And what's the point of it being caused by genes or by the way the brain is wired or by simply a different taste?
Never understood that either myself. The argument that links homosexuality together with genes goes something like this: "Homosexuality is caused by the genes and isn´t something one can decide not to be". Not good! What if next year it is shown to be caused by social factors? "Shit what now? what was that other argument? Oh yeah something about homosexual not being anyone elses goddam buisness?"
Reminds me about a current debate we have here right now about immigration. Like every other western country we may suffer from shortage of working people in a few years. So some pro-immigration debaters have used it as THE argument for liberal immigration laws even if they used completely other types of arguments a couple of years ago. But what if we found a way to deal with this situation? Suddenly the main, but adopted, argument suddenly evaporates into thin air.
One of these days, I suppose I will understand why you link to blogs and expect me to give it any significance. The fact that someone writes freelance and posts their opinions to the web is supposed to impress me how again?
I've never been impressed with any of your opinions posted here so I guess you're right about this one.
So, in you view to the world, homosexually is like pedophilia or violence?
And what's the point of it being caused by genes or by the way the brain is wired or by simply a different taste?
Doesn't anyone get tired of that old slippery-slope?
Hmmmmm I believe I'll quote... oh ME on this matter earlier in the thread.
Quote:
I ask this because as someone who supports many homosexual issues, I also know many of the claims regarding those issues are dubious. I just choose not to attack or question them.
In otherwords I give the homosexual community most of the associated rights they desire in argument without questioning whether the argument is truly sound or not.
I mean you do know for example that Roe v. Wade was founded by a woman who didn't have an abortion and who made a false rape claim. However you likely support the right to privacy regardless of the dubious case in which it was affirmed.
The genetic argument about homosexuality is tenuous. There is a large segment of society that would likely still legislate against it even if it were found to be genetic. We legislate against many other behaviors for which there have been found genetic links. To claim we wouldn't for homosexuality isn't claiming homosexuals are pedophiles, alchoholics, violent, etc. It is applying the same criteria (would society legislate against a genetic trait) and getting the same result.
3+2=5
3+4=7
I'm not saying 2 is 4. I'm saying they are both numbers and you can add them. If we pass laws against behaviors, even when they are caused by a genetic trait, is that really a very safe basis on which to base the rights of an entire group of people. I say no, and say I give them the rights REGARDLESS of the basis. In otherwords it could just be a purely personal preference and I would still believe them deserving of the rights. There isn't a way to take away their rights away in that view.
However the flip side of my view is that you don't term people who speak against it to be hateful bigots. There are friends of mine who I feel drink to much. There are others who I feel spend to much money, or spend to little time with their children etc. I don't go around pointing my finger at them and judging them. However by the same token I would be upset if say the school had a forum about motherhood and would only allow stay at home moms to present their views and excluded working moms. The reverse is true as well. You don't call presenting only one side or view "diversity." It is the antithesis of the definition.
Quote:
1. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference.
2. A point or respect in which things differ.
If the gay/straight student alliance wanted to have a pro-homosexuality education week. That would even be fine with me. It would even be fine if they excluded non-pro views during that forum. But don't call it a diversity week and then exclude all other views save for one. That isn't diversity.
But don't call it a diversity week and then exclude all other views save for one. That isn't diversity.
"all other views"? *One* student who filed a lawsuit because she wanted a priest to promote her anti-gay views and yet couldn't even be bothered providing the name of a priest or turning up to a planning meeting?
Plus, your definition of diversity sucks. If I hold something called "diversity week" it is obviously meant to be about "things that are different" and anti-gay sentiment in religion is obviously all too common. By representing the common response in this *one* week out of fifty-two when you want to highlight diversity and difference you are just further marginalising the different voices.
So if some crack-addled definition of what "diversity week" should be about is all you've got, you got nothing.
However the flip side of my view is that you don't term people who speak against it to be hateful bigots.
So what do we term hateful bigots? Or do you claim it's impossible to be (hatefully) bigoted towards gays?
If the KKK claim that they think it's 'immoral' and against their religion to be black, or have a black doctor/teacher/president, or marry between races then they get a free pass (and an invite to diversity week) too?
Dating/marrying outside your 'race' is as least as much of a choice as homosexuality and something that you could probably easily find a clergy member to speak out against even today.
