Is there any 'rational' reason why a question that compare about homosexuality with other philia get modded?

Wait until the moderation process is over, and then see. It was sent back for editing. Perhaps it needed editing.

Because it was offensive and homophobic and fluther isn’t in the business of supporting such things. and when you put rational in quotations, it reverses its meaning.

Never mind.

@dpworkin I think you’re right,but I don’t see if there’s something wrong with the way he/she made the question. It’s well explained,although some people suspect it’s just a flame-bait.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir But I don’t see that he/she directly offend someone there(the way I see this person is that he/she was trying to defend his/her ‘fact’). Homophobic could be just the impression of this person,it doesn’t mean that he/she is really a homophobic person.(I’m not here to defend this person but I want to see a justice in a question,even if it’s not my own question).

My thought is that this person was outnumbered by other opposition users,many people didn’t like this question even though it didn’t violate the rule about question on fluther. So I think there’s some kind of discrimination there,where a plain/neutral question get modded just because most people hate/take a personal offense from it.

Personally, I’m upset the Q got modded because I had an awesome answer that will now never see the light of day. Tear.

Maybe it was put back in the closet.

It’s back without the reference to homosexuality, which is the way it should have been asked in the first place.

[mod says]: That particular question was moderated because it was meant to be a hateful rant rather than a good question. We also sometime moderate a question if the answers are generally nasty and there is no discussion about the question. As @dpworkin said, it is back but in a more acceptable form. In the future, please contact the mods directly if you have an issue as to why a question was moderated.

@KatawaGrey Thank you for your explanation.

I usually see there would some sort of statement that explain why a post is modded,but I’m just curious that they didn’t put any explanation there(it gave the rise of many speculation).

I actually want to ask a mod (I wanted to ask AugustIan myself) but I just didn’t know which one of you is active now (I might get the response the next day after the issue has already over),and the other reason is that I don’t feel like to bother mods,most likely because I appreciate that they’re busy most of the time.

@Doctor_D: We are here to help you and keep fluther a good place for the users. If you use the contact button at the top of the page, we all get an e-mail and whomever is active at the time will be happy to answer your question. :)

I would guess that it is because there is a statistical part of every mammal population that is homosexual and therefore it should not be grouped with things that are strange secret rites.

The question is back….it has been re-written and all the prior answers deleted. It appeared to some, that he was running down homosexuals. After reading his answers several times, don’t think he was doing that. Did not read a judgmental attitude to his answers. Maybe, he could have worded the question differently.

BTW, my answer, if wanted, to his/her question, the biggest difference homosexuals and other philia was the love aspect of the relationship.

Here is the new question, if you are interested.

http://www.fluther.com/91168/nsfw-coprophilia-necrophilia-zoophilia-are-frowned-upon-as-ill-why-what/

@BoBo1946 Thank you!,and sorry if I bother you for this. I had already taken my place there. It still sounds reproachful but it’s now less reproachful,I guess.

This is what I can say after I observed the situation there,not really different than previous question: (I will use metaphor and a little bit of personification for this)

He/she(the OP) is a cheetah(a brave cheetah,not like the other weak/coward cheetah that will usually run away when danger approach) that find his/her own carcass,but then there are a group of lion,of course they’re stronger and they want the carcass too,but this cheetah didn’t run away,it is protecting its meat. I’ve been there before as a cheetah but in different matter. Now I see it fights alone for its carcass there,will I help it? Well of course,I know I’m a cheetah,weaker in built and minority but brave. Will I fear that lions with attack me? I won’t,since I know what I’m doing. I just can’t let those lions to grab that carcass and dominate it just because they’re stronger as the majority.

@Doctor_D fascinating.

[mod says] Actually, only the founders and I get an email if you use the “contact” button. If I’m not on at the time, it may be a while before someone gets back to you that way. If you want to find a mod, there is usually one in the chatroom (if one is on duty at the time).

@Doctor_D Also, you don’t think saying ’ Homosexuality, is an unfit method of sexual expression, parasitical in that it relies on heterosexuality to come to be, and mostly a symptom of human genetic degradation, supported and corrected by technologies’ is a problem?

The original question was an age old attack on homosexuals by comparing homosexuality with various socially determined vile activities. I am not getting into whether or not they are vile because that is not the issue. The issue is the level of vileness these activities are viewed with and the comparison to such vileness.

Usually flame baiters compare homosexuality to pedophilia, marrying inanimate objects, and bestiality. This question just used other terms.

As @Simone_De_Beauvoir said, the asker then said homosexuality is parasitical and the result of human genetic degradation. I was curious as to what the asker was going to pull out of his bag of tricks next.

Someone in that thread listed a different set of comparisons, such as against interracial relationships which, until relatively recently in the historical timeline, were just as reviled as homosexual relationships.

If not for flame bait, why the comparison to what is considered the vilest of the vile vs. other practices that were deemed, back in the day, as alternative?

@Doctor_D no problem my friend…always happy to help!

@augustlan: Oops. Thanks for correcting me!

I believe each person have their own definition of every aspects on this world,and just because it doesn’t fit others definition it doesn’t mean it’s wrong and deserve to be attacked. The way I saw that thread is that he/she is outnumbered by people from the opposite/different group of point. Many people said that he/she was forcing his/her opinion toward other people but don’t you think you and the majority also did the same thing,insisting the OP to accept your perception. Everyone have their own right to believe in their own theory.

If the OP said that honey is sweet but others said that sugar is sweet it doesn’t mean that the OP should accept the perception from others.
“The truth doesn’t lies within the majority,the truth can come from anywhere else”.

I just can’t stand to see if other people need to correct others just because they think they have the best in that particular matter,and because they think others are wrong. I see injustice and discrimination.

We don’t need to attack others just because they’re different from us,differences will always persist in this world,we just need to tell the fact and keep arguing to satisfy our knowledge,not to justify others.

Again,I really don’t take side,I don’t hate philia,homosexuality,etc since I believe we’re animals and animals can do anything they want. I even like those things,since it gives richness to our limited and monotous human society.

@Doctor_D: Unfortunately, the way the question was worded and the responses the OP was giving sounded very much as if he was attacking homosexuals, which goes against exactly what you are saying. I do like the spirit of your message though and gave you a GA. :)

@KatawaGrey I was talking about the new philia question. I didn’t talk about the previous question that compare philia with homosexuality(and I agree that the previous question was somehow offending for some people).

@Doctor_D: Okay. Fair enough. I agree that the revised question is an interesting one but I think people still remember the first one. Also, the OP isn’t all that good at expressing himself. I have a hard time understanding what he’s trying to say, which could be adding to problems.

@BoBo1946 THANK YOU for putting a link to the question in!