REACH BLOG:

Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 16:27 PM

Dear All,

It is precisely that this is an open public forum that one has to state a stand clearly and in support of one’s convictions. The notion of civilized debate is noble and applauded but then, this is where things go wrong. How do you define “civilized”? In whose context? It works both ways! One may also be construed as insulting or casting aspersions on the other by politely insinuating that the other party is not civilized in its verbal reply. It is surprising that the recent 7 pages of comments is considered as “uncivil” and not logically debated. Using the example of “Father do the son”, etc” is a powerful, direct and effective way to convey the message in no uncertain terms the implication and seriousness of the “Latter’s” comments in a public forum. Is that considered “uncivil” and illogical?
One does not recall any four letter words being bandied around in the commentaries.

Rightly, this is an open forum and it is polemics you should expect from time to time such as some heated and emotional responses as can be seen from some recent responses in this thread. On the other hand, one also has the right not to reply the other.

The Matter of “Intent”

Past experiences have shown that passivity awards oneself zero points. It only opens oneself to more ingenious and subtle messages and subconscious manipulation as is the case of AWARE where they tried to start their manipulation and subversion of our naïve young from an early age with their pro-LBGT views.

The “latter’s” recent replies to “LEE” questions was considered evasive and unsustainable and pandering to pro-LBGT views even from other forum contributors who were more harsh with their comments. Actually, mine should be considered “soft” compared to the others.

As the “latter” commented, our debate might not even move further than this thread. So what? As long as it’s a public forum and our comments are open for others to read.
Paranoia or suspicion will always abound as all contributors are anonymous but it doesn’t make one out as such because of his/her comments. It’s as the “latter” commented, “I am not from AWARE”. That is what you say now after our replies.
Are these above comments considered civil enough? No sarcasm intended.

A “rumbling” is expected from others if some comments are considered ridiculous from a mature adult. Therefore, it begets paranoia and suspicion from others? This is a serious thread with a serious public issue and when comments are played out like a carousel, it smells of pro-LBGT activism at play. One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil. The pro-LBGT has a huge head start with lobbying and we parents are just starting to wake up from our passivity. But, it doesn’t mean we will act like the “Fish market” AWARE EGM where the pro-LBGT was so “loud”. In the end, we are all anonymous to each other. The others can agree to disagree. After all, we are talking about safeguarding our young and nothing is more important than ensuring that such issues as “anal sex” and pro-LBGT activism in our schools and civil society be vigorously challenged.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 13:29 PM

Dear All,

I have a suggestion, following a well-written post on accountability. In the event of a reply that you felt was unsatisfactory or insufficient, I would appeal to you to consider writing back a reply to request for greater clarification? This request can be written politely (If you only choose to do so). My opinion is no matter the argument; we must never take the down road of insulting one another. We must strive to be civil.

One part of the post focused on intent:

It is regardless of the intent (if there is any to begin with) of the forum participant. What is important is the discussion that is taking place. So long as both parties have no qualms in debating each other, let them be. What does anyone, including myself, honestly expect when debating here? Do we really believe that just by debating at the “REACH” forum, our views have greater say than other Singaporeans or that the Government would listen here and not elsewhere? The point of any forum is to have a debate. This is an online forum, thus anonymity exist. However, so long we can debate respectfully and logically, I think we need not worry who is on the other side of the screen. The paranoia or suspicion can never truly be put to rest unless all of us were gifted with clairvoyant powers.

Therefore, I hope we can encourage all to participate respectfully and not chastise each other during a debate. Thank you.
Regards,
CW
-------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 04:01 AM

Hi All

There is an accountability issue here.

When one debates, it is expected that issues such as found in this thread touches a raw nerve in most people.

That is why when a debate was carried out between 2 parties recently, regular contributors to this thread mostly stood aside and avidly followed the exchanges.

It is only when certain issues raised are answered with unsustainable replies which a mature adult is able to answer without much thought; that makes it more suspicious of the latter's intent.

In view of this, at that point of time it was not being ingracious or impolite barring rudeness if certain comments by the "latter" was answered as such. Emotive surely precisely due to the "Latter's" replies to "LEE's" comments which defies the mind.

If not for the challenges made point for point, forthcoming answers would not have been received. Of course it was only "mussing" but the "latter's" "mussings" was too much.

One has to take note that the “other” side had or are more boorish as compared to us in this thread. We are the sane ones here.

Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------

CW
04 Jul 09 , 00:43 AM

On Redemptive Love:

I am not sure what redemptive love exactly stands for but I have watched the video.

To me, the video did not at all offend me, and I think it is applaud-worthy that such an approach was taken to address the issue. To care for someone throughout, but to not judge was refreshing to me. I personally believe that some homosexuals may not actually be homosexual and may be misguided. I draw a possible example to where homosexuals overly love their idols or mentors, and that contorts their view.

On speaking your mind:
I resolutely respect your right to speak what you believe. Of course, we must be sensitive and not offend others, if the issue is regarding race or religion. On the matter of sexuality, I think homosexuals know full well the stand of many religions.

On Writing Letters to Govt:
I know it is your right to express your view to the administration. However, what scares me is the belief that other side is also “lobbying”. Once both sides share this belief, then a cycle will begin. Back and forth the arguments and accusations will be thrown resulting in nothing. I wish and hope that both sides will sit down and respectfully discuss their views. This should be the true principle and I believe it does not become less worthy even if it takes a longer time.

To clear the air:
1) I’m not from AWARE
2) I never supported the idea of incest (ever!)
3) I withdraw my opinion on the trainer manual. It does play a role.
4) Nobody is impartial, everyone here’s brings an opinion.
5) I was trying to be polite and respectful, not impartial.

Just to share a piece of advice, if you have someone (who often acts as a spokesperson) that chooses to blast off on others whenever he/she sees fit, then your watchdog grouping will be affected. People will not listen and most likely label you group as neurotic and unfriendly. If you wish to make an impact, I think it is logical to learn to communicate to others and debate in a respectful manner.

This post is emotive, because I honestly feel my discussion and my attempt to be polite as well as be respectful was violated. Therefore, my apologies for being emotional.

Thank you for reading.

-----------------------------------------------------

CW
03 Jul 09 , 22:22 PM

Dear LEE,

Thank you for being patient. I have reflected on your arguments and wish to share the following.

On Point 2:

My idea of refraining from hurtful words was meant for adults and older teenagers. I am concerned that they might be an at-risk suicide group and I don’t wish to aggravate the situation. When we say children, I am assuming them to be under 16 yrs old, and for this age group, I believe there is no requirement or education needed to mention anything on the homosexuality matter. If the issue arises, I feel parents must take the proactive role to guide their own young on the views of homosexuality. Regardless of the age group, the morality aspect should still be left to parents, and their respective faiths. Every parent should have their right to bring up their children in the manner they see fit.

I watched the Talking Point video (back then), and felt that anal sex should not be promulgated to young children, aged 12. So, I believe no contest on that issue.

On Point 4:
The smoking reference is well-explained, but lacks an important consideration in my view:

Smoking is easily and unanimously agreed by all including scientists and religious scholars to be harmful. The facts and evidence is extremely cut-throat clear that there is no ambiguity. Homosexuality, sadly to say, has not been clearly understood or researched enough. When there is ambiguity, especially on something that can be considered an identity issue, you will naturally have people on both sides who take offense once a premature decision has been made.

BTW, please note you have convinced me to be an individual who knows how to respect other people. Definitely.