The genetic argument about homosexuality is tenuous. There is a large segment of society that would likely still legislate against it even if it were found to be genetic. We legislate against many other behaviors for which there have been found genetic links. To claim we wouldn't for homosexuality isn't claiming homosexuals are pedophiles, alchoholics, violent, etc. It is applying the same criteria (would society legislate against a genetic trait) and getting the same result.
I must confess, you have me thoroughly confused, I leave the question if this is because of your explanation or me not being a native speaker.
Whatever, I happened to note that you put homosexuality in line with exclusively negative behaviors, and this strikes me as homophob. Why not argue whether society would legislate against men who prefer busty women? Or interracial sex? After all, there is some evidence that the special attraction to a different race is genetically engrained.
Quote:
However the flip side of my view is that you don't term people who speak against it to be hateful bigots.
Someone who seriously compares this incident with the rise of the Nazis is either a completely historically-challenged moron or a hateful bigot. Imho, of course. Could be it is a completely valid comparison
Quote:
If the gay/straight student alliance wanted to have a pro-homosexuality education week. That would even be fine with me. It would even be fine if they excluded non-pro views during that forum. But don't call it a diversity week and then exclude all other views save for one. That isn't diversity.
I don't know what other aspects of human diversity were on the agenda of this week, but I have a hard time believing you would require them to include some local White Aryan Resistance guys in the session on racial diversity. Or in the "Jewish life in the 20th century" session. Or gun protesters at NRA meetings.
As I see it, the panel was about diversity as a positive value, I don't actually understand how this idea is furthered by inviting enemies of diversity.
As I see it, the panel was about diversity as a positive value, I don't actually understand how this idea is furthered by inviting enemies of diversity.
This is really the bottom line and the whole thread is silly. Diversity Week is about increasing and expanding diversity. The KKK is welcome to come if they're there to increase their own diversity, not limit that of others.
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
It's Diversity Week. Can the football team set up a table and sell tickets? No. Does that mean the organizers are against football and want a culture that isn't diverse enough to embrace football? No. It means that selling tickets under the guise of diversity would be a non sequitur. It means that allowing someone to promote anti-diverse rhetoric at a Diversity Week event would be a non sequitur.
Priests are welcome, straights are welcome, KKK members are welcome. Everyone is welcome. Promoting diversity is welcome. Not promoting diversity has a different forum, like Ticketmaster or church.
I must confess, you have me thoroughly confused, I leave the question if this is because of your explanation or me not being a native speaker.
Whatever, I happened to note that you put homosexuality in line with exclusively negative behaviors, and this strikes me as homophob. Why not argue whether society would legislate against men who prefer busty women? Or interracial sex? After all, there is some evidence that the special attraction to a different race is genetically engrained.
First I didn't assign homosexuality to a negative trait. It is treated that way by our society via the law. The claim is that by showing a genetic link they will stop treating it negatively. I don't think that is true. I've stated quite clearly that I would remove most of the current restrictions against homosexuality.
Quote:
Someone who seriously compares this incident with the rise of the Nazis is either a completely historically-challenged moron or a hateful bigot. Imho, of course. Could be it is a completely valid comparison [/B]
It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are plenty of people who believe in total freedom of information because they think that if you can limit information, you can control people. I can recall photos of the German people being marched pass the mass graves in Germany. They didn't want to believe they existed because so much information had been fed to them claiming the contrary. Calling the presentation of one view "diversity" sounds just as 1984ish as anything else I have read or seen.
Quote:
I don't know what other aspects of human diversity were on the agenda of this week, but I have a hard time believing you would require them to include some local White Aryan Resistance guys in the session on racial diversity. Or in the "Jewish life in the 20th century" session. Or gun protesters at NRA meetings.
As I see it, the panel was about diversity as a positive value, I don't actually understand how this idea is furthered by inviting enemies of diversity.
As terrible as it sounds, I would have to support the speech rights of those who would abolish free speech in order to support free speech.
However on this matter, the forums was about religion and homosexuality. You are creating strawmen that you knock down. No one was creating the types of forums you suggest however lets give you the benefit of the doubt.
