I mention Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis and modern psychology, in order to show how long it has been understood to be the case that people can't simply decide to be attracted to whatever they want or feel is "moral".
Besides, I am fairly confident that most comtemporary American Psychologists dismiss Freud out of habit, as the institutions where they got their training probably refused to even try and understand him much less teach him from knowledgeable perspectives . . . . because they can't, seeing as they don't have knowledgeable perspecctives
You sure have appointed yourself gaurdian of our posts with your silly little icons . . . . how many times have you used these in combination in the last two days?
{ooops} make that other pairs of icons as well . . . .
You sure have appointed yourself gaurdian of our posts with your silly little icons . . . . how many times have you used these in combination in the last two days?
{ooops} make that other pairs of icons as well . . . .
It seems people see what they want to see. Or not see what they don't want to see. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy here..
Well, here's a member that I believe, violated the posting guidelines, calling another member stupid. And then subsequently, goes on to post a pic, which by most resoanable standards, would qualify him as such.
Well, here's a member that I believe, violated the posting guidelines, calling another member stupid. And then subsequently, goes on to post a pic, which by most resoanable standards, would qualify him as such.
I mention Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis and modern psychology, in order to show how long it has been understood to be the case that people can't simply decide to be attracted to whatever they want or feel is "moral".
Besides, I am fairly confident that most comtemporary American Psychologists dismiss Freud out of habit, as the institutions where they got their training probably refused to even try and understand him much less teach him from knowledgeable perspectives . . . . because they can't, seeing as they don't have knowledgeable perspecctives
While he certainly is the founder of psychoanalysis, that's not exactly a claim to brag about, given that it's a discredited therapy and an unprovable and unfalsifiable personality theory. And no one would consider him the founder of modern psychology.
And the reason he's dismissed is because the field is empirical, in contrast to Freud, who just made shit up.
While he certainly is the founder of psychoanalysis, that's not exactly a claim to brag about, given that it's a discredited therapy and an unprovable and unfalsifiable personality theory. And no one would consider him the founder of modern psychology.
And the reason he's dismissed is because the field is empirical, in contrast to Freud, who just made shit up.
That sounds like that's right off the truck of your typical cognitive behaviorist band wagon . . . . its discredited by the very insular institutions that refuse to look at him and perpetuate the increasing disregard of his ideas because 'that's what I learned in school'.
I've heard well respected cognitive psychologists express astonishment at how much Freud's ideas made sense when they heard them explained clearly . . . something that, though they taught at an ivy league school, they had managed to never actually hear. . . . so, you probably have read some if you study psych but I bet it was always with the pressuposition that it was 'crap all crap' and therefor never got to see the structure
granted that it needs to be re-articulated to lose its Victorian veneer and all those problems . . . but that can be done well, and has been . . .
besides, if your like me, poetry is more truthful than a valise full of statistics culled by bleary eyed graduate students bent on finishing their dissertations . . . and sure it may be 'unfalsifiable' but it can be seen as 'prose poetry of the sublime' - to quote Harold Bloom . . . .
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!
Last time I checked the school mentioned didn't have any prohibitions on who attended. Tell me how the diversity week would "increase diversity." Would a certain percentage of the population suddenly change their sexual orientation? It was not attempting to increase diversity. It was attempting to unify thought around once concept, that all religions find homosexuality acceptable. That doesn't increase diversity and it doesn't present reality.
What I find amazing is that people think that by virtue of being a minority, somehow certain groups are automatically tolerant of other groups. That is why the claim of increasing diversity is false. Is having some black muslims attending your school increasing diversity? (assuming the school was already largely white, remember asians don't count as "diversity" according to affirmative action supporters) Yes it would be, but they are likely to support homosexual rights? Not a chance. So when you exclude black muslims from the discussion panel, would that be "increasing diversity?"
Quote:
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.
You set up a strawman of having the football team do an activity (sell tickets) that wasn't about showing diversity. I mentioned that if the football team appeared or sponsored a forum in which they discussed say "impact of gender on sports." It would be completely appropriate for them to then participate. The KKK is a group, and I haven't seen any mention of inviting entire groups of people to this event so I don't quite know where you are getting with that. I mentioned ethnic pride as a forum, but even then I don't know who would want to invite a KKK member as an example of ethnic pride though.
Quote:
Diversity Week is dedicated to increasing awareness and acceptance of diversity.
Yes and diversity doesn't not mean uniformity of thought. That is where the school went wrong. Supporting religious diversity for example does not mean all religions are going to believe the same thing. The school did not present religious diversity. It excluded anyone who did not believe as the forum participants. That isn't diversity. You claim it is diversity because it might have increased support for homosexuality. However to do so it decreased support for religion because they couldn't accept religious diversity.
