This is why I HATE America. Seriously. Free speech goes only so far. This guy takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it fire, and punches it in the face.
Insert required 'if you don't like it, get out' statement here.
Why? I can be entitled to my own opinions. I, personally, do not like the U.S. system of government. I wish we could have a direct Democracy, so we, the people, could boot this idiot out, and have more laws that we, the people, want. The idea that someone is filling in for what we believe in is a little over the top.
the guy is a twit, no doubt. but he has a 1st ammendment right to be one. he isnt breaking the law and he can say whatever he wants. its up to the voters (or in this case, the governor) to decide whether he gets to keep his job or not.
Personally I think trans-gender housing is a really dumb idea. I wouldnt have attacked it on the grounds that gay people are bad - just on the grounds that they dont deserve any special molly-coddling from the government. strait people pay taxes too. AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chowderhead13 wrote:Why? I can be entitled to my own opinions. I, personally, do not like the U.S. system of government. I wish we could have a direct Democracy, so we, the people, could boot this idiot out
they the people might in fact boot that idiot out. but if you arent a citizen of that state then you dont get a say in the matter anymore than they get a say in who gets to hold office in your state. thats federalism.
AF
chowderhead13 wrote:Why? I can be entitled to my own opinions. I, personally, do not like the U.S. system of government. I wish we could have a direct Democracy, so we, the people, could boot this idiot out, and have more laws that we, the people, want. The idea that someone is filling in for what we believe in is a little over the top.
Dear god, I'm ranting. Well, you get the point.
You're entitled to your incredibly wrong opinions, that is true. But so does that scumbag.
This is why I HATE America. Seriously. Free speech goes only so far. This guy takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it fire, and punches it in the face.
So basically you hate America because people are allowed to hold and express views that you strongly disagree with? Granted, this guy seems like a complete douche, but I don't see how expressing extreme views that many people will probably disagree with "takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it [on] fire, and punches it in the face." Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with or supporting this guy's ideas, but being able to express unpopular views is kind of what free speech is all about.
I hope Shirvell will learn a lesson from this and come back to reality (assuming he's ever visited reality in the first place).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:The gay flag with the swastika is confusing.
This is a perfect expression of the thought process of ultraconservatism in America. People like Shirvell honestly believe that there is a massive gay conspiracy to . . . actually, I never quite understood what it was aiming to do.
This is why I hate SOME parts of America. I believe in democracy, just a Direct democracy, like the Athenians. I believe in free speech, just I don't like some aspects of it. I believe that all US citizens should be directly involved in the Government, not a few select people. I do not, like Frazzled said, like Dictatorships. They are a horrible Idea, and have all ended with massive bloodshed and countrywide turmoil. No, I believe in the people having power. And scumbags like this losing his job over this.
Also, what happened to rule no 1? I feel like a ass for saying this, but a a Dakkan citizen, I feel I should have rights.
Ahtman wrote:The gay flag with the swastika is confusing.
This is a perfect expression of the thought process of ultraconservatism in America. People like Shirvell honestly believe that there is a massive gay conspiracy to . . . actually, I never quite understood what it was aiming to do.
Manchu wrote:I hope Shirvell will learn a lesson from this and come back to reality (assuming he's ever visited reality in the first place).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:The gay flag with the swastika is confusing.
This is a perfect expression of the thought process of ultraconservatism in America. People like Shirvell honestly believe that there is a massive gay conspiracy to . . . actually, I never quite understood what it was aiming to do.
I think they're concerned that the people involved in their imaginary massive gay conspiracy want to "recruit" more gays, and that they're a "threat to the American family" or something like that. Like, they're afraid they'll turn people gay or something. Lewis Black has a pretty good explanation for why that's crazy (in case anyone actually needs an explanation). You can find it on YouTube.
That asst. AG is obviously a closeted gay. I'm talking sucking dick in a major airport bathroom gay. Sending texts to congressional pages gay. Inviting teenage parishioners to your cabin in the mountains so you can be their "spiritual father" gay.
He is by far the gayest of the two people taking part in that interview.