If there were a forum, for example where various cultural groups were allowed to explain what is special about their culture. Would you advocate not allowing any white students to present their culture? The argument is that it is meant to present diversity and the white culture is the mainstream dominant culture that is encountered daily. I have encountered this type of view and consider it wrong.
Likewise suppose the forum was "Gun use in contemporary society" and only the NRA was allowed to present and all gun control advocates were excluded. I would call it wrong, and I certainly would call the views presented diverse.
This is really the bottom line and the whole thread is silly. Diversity Week is about increasing and expanding diversity. The KKK is welcome to come if they're there to increase their own diversity, not limit that of others.
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
It's Diversity Week. Can the football team set up a table and sell tickets? No. Does that mean the organizers are against football and want a culture that isn't diverse enough to embrace football? No. It means that selling tickets under the guise of diversity would be a non sequitur. It means that allowing someone to promote anti-diverse rhetoric at a Diversity Week event would be a non sequitur.
Priests are welcome, straights are welcome, KKK members are welcome. Everyone is welcome. Promoting diversity is welcome. Not promoting diversity has a different forum, like Ticketmaster or church.
What do you call a diversity week that only promotes one opinion? Is that increasing diversity?
You use football tickets for, I don't really know why. However if there were a forum for "Gender differences in sports" and they only wanted to allow say, pro-women in football speakers and exclude limited/no women in football speakers, I would not consider that diversity. I would consider that thought control.
Dialogue with only one person allowed to speak is a monologue. Diversity with only one view is not diversity. In supporting diversity, you have to risk encountering and dealing with people with whom you don't necessarily have an understanding, common background, etc. That is sort of the point.
What do you call a diversity week that only promotes one opinion? Is that increasing diversity?
If that one opinion is that of increasing diversity, then yes it is increasing diversity. Rest assured there were many people promoting that one opinion, that of increasing diversity, so it was even coming from a diverse set of voices. Good for them!
I mention football for an obvious reason. Diversity Week isn't diverse only if it allows everyone a voice. That's absurd. It's a week dedicated to increasing awareness and acceptance of diversity, nothing more. Football doesn't belong, just as an attempt by the KKK to limit diversity doesn't belong.
Diversity Week is dedicated to increasing awareness and acceptance of diversity.
What you want is cacophony week, chaos week, anarchy week. Those are all fine and dandy. Organize one and have it. Bakery Week wouldn't allow a panel on pet care. It's off-topic at Bakery Week. Limiting homosexuality is off-topic at Diversity Week. Just the same a panel on the ice age would be off-topic as well.
Your argument is that if Diversity Week doesn't allow someone to offer free elephant rides at Diversity Week then Diversity Week isn't diverse. That's sillier than my examples.
First I didn't assign homosexuality to a negative trait. It is treated that way by our society via the law.
What you did in essence was saying "rapists, robbers and blacks". I believe you when you claim to support equal rights, but putting totally disparate behavior in a row just stinks.
Quote:
As terrible as it sounds, I would have to support the speech rights of those who would abolish free speech in order to support free speech.
Yeah, only it is not and was not a free-speach issue. Free speach does not entitle you to walk into every meeting to hijack it with some issue of yours.
Noone was hindering (afaik) to organize a panel on diverse ways to keep up heterosexuality and good faith.
Quote:
However on this matter, the forums was about religion and homosexuality. You are creating strawmen that you knock down. No one was creating the types of forums you suggest however lets give you the benefit of the doubt.
Then they would have needed to include
- satanists who see christian religion different
- anally retentive closet faggots who claim homosexuality is a mental illness
- nihilists who doubt that believing is a good thing
- communists who also despise the church.
This only leads to watering down of any productive discussion.
Quote:
If there were a forum, for example where various cultural groups were allowed to explain what is special about their culture. Would you advocate not allowing any white students to present their culture?
But that's way different. If the white guys were only interested in talking about how bad other cultures were, and how they should not be allowed to influence us or have equal rights, I would exclude them, because it has nothing to do with the topic.
If they would like to attend to present their culture, they should be invited.
I guess if some roman catholic priest had tried to attend to explain why the church has had problems with gays and to work out a way to find a modus vivendi, the reaction would have been different. But who needs a stinker to poison any fruitful exchange of ideas? Even on AppleOutsider, they get banned time and again.
By his own admission? I thought that was the point of this lawsuit - that he was opposed to it and therefore he should have been allowed to talk at this otherwise pro-gay panel.