Quote:
Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The gay/straight student alliance showed their own bigotry by being willing to listen religious people who held their views. You have to believe that your better ideas will win the day. You cannot create tolerance for diversity by being exclusionary.
Quote:
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.
Another strawman. I have argued no such things. Diversity is about presenting differences. They obviously had guidelines and I haven't claimed that any group should be exempted from those guidelines. Only you could, with a straight face, suggest that only certain people can participate in a diversity week. If the people follow the guidelines with regard to how to present their different view, then they should be allowed to participate. The school, under advisement that they could be sued, choose to exclude certain people.
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.
What you did in essence is put words in my mouth and you continue to do so. When you can't beat someone on their ideas, I suppose the next best alternative is to lie about and misquote their ideas. Society treats homosexuality negatively. Discussing that does not mean you associate homosexuality with all other negative traits. It is a tired exercise and you should choose a new one. I have stated my clear support for homosexual rights and you are choosing to be obstinate about this since you don't have a good reason for the exclusion at the meeting. So distract, distract, distract I suppose.
Quote:
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.
No one has claimed an attempt to avoid the guidelines for the forum or the week. This is another tired strawman. No one is claiming they were going to walk into the room and scream fire to clear it or that they were going to infringe on the rights of others.
Quote:
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.
The forum was on homosexuality and religion. There must have been plenty of time since they only allowed one view to be reiterated by multiple participants. There could have been time for multiple views. It doesn't water down discussion because having everyone mouth the one same view isn't discussion, it is propaganda.
Quote:
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.
However there are minorities that believe that just speaking about white achievement puts down other groups since some of those achievements occurred against other groups. Likewise it doesn't allow them to misportray the past of others if the others are there to defend it.
Again no one has claimed that there couldn't be guidelines or that certain groups should be exempt from them.
Quote:
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.
Actually on AppleOutsider, they don't get banned. They just call people liars, stupid, and post pictures of buttons. However I don't mind that since their own behavior discredits their case more than I ever could do. I have to believe the same thing within the diversity forum. If the pastor showed up as many here claim, full of hate and yelling while hurling spittle around the room about how homosexuals are evil sinners, then I think that would do more to discredit his case than the presentations of the others. You have to believe in the decision making ability of others when presented with all the information. You cannot limit what they see in an attempt to control their decision making.
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.
Anti-gay is a very broad term. I have had people claim that I am anti-gay for only supporting civil unions.
The forum was religion and homosexuality. It was only pro-gay because they excluded any participants who happened to be religious and have a view they didn't like. They should have been able to present their religions views on homosexuality, perhaps go into a bit of history about it, and then the forum attendies should be intelligent enough to make their own decisions. Instead they presented propaganda.
Quote:
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.
The relevance was simply in the belief that people believe that the basis of homosexuality would somehow affect how people would feel regarding laws about homosexuality. I believe that a false premise.
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 . . . .
Just because I'm not a hypocrit and only apply words to the extent of my comfort with them, doesn't mean I have limited cognition, it means I have the insight to see rhetoric posing as politics.
Free speech applies to people I don't care to hear.
Inclusiveness means letting people into the process that may not share my interests. Diversity doesn't end at one person's definition of diverse enough.
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.
You must not understand that words have definitions. You are a segregationist because you wish to put people in to different non-interacting groups. Black vs. white is just the most well known example. We have no information about the opportunities made available to the Pioneers for Christ. However even in principle I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus. That is segregation and I don't support it. Put the ideas in one room, present them and trust the intelligence of the people viewing the forum to do what is right. You limit the input to limit the output. That sounds authoritarian over people instead of trusting of people.
THE PIONEERS FOR CHRIST TURNED DOWN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD THEIR OWN FORUM WITH THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT!
Christ!
During Monday's court hearing, Lloyd said officials wanted to present a positive message to offset the views of the school's Pioneers for Christ club, of which Hansen was a member. Lloyd said officials also wanted to encourage tolerance and discourage violence and harassment inflicted on gay students at the high school. He also said the Pioneers for Christ were offered an opportunity to hold their own panel discussion but declined.
It sounds like not letting the officials off the hook with an out to justify their harassment of one student group.
Where was their forum to be held? Scheduled during lunch in the unwashed football equipment locker? Even you should be able to understand seperate but equal doesn't really have to end up seperate and equal.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I mention Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis and modern psychology, in order to show how long it has been understood to be the case that people can't simply decide to be attracted to whatever they want or feel is "moral".