Also, OP what you believe about politics now doesn't mean jack you're going to have a completely different political leaning within 5 years. I guarantee it.
avantgarde wrote:That asst. AG is obviously a closeted gay. I'm talking sucking dick in a major airport bathroom gay. Sending texts to congressional pages gay. Inviting teenage parishioners to your cabin in the mountains so you can be their "spiritual father" gay.
He is by far the gayest of the two people taking part in that interview.
Pulling a Larry Craig, I see? Hmm...
Also, OP what you believe about politics now doesn't mean jack you're going to have a completely different political leaning within 5 years. I guarantee it.
I probably will, but for now, I'm sticking by my guns.
Ahtman wrote:The gay flag with the swastika is confusing.
This is a perfect expression of the thought process of ultraconservatism in America. People like Shirvell honestly believe that there is a massive gay conspiracy to . . . actually, I never quite understood what it was aiming to do.
Massive conspiracy to...color coordinate!
You laugh but one of his favorite mentors actually has this theory that gay men have used flat-chested fashion models to manipulate otherwise psychologically healthy men into pedophilic tendencies. I gak you not.
Those Westburo baptists aren't the only sideshow freaks out there. Some of them may be working in your very own local government!
Ahtman wrote:The gay flag with the swastika is confusing.
This is a perfect expression of the thought process of ultraconservatism in America. People like Shirvell honestly believe that there is a massive gay conspiracy to . . . actually, I never quite understood what it was aiming to do.
Massive conspiracy to...color coordinate!
You laugh but one of his favorite mentors actually has this theory that gay men have used flat-chested fashion models to manipulate otherwise psychologically healthy men into pedophilic tendencies. I gak you not.
Those Westburo baptists aren't the only sideshow freaks out there. Some of them may be working in your very own local government!
This is Texas. All our freaks are out in the open or closeted (pun intend) on self imposed compounds waiting for the end times.
Well I have serious issues with the fashion industry and models used but thats related to image issues and the same opinion as the girl scouts (you're pushing what are eseentially concentration camp victims out to represent what women should look like). Thats completely separate however from this, and is in line with the people protesting the hip hop lyrics that glorify the degredation of women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chowderhead13 wrote:This is why I hate SOME parts of America. I believe in democracy, just a Direct democracy, like the Athenians. I believe in free speech, just I don't like some aspects of it. I believe that all US citizens should be directly involved in the Government, not a few select people. I do not, like Frazzled said, like Dictatorships. They are a horrible Idea, and have all ended with massive bloodshed and countrywide turmoil. No, I believe in the people having power. And scumbags like this losing his job over this.
Also, what happened to rule no 1? I feel like a ass for saying this, but a a Dakkan citizen, I feel I should have rights.
You want to control what free speech is. Thats pretty god damn dictatorial and antithetical to USA ideals.
Rule #1 has not been violated. I have not once insulted you. But the truth shall set you free!
This is why I HATE America. Seriously. Free speech goes only so far. This guy takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it fire, and punches it in the face.
I am so unsuprised that you are 14.
Listen kid, the 1st Amendment works both ways. That is what is GREAT about America. If you have a problem with this, then you need to get the hell out the day you leave your parents house.
This is why I HATE America. Seriously. Free speech goes only so far. This guy takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it fire, and punches it in the face.
I am so unsuprised that you are 14.
I hate this. Why, If you are a child, you are dumped on, yet as an adult, you can throw rallies in Washington about why the government is corrupt and evil. Jesus, has it come to where psycho gun toting loonies are more respected than today's free thinking youth?
I hate this. Why, If you are a child, you are dumped on, yet as an adult, you can throw rallies in Washington about why the government is corrupt and evil. Jesus, has it come to where psycho gun toting loonies are more respected than today's free thinking youth?
Having seen the decisions made by your average free thinking youth... you betcha.
This is why I HATE America. Seriously. Free speech goes only so far. This guy takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it fire, and punches it in the face.
I am so unsuprised that you are 14.
I hate this. Why, If you are a child, you are dumped on, yet as an adult, you can throw rallies in Washington about why the government is corrupt and evil. Jesus, has it come to where psycho gun toting loonies are more respected than today's free thinking youth?