Quote:
The research on behavior and genetics is still very thin in all areas. To be able to claim, without a doubt or even with a fair degree of doubt that homosexuality is genetic is just not possible for those who care to disagree with the political agenda. They aren't members of the flat earth society. Perhaps someday they will be, but in the meantime they are entitled to their views and to express them without it being entitled bigotry. If someone found a genetic link for pedophilia tomorrow, I don't know if society would just accept it. Likewise genetic predispositions toward say violence by men, or alchoholism hasn't really changed the way society treats these individuals.
I'm not sure how this genetic argument is relevant. I understand where you're trying to go - if homosexuality is a behavior, then it can't be bigotry to be against behavior. But even if it's not genetic, that doesn't mean it's not a disposition rather than a behavior. Research suggests that most people can't just change sexual orientation through conscious choice. And you can be homosexual without engaging in homosexual behavior. When I was 12, I was a flaming heterosexual, even though it was several years before I engaged in bona-fide heterosexual behavior. And many heterosexuals engage in homosexual behavior, but their sexual orientation doesn't change. So it's not just a "behavior." Besides, me and my wife, and I'd guess you and your wife, trumptman, engage in probably about 90% of the same specific behaviors that your average gays and lesbians engage in anyway.
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
You're right . . . I can't remember the name either but I think it has to do with Hair on the Chin or something like that
also it gets its steam from a basic catagory mistake: mistaking the notion of inclusiveness with including those who are against inclusiveness . . . one is of a different order than the other though, in Trumpts rather limited rhetorical cognition abilities, it seems natural that they are really the same thing . . . .
By the way I would add that it has been a constant in psychoanalytic theory since Freud that even though sexuality is developmental you can NOT simply decide to change what attracts you and what repulses you sexually.
Many nuerotic and even some border-line psychotic conditions are in fact seen to be the result of the repression of real desires, or repressed homoseuality . . . paranoia, for example is often seen as resuting from that condition. . . . and the reason for these repressions is often parental and social refusal to allow what is NOT merely a consciouse desicion.
and any "ex-gays' are also lying when they say that it wasn't just experimentation in the first place. . . or are in denial as to their true desires and prone to nuerotic self abuse.
The kind of 'developmental' that Freud et al discuss is absolutely NOT the kind where you can simply toilet train your kids out of being gay, or where any sort of careful tricks can keep it from happening (just ask Reagan or Schlafly) it is deeply unconsciouse and beyond simple consciouse control. . . in both the parents and the childs part.
The idea that sexuality is based on simply turning your orientation on and off, or left and right at will is an illusion of American Ego psychology . . . the kind of mallarcky that has 'therapy' which consists of motivational pep sessions instead of getting at the core of what a psyche is and what are its motivations and desires.
It is also the illusion of the hetero who is stroked by the social norm to believe they simply decided to get married and breed some offspring.
I suppose you would have endorsed segregation. Seperate but equal, a well known and endorsed Democratic device.
Hey Shawn. What do you call a Diversity Week which only has one view? Isn't the point of having a diversity week getting multiple views out? If they had a seperate forum when would it be held? During the "we're also diverse, but the other group is too intolerant to let us speak week?"
Sounds like propaganda being presented as open communication and discussion.
Nick
Here are some buttons to play with:
You care more about pushing people's buttons than actually discussing anything. How else could you justify calling me a segregationist who must hate black people too? You can't justify it, because that's what you enjoy doing.
The Pioneers for Christ and the Gay/Straight Alliance are two separate clubs with different viewpoints. If they wanted to collaborate on a joint-forum and that was okay with school officials, then that's fine. The Gay/Straight Alliance decided to hold its own forum representing its view. According to the law, that's not fine unless related clubs were offered similar opportunities. The Pioneers for Christ turned down that opportunity. Yes, they were excluded from being represented in another club's forum and turned down the opportunity to hold their forum. Boo hoo.
Comments
Originally posted by Smircle
And what's the point of it being caused by genes or by the way the brain is wired or by simply a different taste?
Never understood that either myself. The argument that links homosexuality together with genes goes something like this: "Homosexuality is caused by the genes and isn´t something one can decide not to be". Not good! What if next year it is shown to be caused by social factors? "Shit what now? what was that other argument? Oh yeah something about homosexual not being anyone elses goddam buisness?"
