Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839091)

Conversion therapy is not unlike a psychological version of self harming, we would never think 'oh well, if he thinks it'll help him, let him open a vein' It's dangerous and when it escalates it'll likely end badly.

Nobody should encourage and/or endorse anyone going through with practices that don't work and often results in increased chances of suicide for the people who are victimised by these practices.

The only way people who are unhappy with their sexuality (which is, let's face it, often because of outside factors) will ever find happiness is with acceptance of who there. There's no sexuality change operation and there never will be. Sexuality is just a part of who we are, if it could be changed we would have likely found out how by now.

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 9839123)

...I don’t know if they read the article but the OP did open it and ask for us all to discuss, which we are and as you say, Paula..its been very interesting to do so, so a good thread, I think...for me, I’m just trying to equate in my head any caring, religious person who would surely feel abhorred at anything that would cause anyone to feel ashamed of who they were...and the writing of any article, which appeared to support in the way of...’they have a right to../...it’s something that should be offered...’....I mean for anyone who did hate themselves because of their sexuality and sought therapy..?...then surely that therapy would involve working on positives, to enable them to feel less self-hating, to feel all the very opposite things of shame...I understand Ann’s feelings about the equality of therapies being available but the nature of the therapy itself in terms of ethics is also essential to consider, and Like Jamie’s, I’m surprised she didn’t consider more before penning an article...


...and no, the only person ive seen her dragging, is Anton du Beke around the dance floor in Strictly...:laugh:..

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839136)

I have read it and honestly I don't see why it's such a big deal. She's simply stating an opinion, not at all suggesting that people should be forced into something.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839171)

All opinions are open for criticism, we are merely employing our right to criticise something we disagree with.

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839180)

Totally agree, I've no problem with that. Do have a problem with someone reading a line and calling people scum. That's all.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839192)

It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't silence it.

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839196)

That's probably the most ironic post I've ever read on here. :rolleyes:

It's a good one though, I'll just copy and paste it in future.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839192)

It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't silence it.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839198)

Care to explain why? It's basically all I've said for the past week or so so please, explain.

Originally Posted by Marches (Post 9839200)

But you said in another thread Shane was allowed to silence Ann ‘because free speech’ free speech paradox

Originally Posted by Marches (Post 9839200)

But you said in another thread Shane was allowed to silence Ann ‘because free speech’ free speech paradox

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839203)

Exactly this ^.

Would you care to explain is more like it?

Originally Posted by Marches (Post 9839211)

Manipulating people into dismissing someone when they say an opinion is inadvertently silencing someone and you said that was ok

Free speech isn’t as black and white as ‘you can speak = free speech!!!’ There is a grey area that people find loopholes around

Originally Posted by AnnieK (Post 9839097)

Its not legal here is it? Although, I'm sure there will still be people willing to attempt it. I had never heard of it being practised here, thought it was just an American thing. Shocking.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839220)

This is what we call both a reach and a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of Speech is very simple, unless you are preaching hatred or inciting violence then it typically comes under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to share your opinion and the right for others to have their views on those opinions and vice versa.

It's not the right to force people to accept or respect what you have to say, you have the right to say it but, unless they breach one of the previous exemptions I mentioned, anyone is free to not accept or respect or do what they want with that opinion. This is the part you seem to struggle with.

Trying to make out that Shane is actively manipulating the house into silencing Ann is nothing but an incredible reach on your part. Nobody is telling Ann what to think or preventing her from speaking, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make that a reality, it's simply not the case.

This is just you doing what I mentioned before, debasing people's rights to respond and right to freedom of speech just because you don't like what they have to say.

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839244)

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so. :smug:

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839244)

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so. :smug:

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9839246)

:smug:

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9839180)

Totally agree, I've no problem with that. Do have a problem with someone reading a line and calling people scum. That's all.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839256)

Again, never a good idea to blindly agree with someone just because it's against someone you mutually dislike. Questioning your friends is not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9839257)

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9839252)

No, it really isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...United_Kingdom

Perhaps you should try to understand what hate speech and preaching hatred before you post and 'walk yourself right into it.'

It's an incredible reach and very silly to make out that Shane is doing anything but utilising his own right to freedom of speech, Ann and anyone else is free to do the same. I know you dislike freedom of speech when it doesn't benefit you but please try to understand what preaching hatred and hate speech is before you try to use it in an argument.

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9839257)

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9839257)

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9839270)

Yeah, my words were taken a little too literally there. There had been a post made where the member called Malika fans scum. I said that insulting fans was not allowed but insulting housemates was (within reason). Of course its fine to criticize housemates BUT, just random posts of 'X is a bitch' or something add nothing at all to the forum. So insults are fine within reason, but preferable when part of a larger post. if that makes sense.