there is quite a big difference there. I'll go out of my way to point out that their views are incorrect and damaging, but I will not go so far as to say they don't deserve to be treated like a human being; because that is wrong.

In your last paragraph, you seem very hostile toward anyone that doesn't agree with you. Doesn't that make you sort of like those you call bigots or homophobic? They're hostile toward you, then you return the hostility right back to them?

 

If you insist on describing someone's sexuality as "unnatural" or "immoral", saying they're evil or have been touched by Satan or are going to destroy society, that they should be denied rights, etc. , you shouldn't be surprised when they're a bit angry at you.

I'm going to reply in a very summarized way. I am hearing so much about how the opinions of people against homosexuality should not be allowed to post their opinions if they are insulting, etc. If someone posts insulting comments, they will be deleted by a staff member. That's that. But that's not what I'm getting at. I'm trying to tell you, that us people over here that don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, but are tolerant of it and have no prejudice, discrimination, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, whatsoever, are getting pressured just as much as those that are discriminating. Let's be honest, you are being condescending. You think you're right, just like I think I'm right. But I think you are missing my point. There is no reason for any of us to insult each other. There is no reason for us to argue like a bunch of two-year-olds. There is no reason for us to be condescending toward each other. Whether you like it or not, calling someone a bigot may or may not hurt them. If it does, that's on you. That makes you just like the people that insulted you.

 

I have an idea. How about we act like civil people, sit down, drink a cup of coffee, and discuss this without any insults; just pure logic, common sense, and some legitimate support for our ideas. It really doesn't matter if someone insults you. That does not give you a right--in other words, some kind of moral exception--to go and insult someone back.

 

-Rez

I'm perfectly calm, I'm sitting down, and I'm drinking a cup of coffee right now. I'm thinking carefully and logically about what I want to say.

 

And so I'm just gonna state it flat-out: One side is objectively right and one side is objectively wrong and the side that is objectively wrong does not deserve to share their views because they are harmful and hurtful and morally reprehensible. Saying that you disagree with or disapprove of another person's sexuality or gender identity is bigoted, ignorant, and morally wrong and should not be protected or allowed just because it's 'an opinion'. As has been stated way too many times already, it's virtually no different from telling somebody that you disagree with or disapprove of their race. It's dehumanizing. It's insulting even if it isn't harshly-worded. No other way around it.

I'm going to reply in a very summarized way. I am hearing so much about how the opinions of people against homosexuality should not be allowed to post their opinions if they are insulting, etc. If someone posts insulting comments, they will be deleted by a staff member. That's that. But that's not what I'm getting at. I'm trying to tell you, that us people over here that don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, but are tolerant of it and have no prejudice, discrimination, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, whatsoever, are getting pressured just as much as those that are discriminating. Let's be honest, you are being condescending. You think you're right, just like I think I'm right. But I think you are missing my point. There is no reason for any of us to insult each other. There is no reason for us to argue like a bunch of two-year-olds. There is no reason for us to be condescending toward each other. Whether you like it or not, calling someone a bigot may or may not hurt them. If it does, that's on you. That makes you just like the people that insulted you.

 

I have an idea. How about we act like civil people, sit down, drink a cup of coffee, and discuss this without any insults; just pure logic, common sense, and some legitimate support for our ideas. It really doesn't matter if someone insults you. That does not give you a right--in other words, some kind of moral exception--to go and insult someone back.

 

-Rez

 

This. Please, listen to this everybody. If you have the better argument, there should be no reason for you to insult anyone.

I'm perfectly calm, I'm sitting down, and I'm drinking a cup of coffee right now. I'm thinking carefully and logically about what I want to say.

 

And so I'm just gonna state it flat-out: One side is objectively right and one side is objectively wrong and the side that is objectively wrong does not deserve to share their views because they are harmful and hurtful and morally reprehensible. Saying that you disagree with or disapprove of another person's sexuality or gender identity is bigoted, ignorant, and morally wrong and should not be protected or allowed just because it's 'an opinion'. As has been stated way too many times already, it's virtually no different from telling somebody that you disagree with or disapprove of their race. It's dehumanizing. It's insulting even if it isn't harshly-worded. No other way around it.

 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

That's in reference to the First Amendment of the United States, which does not apply on BZPower.

That's in reference to the First Amendment of the United States, which does not apply on BZPower.

 

So?

 

EDIT: I do not agree with what the Homosexual camp says, but I am not seeking to silence them.

Funny how people use the words, "bigot" "haters" "radicals" "extremists" "ignorant" to label people if we disagree with them.