Reminds me about a current debate we have here right now about immigration. Like every other western country we may suffer from shortage of working people in a few years. So some pro-immigration debaters have used it as THE argument for liberal immigration laws even if they used completely other types of arguments a couple of years ago. But what if we found a way to deal with this situation? Suddenly the main, but adopted, argument suddenly evaporates into thin air.
Originally posted by trumptman
One of these days, I suppose I will understand why you link to blogs and expect me to give it any significance. The fact that someone writes freelance and posts their opinions to the web is supposed to impress me how again?
I've never been impressed with any of your opinions posted here so I guess you're right about this one.
Originally posted by Smircle
So, in you view to the world, homosexually is like pedophilia or violence?
And what's the point of it being caused by genes or by the way the brain is wired or by simply a different taste?
Doesn't anyone get tired of that old slippery-slope?
Hmmmmm I believe I'll quote... oh ME on this matter earlier in the thread.
I ask this because as someone who supports many homosexual issues, I also know many of the claims regarding those issues are dubious. I just choose not to attack or question them.
In otherwords I give the homosexual community most of the associated rights they desire in argument without questioning whether the argument is truly sound or not.
I mean you do know for example that Roe v. Wade was founded by a woman who didn't have an abortion and who made a false rape claim. However you likely support the right to privacy regardless of the dubious case in which it was affirmed.
The genetic argument about homosexuality is tenuous. There is a large segment of society that would likely still legislate against it even if it were found to be genetic. We legislate against many other behaviors for which there have been found genetic links. To claim we wouldn't for homosexuality isn't claiming homosexuals are pedophiles, alchoholics, violent, etc. It is applying the same criteria (would society legislate against a genetic trait) and getting the same result.
3+2=5
3+4=7
I'm not saying 2 is 4. I'm saying they are both numbers and you can add them. If we pass laws against behaviors, even when they are caused by a genetic trait, is that really a very safe basis on which to base the rights of an entire group of people. I say no, and say I give them the rights REGARDLESS of the basis. In otherwords it could just be a purely personal preference and I would still believe them deserving of the rights. There isn't a way to take away their rights away in that view.
However the flip side of my view is that you don't term people who speak against it to be hateful bigots. There are friends of mine who I feel drink to much. There are others who I feel spend to much money, or spend to little time with their children etc. I don't go around pointing my finger at them and judging them. However by the same token I would be upset if say the school had a forum about motherhood and would only allow stay at home moms to present their views and excluded working moms. The reverse is true as well. You don't call presenting only one side or view "diversity." It is the antithesis of the definition.
1. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference.
2. A point or respect in which things differ.
If the gay/straight student alliance wanted to have a pro-homosexuality education week. That would even be fine with me. It would even be fine if they excluded non-pro views during that forum. But don't call it a diversity week and then exclude all other views save for one. That isn't diversity.
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
And besides: The gay/straight student alliance, isn´t that a tad discriminating against the bisexuals?
What about the transexuals, polygomists, and future adulterers?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
But don't call it a diversity week and then exclude all other views save for one. That isn't diversity.
"all other views"? *One* student who filed a lawsuit because she wanted a priest to promote her anti-gay views and yet couldn't even be bothered providing the name of a priest or turning up to a planning meeting?
Plus, your definition of diversity sucks. If I hold something called "diversity week" it is obviously meant to be about "things that are different" and anti-gay sentiment in religion is obviously all too common. By representing the common response in this *one* week out of fifty-two when you want to highlight diversity and difference you are just further marginalising the different voices.
So if some crack-addled definition of what "diversity week" should be about is all you've got, you got nothing.
Originally posted by trumptman
However the flip side of my view is that you don't term people who speak against it to be hateful bigots.
So what do we term hateful bigots? Or do you claim it's impossible to be (hatefully) bigoted towards gays?
If the KKK claim that they think it's 'immoral' and against their religion to be black, or have a black doctor/teacher/president, or marry between races then they get a free pass (and an invite to diversity week) too?
Dating/marrying outside your 'race' is as least as much of a choice as homosexuality and something that you could probably easily find a clergy member to speak out against even today.