Besides, I am fairly confident that most comtemporary American Psychologists dismiss Freud out of habit, as the institutions where they got their training probably refused to even try and understand him much less teach him from knowledgeable perspectives . . . . because they can't, seeing as they don't have knowledgeable perspecctives
Originally posted by ShawnJ
He's stupid, but hey, he gets people talking!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Here are some buttons to play with:
You care more about pushing people's buttons than actually discussing anything.
Originally posted by majorspunk
You sure have appointed yourself gaurdian of our posts with your silly little icons . . . . how many times have you used these in combination in the last two days?
{ooops} make that other pairs of icons as well . . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
You sure have appointed yourself gaurdian of our posts with your silly little icons . . . . how many times have you used these in combination in the last two days?
{ooops} make that other pairs of icons as well . . . .
It seems people see what they want to see. Or not see what they don't want to see. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy here..
Originally posted by majorspunk
It seems people see what they want to see. Or not see what they don't want to see. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy here..
Originally posted by Anders
Originally posted by Anders
I guess some people need explaining..
Well, here's a member that I believe, violated the posting guidelines, calling another member stupid. And then subsequently, goes on to post a pic, which by most resoanable standards, would qualify him as such.
Originally posted by majorspunk
I guess some people need explaining..
Well, here's a member that I believe, violated the posting guidelines, calling another member stupid. And then subsequently, goes on to post a pic, which by most resoanable standards, would qualify him as such.
Originally posted by pfflam
I mention Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis and modern psychology, in order to show how long it has been understood to be the case that people can't simply decide to be attracted to whatever they want or feel is "moral".
Besides, I am fairly confident that most comtemporary American Psychologists dismiss Freud out of habit, as the institutions where they got their training probably refused to even try and understand him much less teach him from knowledgeable perspectives . . . . because they can't, seeing as they don't have knowledgeable perspecctives
While he certainly is the founder of psychoanalysis, that's not exactly a claim to brag about, given that it's a discredited therapy and an unprovable and unfalsifiable personality theory. And no one would consider him the founder of modern psychology.
And the reason he's dismissed is because the field is empirical, in contrast to Freud, who just made shit up.
Originally posted by Anders
Right. Why should you care. But why expect others to care?
Originally posted by Anders
Originally posted by Anders
Originally posted by BRussell
While he certainly is the founder of psychoanalysis, that's not exactly a claim to brag about, given that it's a discredited therapy and an unprovable and unfalsifiable personality theory. And no one would consider him the founder of modern psychology.
And the reason he's dismissed is because the field is empirical, in contrast to Freud, who just made shit up.
That sounds like that's right off the truck of your typical cognitive behaviorist band wagon . . . . its discredited by the very insular institutions that refuse to look at him and perpetuate the increasing disregard of his ideas because 'that's what I learned in school'.
I've heard well respected cognitive psychologists express astonishment at how much Freud's ideas made sense when they heard them explained clearly . . . something that, though they taught at an ivy league school, they had managed to never actually hear. . . . so, you probably have read some if you study psych but I bet it was always with the pressuposition that it was 'crap all crap' and therefor never got to see the structure
granted that it needs to be re-articulated to lose its Victorian veneer and all those problems . . . but that can be done well, and has been . . .
besides, if your like me, poetry is more truthful than a valise full of statistics culled by bleary eyed graduate students bent on finishing their dissertations . . . and sure it may be 'unfalsifiable' but it can be seen as 'prose poetry of the sublime' - to quote Harold Bloom . . . .
Originally posted by bunge
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!
Last time I checked the school mentioned didn't have any prohibitions on who attended. Tell me how the diversity week would "increase diversity." Would a certain percentage of the population suddenly change their sexual orientation? It was not attempting to increase diversity. It was attempting to unify thought around once concept, that all religions find homosexuality acceptable. That doesn't increase diversity and it doesn't present reality.
What I find amazing is that people think that by virtue of being a minority, somehow certain groups are automatically tolerant of other groups. That is why the claim of increasing diversity is false. Is having some black muslims attending your school increasing diversity? (assuming the school was already largely white, remember asians don't count as "diversity" according to affirmative action supporters) Yes it would be, but they are likely to support homosexual rights? Not a chance. So when you exclude black muslims from the discussion panel, would that be "increasing diversity?"
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.
You set up a strawman of having the football team do an activity (sell tickets) that wasn't about showing diversity. I mentioned that if the football team appeared or sponsored a forum in which they discussed say "impact of gender on sports." It would be completely appropriate for them to then participate. The KKK is a group, and I haven't seen any mention of inviting entire groups of people to this event so I don't quite know where you are getting with that. I mentioned ethnic pride as a forum, but even then I don't know who would want to invite a KKK member as an example of ethnic pride though.
Diversity Week is dedicated to increasing awareness and acceptance of diversity.