 

Rather funny to me.

 

(I do realize that a few of those words I mentioned, were not mentioned in this blog or any of the comments, but they have been.)

sure is funny when people call a bigot a bigot, and someone who refuses to be educated ignorant. funny how we're using words by their definitions. isn't it funny how language works?

EDIT: SO what Spink is saying is that, while the impartial United States may let offensive and bigoted opinions run rampant due to the freedom of speech, a privately-owned forum such as BZPower has every right to disallow hurtful opinions.

 

If it means so much to you, feel free to start your own forum where YOU get to decide what opinions get voiced. I'm SURE it'll be enjoyable.

That's in reference to the First Amendment of the United States, which does not apply on BZPower.

 

Um, no it is not. It is a basic summation of the views of the French philosopher Voltaire, as written by the English writer S.G. Tallentyre in her bigoraphy of Voltaire (The Friends of Voltaire). As far as I can tell, neither France nor England are governed by the Constitution or the First Amendment.

 

 

Funny how people use the words, "bigot" "haters" "radicals" "extremists" "ignorant" to label people if we disagree with them.

 

Rather funny to me.

 

(I do realize that a few of those words I mentioned, were not mentioned in this blog or any of the comments, but they have been.)

sure is funny when people call a bigot a bigot, and someone who refuses to be educated ignorant. funny how we're using words by their definitions. isn't it funny how language works?

 

 

By 'refuse to be educated' you mean 'refuse to change their beliefs to what I believe in'. With the sort of confrontational attitude your camp has, it is not surprising many people refuse to the change their beliefs. Why would they? If they view you as intolerant, disrespectful, or disparaging towards them, why should they be inclined to listen to you?

hey I kept tugging violently on my cat's tail and now it seems really mad

 

I don't understand, why is it being so confrontational and aggressive? it's not making its species look very good, nobody is going to listen to it if it just lashes out like that for no reason at all

 

 

Funny how people use the words, "bigot" "haters" "radicals" "extremists" "ignorant" to label people if we disagree with them.

 

Rather funny to me.

 

(I do realize that a few of those words I mentioned, were not mentioned in this blog or any of the comments, but they have been.)

sure is funny when people call a bigot a bigot, and someone who refuses to be educated ignorant. funny how we're using words by their definitions. isn't it funny how language works?

 

 

By 'refuse to be educated' you mean 'refuse to change their beliefs to what I believe in'. With the sort of confrontational attitude your camp has, it is not surprising many people refuse to the change their beliefs. Why would they? If they view you as intolerant, disrespectful, or disparaging towards them, why should they be inclined to listen to you?

 

Ooh, we're a camp! Let's make fun T-shirts! "Camp Equality"!

 

By "refuse to be educated", I MEAN that refusing to acknowledge another group of people as equal to you is like refusing to acknowledge that the Earth is round, or that the Sun is a star, or that evolution is the process by which a species changes over time to suit its environment. We're not being disrespectful by telling them that A BELIEF WHERE A GROUP OF PEOPLE IS UNDERMINED AND MARGINALIZED FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE IS HURTFUL AND NOT APPROPRIATE. If they aren't inclined to listen, then that's their loss, I suppose; they'll be lost to the tides of time as society progresses to become equal. We're confrontational because if we speak calmly, nobody listens to us. Nobody respects a doormat, so we're becoming walls.

 

As for the bit about Voltaire, that is STILL a principle for running GOVERNMENTS and not children's construction toy websites, in addition to my comment from before. (Plus, considering how well-read you seem to be, I'm surprised you'd miss that those thoughts were echoed throughout the era and actually form a lot of the basis for the Declaration and the Constitution.)

 

That's in reference to the First Amendment of the United States, which does not apply on BZPower.

 

Um, no it is not. It is a basic summation of the views of the French philosopher Voltaire, as written by the English writer S.G. Tallentyre in her bigoraphy of Voltaire (The Friends of Voltaire). As far as I can tell, neither France nor England are governed by the Constitution or the First Amendment.

 

 

 

My error, for some reason I thought it was attributed to Thomas Paine, not Evelyn Hall. (Regardless, the context in this situation is not the same; BZPower's a private website, where there are no inherent rights to speech).

 

If you care to read all the other posts, though, all of your current points have already been addressed many times over.

I need to learn to read faster. Certain comments here are exactly why we still have certain rules in place.

 

I have a lot to say on this matter, and some administrative action to take, but have other things in real life that are taking a slight precedent. I still be editing this comment later tonight.