Originally posted by trumptman
The genetic argument about homosexuality is tenuous. There is a large segment of society that would likely still legislate against it even if it were found to be genetic. We legislate against many other behaviors for which there have been found genetic links. To claim we wouldn't for homosexuality isn't claiming homosexuals are pedophiles, alchoholics, violent, etc. It is applying the same criteria (would society legislate against a genetic trait) and getting the same result.
I must confess, you have me thoroughly confused, I leave the question if this is because of your explanation or me not being a native speaker.
Whatever, I happened to note that you put homosexuality in line with exclusively negative behaviors, and this strikes me as homophob. Why not argue whether society would legislate against men who prefer busty women? Or interracial sex? After all, there is some evidence that the special attraction to a different race is genetically engrained.
However the flip side of my view is that you don't term people who speak against it to be hateful bigots.
Someone who seriously compares this incident with the rise of the Nazis is either a completely historically-challenged moron or a hateful bigot. Imho, of course. Could be it is a completely valid comparison
If the gay/straight student alliance wanted to have a pro-homosexuality education week. That would even be fine with me. It would even be fine if they excluded non-pro views during that forum. But don't call it a diversity week and then exclude all other views save for one. That isn't diversity.
I don't know what other aspects of human diversity were on the agenda of this week, but I have a hard time believing you would require them to include some local White Aryan Resistance guys in the session on racial diversity. Or in the "Jewish life in the 20th century" session. Or gun protesters at NRA meetings.
As I see it, the panel was about diversity as a positive value, I don't actually understand how this idea is furthered by inviting enemies of diversity.
Originally posted by Smircle
As I see it, the panel was about diversity as a positive value, I don't actually understand how this idea is furthered by inviting enemies of diversity.
This is really the bottom line and the whole thread is silly. Diversity Week is about increasing and expanding diversity. The KKK is welcome to come if they're there to increase their own diversity, not limit that of others.
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
It's Diversity Week. Can the football team set up a table and sell tickets? No. Does that mean the organizers are against football and want a culture that isn't diverse enough to embrace football? No. It means that selling tickets under the guise of diversity would be a non sequitur. It means that allowing someone to promote anti-diverse rhetoric at a Diversity Week event would be a non sequitur.
Priests are welcome, straights are welcome, KKK members are welcome. Everyone is welcome. Promoting diversity is welcome. Not promoting diversity has a different forum, like Ticketmaster or church.
Originally posted by bunge
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
On the net: Off-topic, or trolling depending on the malicious intent or lack thereof
Originally posted by Smircle
I must confess, you have me thoroughly confused, I leave the question if this is because of your explanation or me not being a native speaker.
Whatever, I happened to note that you put homosexuality in line with exclusively negative behaviors, and this strikes me as homophob. Why not argue whether society would legislate against men who prefer busty women? Or interracial sex? After all, there is some evidence that the special attraction to a different race is genetically engrained.
First I didn't assign homosexuality to a negative trait. It is treated that way by our society via the law. The claim is that by showing a genetic link they will stop treating it negatively. I don't think that is true. I've stated quite clearly that I would remove most of the current restrictions against homosexuality.
Someone who seriously compares this incident with the rise of the Nazis is either a completely historically-challenged moron or a hateful bigot. Imho, of course. Could be it is a completely valid comparison
It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are plenty of people who believe in total freedom of information because they think that if you can limit information, you can control people. I can recall photos of the German people being marched pass the mass graves in Germany. They didn't want to believe they existed because so much information had been fed to them claiming the contrary. Calling the presentation of one view "diversity" sounds just as 1984ish as anything else I have read or seen.
I don't know what other aspects of human diversity were on the agenda of this week, but I have a hard time believing you would require them to include some local White Aryan Resistance guys in the session on racial diversity. Or in the "Jewish life in the 20th century" session. Or gun protesters at NRA meetings.
As I see it, the panel was about diversity as a positive value, I don't actually understand how this idea is furthered by inviting enemies of diversity.
As terrible as it sounds, I would have to support the speech rights of those who would abolish free speech in order to support free speech.
However on this matter, the forums was about religion and homosexuality. You are creating strawmen that you knock down. No one was creating the types of forums you suggest however lets give you the benefit of the doubt.