Yes and diversity doesn't not mean uniformity of thought. That is where the school went wrong. Supporting religious diversity for example does not mean all religions are going to believe the same thing. The school did not present religious diversity. It excluded anyone who did not believe as the forum participants. That isn't diversity. You claim it is diversity because it might have increased support for homosexuality. However to do so it decreased support for religion because they couldn't accept religious diversity.
Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The gay/straight student alliance showed their own bigotry by being willing to listen religious people who held their views. You have to believe that your better ideas will win the day. You cannot create tolerance for diversity by being exclusionary.
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.
Another strawman. I have argued no such things. Diversity is about presenting differences. They obviously had guidelines and I haven't claimed that any group should be exempted from those guidelines. Only you could, with a straight face, suggest that only certain people can participate in a diversity week. If the people follow the guidelines with regard to how to present their different view, then they should be allowed to participate. The school, under advisement that they could be sued, choose to exclude certain people.
Nick
Originally posted by Smircle
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.
What you did in essence is put words in my mouth and you continue to do so. When you can't beat someone on their ideas, I suppose the next best alternative is to lie about and misquote their ideas. Society treats homosexuality negatively. Discussing that does not mean you associate homosexuality with all other negative traits. It is a tired exercise and you should choose a new one. I have stated my clear support for homosexual rights and you are choosing to be obstinate about this since you don't have a good reason for the exclusion at the meeting. So distract, distract, distract I suppose.
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.
No one has claimed an attempt to avoid the guidelines for the forum or the week. This is another tired strawman. No one is claiming they were going to walk into the room and scream fire to clear it or that they were going to infringe on the rights of others.
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.
The forum was on homosexuality and religion. There must have been plenty of time since they only allowed one view to be reiterated by multiple participants. There could have been time for multiple views. It doesn't water down discussion because having everyone mouth the one same view isn't discussion, it is propaganda.
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.
However there are minorities that believe that just speaking about white achievement puts down other groups since some of those achievements occurred against other groups. Likewise it doesn't allow them to misportray the past of others if the others are there to defend it.
Again no one has claimed that there couldn't be guidelines or that certain groups should be exempt from them.
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.
Actually on AppleOutsider, they don't get banned. They just call people liars, stupid, and post pictures of buttons. However I don't mind that since their own behavior discredits their case more than I ever could do. I have to believe the same thing within the diversity forum. If the pastor showed up as many here claim, full of hate and yelling while hurling spittle around the room about how homosexuals are evil sinners, then I think that would do more to discredit his case than the presentations of the others. You have to believe in the decision making ability of others when presented with all the information. You cannot limit what they see in an attempt to control their decision making.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
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.
Anti-gay is a very broad term. I have had people claim that I am anti-gay for only supporting civil unions.
The forum was religion and homosexuality. It was only pro-gay because they excluded any participants who happened to be religious and have a view they didn't like. They should have been able to present their religions views on homosexuality, perhaps go into a bit of history about it, and then the forum attendies should be intelligent enough to make their own decisions. Instead they presented propaganda.
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.
The relevance was simply in the belief that people believe that the basis of homosexuality would somehow affect how people would feel regarding laws about homosexuality. I believe that a false premise.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
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 . . . .
Just because I'm not a hypocrit and only apply words to the extent of my comfort with them, doesn't mean I have limited cognition, it means I have the insight to see rhetoric posing as politics.
Free speech applies to people I don't care to hear.
Inclusiveness means letting people into the process that may not share my interests. Diversity doesn't end at one person's definition of diverse enough.
Nick
Christ!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
You must not understand that words have definitions. You are a segregationist because you wish to put people in to different non-interacting groups. Black vs. white is just the most well known example. We have no information about the opportunities made available to the Pioneers for Christ. However even in principle I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus. That is segregation and I don't support it. Put the ideas in one room, present them and trust the intelligence of the people viewing the forum to do what is right. You limit the input to limit the output. That sounds authoritarian over people instead of trusting of people.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
THE PIONEERS FOR CHRIST TURNED DOWN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD THEIR OWN FORUM WITH THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT!
Christ!
During Monday's court hearing, Lloyd said officials wanted to present a positive message to offset the views of the school's Pioneers for Christ club, of which Hansen was a member. Lloyd said officials also wanted to encourage tolerance and discourage violence and harassment inflicted on gay students at the high school. He also said the Pioneers for Christ were offered an opportunity to hold their own panel discussion but declined.
It sounds like not letting the officials off the hook with an out to justify their harassment of one student group.
Where was their forum to be held? Scheduled during lunch in the unwashed football equipment locker? Even you should be able to understand seperate but equal doesn't really have to end up seperate and equal.
Nick