 

EDIT: Okay, first things first. No one should be 'against' anyone's sexuality. A person's sexuality is an intrinsic part of who they are, just like their hair color (if not more so). If you are 'against' someone's sexuality you are being discriminatory. People with black hair have just as much right to marry whoever they want as people with blonde hair, so why should sexuality be any different? It's not. Several members here were being discriminatory with their comments and will be punished appropriately.

 

EDIT 2: Just as our rules state, "BZPower does not condone discrimination or intolerance," they also state, "Respect your fellow members," "There is no flaming," and, "There is no trolling." As soon as someone breaks that first rule, instead of getting close to breaking those others, you should report the post and let the staff handle it. Getting publicly angry about it on BZPower is just going to make things escalate. Be the better person and don't fan the flames.

 

EDIT 3: Hopefully this will be my last edit, addressing the entry here rather than the fallout. I think a lot of the discussion moved to what people think is right or wrong rather than what BZPower's rules are, so I really don't have much to add there. I'm going to try to address Gato's arguments as best I can.

 

The staff has claimed multiple times that sexuality is not a political nor a religious issue. I used to agree with them when it comes to this, and in many ways I still believe that claim. However ideals do not exist in a vacuum even if we want them to. While sexuality should neither be a political nor a religious issue, the sad fact is that sexuality is very much so both a political and a religious issue. To think otherwise would be to deny the reality that we find ourselves in. Sexuality is inexplicitly tied to both religion and politics even though it shouldn't be.

I certainly agree that sexuality unfortunately is involved in political and religious topics. It is definitely difficult to separate them at times, but in the effort of fairness I think we all should try to do so. Yes, it does limit what you can talk about, but as Bionicle Rex wrote so many years ago, that is completely within our purview. I don't feel we're keeping you from talking about what you think we're keeping you from talking about though.

 

We have stated numerous times that you can talk about your sexuality until the cows come home. If anyone says anything hateful, disrespectful, or intolerant, all you have to do is report them. While sometimes when these huge arguments break out I wish we could just say, 'no one can talk about sexuality,' I realize that's silly and naive and would be keeping people from expressing a core part of who they are, not to mention nearly impossible to enforce.

 

As an aside, I am going to say again that the proper response is a report. In the majority of cases, replying, however politely you do it, is just going to make things worse. BZPower strives to be a family-friendly site and public arguments and flame fests are not a part of that. That of course goes for any disagreement that turns ugly, no matter what the topic is. Report it and move on.

 

As mentioned earlier, this obviously gets harder when politics and religion get involved. That said, there were many blog entries earlier this week where people were expressing their happiness with no mention of politics and with no repercussions. In entries where comments were about politics, warnings were given. Entries that referenced politics specifically were closed, as per our rule on no political discussion. Yes it's a fine line, but I think it's relatively easy to keep on the right side of.

 

Why do we do this? Well, let's give an example. Say there is someone who is struggling to make ends meet. The government passes a law that makes it easier for them to gain access to health care for them and their family. That's great for them! They should make a blog entry about it because, hey, doesn't everyone have the same right to medical services? Another person comes along and sees the entry, but they look at it from the perspective of the government spending more money or taking money away from other services. They comment on the entry and as a result, an argument breaks out. It's for reasons like this that we do not allow political discussion. How do you draw the line between that kind of political issue and things like DOMA? In my mind, if one person can't talk about the part of politics they like, it's easier if no one can. And there's plenty more parts of politics that do not belong at all on BZPower than there are parts that maybe could be rationally discussed. And even then, past experience shows that people have problems with quiet discussions and debate when it comes to those issues.

 

I know my example is not on the same level, but in the end I don't think the rules are keeping you from talking about your sexuality and I don't think it's giving other people more 'rights' than you.

 

At the end of the day, I always see BZPower as a place to talk about LEGO and Bionicle and the awesome experiences they provide. I do not see it as a platform to talk about equality or whatever social issue you can think of. We try to be tolerant of that and acknowledge their importance, but you have to stay within the rules. (Please note - the rules do not say you can't talk about social issues.) This isn't the place to change people's minds and make them see the error of their ways. There are plenty of organizations that have those goals and if you feel as strongly about it as some of you clearly do, I encourage you to support them in educating people in this country and around the world. We're just a tiny little fansite for a children's toy line, and as a private institution, that is how we would like to stay.

 

Anyone is free to contact me regarding this matter if you need any clarifications or would like to make additional comments.