If there were a forum, for example where various cultural groups were allowed to explain what is special about their culture. Would you advocate not allowing any white students to present their culture? The argument is that it is meant to present diversity and the white culture is the mainstream dominant culture that is encountered daily. I have encountered this type of view and consider it wrong.
Likewise suppose the forum was "Gun use in contemporary society" and only the NRA was allowed to present and all gun control advocates were excluded. I would call it wrong, and I certainly would call the views presented diverse.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
This is really the bottom line and the whole thread is silly. Diversity Week is about increasing and expanding diversity. The KKK is welcome to come if they're there to increase their own diversity, not limit that of others.
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
It's Diversity Week. Can the football team set up a table and sell tickets? No. Does that mean the organizers are against football and want a culture that isn't diverse enough to embrace football? No. It means that selling tickets under the guise of diversity would be a non sequitur. It means that allowing someone to promote anti-diverse rhetoric at a Diversity Week event would be a non sequitur.
Priests are welcome, straights are welcome, KKK members are welcome. Everyone is welcome. Promoting diversity is welcome. Not promoting diversity has a different forum, like Ticketmaster or church.
What do you call a diversity week that only promotes one opinion? Is that increasing diversity?
You use football tickets for, I don't really know why. However if there were a forum for "Gender differences in sports" and they only wanted to allow say, pro-women in football speakers and exclude limited/no women in football speakers, I would not consider that diversity. I would consider that thought control.
Dialogue with only one person allowed to speak is a monologue. Diversity with only one view is not diversity. In supporting diversity, you have to risk encountering and dealing with people with whom you don't necessarily have an understanding, common background, etc. That is sort of the point.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What do you call a diversity week that only promotes one opinion? Is that increasing diversity?
If that one opinion is that of increasing diversity, then yes it is increasing diversity. Rest assured there were many people promoting that one opinion, that of increasing diversity, so it was even coming from a diverse set of voices. Good for them!
I mention football for an obvious reason. Diversity Week isn't diverse only if it allows everyone a voice. That's absurd. It's a week dedicated to increasing awareness and acceptance of diversity, nothing more. Football doesn't belong, just as an attempt by the KKK to limit diversity doesn't belong.
Diversity Week is dedicated to increasing awareness and acceptance of diversity.
What you want is cacophony week, chaos week, anarchy week. Those are all fine and dandy. Organize one and have it. Bakery Week wouldn't allow a panel on pet care. It's off-topic at Bakery Week. Limiting homosexuality is off-topic at Diversity Week. Just the same a panel on the ice age would be off-topic as well.
Your argument is that if Diversity Week doesn't allow someone to offer free elephant rides at Diversity Week then Diversity Week isn't diverse. That's sillier than my examples.
Originally posted by trumptman
First I didn't assign homosexuality to a negative trait. It is treated that way by our society via the law.
What you did in essence was saying "rapists, robbers and blacks". I believe you when you claim to support equal rights, but putting totally disparate behavior in a row just stinks.
As terrible as it sounds, I would have to support the speech rights of those who would abolish free speech in order to support free speech.
Yeah, only it is not and was not a free-speach issue. Free speach does not entitle you to walk into every meeting to hijack it with some issue of yours.
Noone was hindering (afaik) to organize a panel on diverse ways to keep up heterosexuality and good faith.
However on this matter, the forums was about religion and homosexuality. You are creating strawmen that you knock down. No one was creating the types of forums you suggest however lets give you the benefit of the doubt.
Then they would have needed to include
- satanists who see christian religion different
- anally retentive closet faggots who claim homosexuality is a mental illness
- nihilists who doubt that believing is a good thing
- communists who also despise the church.
This only leads to watering down of any productive discussion.
If there were a forum, for example where various cultural groups were allowed to explain what is special about their culture. Would you advocate not allowing any white students to present their culture?
But that's way different. If the white guys were only interested in talking about how bad other cultures were, and how they should not be allowed to influence us or have equal rights, I would exclude them, because it has nothing to do with the topic.
If they would like to attend to present their culture, they should be invited.
I guess if some roman catholic priest had tried to attend to explain why the church has had problems with gays and to work out a way to find a modus vivendi, the reaction would have been different. But who needs a stinker to poison any fruitful exchange of ideas? Even on AppleOutsider, they get banned time and again.
Originally posted by trumptman
In what manner was he attemping to be anti-gay?
By his own admission? I thought that was the point of this lawsuit - that he was opposed to it and therefore he should have been allowed to talk at this otherwise pro-gay panel.
The research on behavior and genetics is still very thin in all areas. To be able to claim, without a doubt or even with a fair degree of doubt that homosexuality is genetic is just not possible for those who care to disagree with the political agenda. They aren't members of the flat earth society. Perhaps someday they will be, but in the meantime they are entitled to their views and to express them without it being entitled bigotry. If someone found a genetic link for pedophilia tomorrow, I don't know if society would just accept it. Likewise genetic predispositions toward say violence by men, or alchoholism hasn't really changed the way society treats these individuals.
I'm not sure how this genetic argument is relevant. I understand where you're trying to go - if homosexuality is a behavior, then it can't be bigotry to be against behavior. But even if it's not genetic, that doesn't mean it's not a disposition rather than a behavior. Research suggests that most people can't just change sexual orientation through conscious choice. And you can be homosexual without engaging in homosexual behavior. When I was 12, I was a flaming heterosexual, even though it was several years before I engaged in bona-fide heterosexual behavior. And many heterosexuals engage in homosexual behavior, but their sexual orientation doesn't change. So it's not just a "behavior." Besides, me and my wife, and I'd guess you and your wife, trumptman, engage in probably about 90% of the same specific behaviors that your average gays and lesbians engage in anyway.
Originally posted by bunge
I believe stupid recursive arguments like this have a name, but I can't remember what they're called.
You're right . . . I can't remember the name either but I think it has to do with Hair on the Chin or something like that
also it gets its steam from a basic catagory mistake: mistaking the notion of inclusiveness with including those who are against inclusiveness . . . one is of a different order than the other though, in Trumpts rather limited rhetorical cognition abilities, it seems natural that they are really the same thing . . . .
Many nuerotic and even some border-line psychotic conditions are in fact seen to be the result of the repression of real desires, or repressed homoseuality . . . paranoia, for example is often seen as resuting from that condition. . . . and the reason for these repressions is often parental and social refusal to allow what is NOT merely a consciouse desicion.
and any "ex-gays' are also lying when they say that it wasn't just experimentation in the first place. . . or are in denial as to their true desires and prone to nuerotic self abuse.
The kind of 'developmental' that Freud et al discuss is absolutely NOT the kind where you can simply toilet train your kids out of being gay, or where any sort of careful tricks can keep it from happening (just ask Reagan or Schlafly) it is deeply unconsciouse and beyond simple consciouse control. . . in both the parents and the childs part.
The idea that sexuality is based on simply turning your orientation on and off, or left and right at will is an illusion of American Ego psychology . . . the kind of mallarcky that has 'therapy' which consists of motivational pep sessions instead of getting at the core of what a psyche is and what are its motivations and desires.
It is also the illusion of the hetero who is stroked by the social norm to believe they simply decided to get married and breed some offspring.
Originally posted by pfflam
in Trumpts rather limited rhetorical cognition abilities, it seems natural that they are really the same thing . . . .
Originally posted by majorspunk
He's stupid, but hey, he gets people talking!
Originally posted by trumptman
I suppose you would have endorsed segregation. Seperate but equal, a well known and endorsed Democratic device.
Hey Shawn. What do you call a Diversity Week which only has one view? Isn't the point of having a diversity week getting multiple views out? If they had a seperate forum when would it be held? During the "we're also diverse, but the other group is too intolerant to let us speak week?"
Sounds like propaganda being presented as open communication and discussion.
Nick
Here are some buttons to play with:
You care more about pushing people's buttons than actually discussing anything. How else could you justify calling me a segregationist who must hate black people too? You can't justify it, because that's what you enjoy doing.
The Pioneers for Christ and the Gay/Straight Alliance are two separate clubs with different viewpoints. If they wanted to collaborate on a joint-forum and that was okay with school officials, then that's fine. The Gay/Straight Alliance decided to hold its own forum representing its view. According to the law, that's not fine unless related clubs were offered similar opportunities. The Pioneers for Christ turned down that opportunity. Yes, they were excluded from being represented in another club's forum and turned down the opportunity to hold their forum. Boo hoo.
Originally posted by pfflam
...Freud...