You weren't saying anything about the government. You were attacking a man for practicing his 1st amendment right. You were screaming about how awful America is for allowing such a right.
That is why we are dumping on you. Cause your young and dumb. Don't sweat it to much though. We were all like that at one point in our life.
This is why I HATE America. Seriously. Free speech goes only so far. This guy takes free speech, throws it out the window, sets it fire, and punches it in the face.
I am so unsuprised that you are 14.
I hate this. Why, If you are a child, you are dumped on, yet as an adult, you can throw rallies in Washington about why the government is corrupt and evil. Jesus, has it come to where psycho gun toting loonies are more respected than today's free thinking youth?
You weren't saying anything about the government. You were attacking a man for practicing his 1st amendment right. You were screaming about how awful America is for allowing such a right.
That is why we are dumping on you. Cause your young and dumb.
chowderhead13 wrote:
I hate this. Why, If you are a child, you are dumped on, yet as an adult, you can throw rallies in Washington about why the government is corrupt and evil. Jesus, has it come to where psycho gun toting loonies are more respected than today's free thinking youth?
I doubt you have enough data to be considered truly free thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, but learning is a function of time spent learning, which is a function of the time that you've been alive. That doesn't mean that older people are always more knowledgeable about a given topic, but it means they will always have more knowledge, in general, than younger people.
Still, dismissing people because they're young is lazy and childish. Proof that the old have problems with maturity too.
8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.
8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.
8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.
8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.
8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.
8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.
8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.
9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.
9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."
10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).
10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.
11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.
12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.
12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.
1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.
2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.
3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.
4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.
6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.
6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.
7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"
7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.
8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.
10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.
12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.
chowderhead13 wrote: I believe in democracy, just a Direct democracy, like the Athenians. .
Sorry but no way. The Athenians had an extremely limited pool of voters and alot smaller list of topics. If we tried something like that it would be, well, like the internet, but alot worse. What's that saying about arguing on the internet?
So arguing in an Athenian Democracy is a lot like participating in the Olympics, even if you win you're still dedicating your victory to the Olympian Gods?
dogma wrote:Still, dismissing people because they're young is lazy and childish. Proof that the old have problems with maturity too.
I think many would agree, but I also think we can agree that it isn't surprising that people would lol when a 14 year old uses hyperbole and insults because he sees free speech as intolerance and wants to crack down on it for that sake of freedom.
Considering the hyberbole and insults that typically get thrown around here by people renowned for their advanced years, I'd say that it's very mature of the original poster and laud him for following in the august footsteps of his biggers and betters.
Ahtman wrote:
I think many would agree, but I also think we can agree that it isn't surprising that people would lol when a 14 year old uses hyperbole and insults because he sees free speech as intolerance and wants to crack down on it for that sake of freedom.
Oh, I'm not saying I didn't chuckle, that would be lying and lying is wrong. Unless you're in a relationship, a politician, or a parent.
avantgarde wrote:That asst. AG is obviously a closeted gay. I'm talking sucking dick in a major airport bathroom gay. Sending texts to congressional pages gay. Inviting teenage parishioners to your cabin in the mountains so you can be their "spiritual father" gay.
He is by far the gayest of the two people taking part in that interview.
Nurglitch wrote:Considering the hyberbole and insults that typically get thrown around here by people renowned for their advanced years, I'd say that it's very mature of the original poster and laud him for following in the august footsteps of his biggers and betters.
Indeed, I also think people would have tromped on an elder that made the same remarks.
The way I understood it, in calling for Athenian democracy, Chowderhead is wanting a limited franchise democratic theocracy, the re-institution of slavery (though not race based, we want to be fair), and the the barring of females from education. I think he may be on to something. Oh, and older men will have to take on a younger man as a 'mentor'. Say, when the boy is about 12-14.
Nurglitch wrote:Considering the hyberbole and insults that typically get thrown around here by people renowned for their advanced years, I'd say that it's very mature of the original poster and laud him for following in the august footsteps of his biggers and betters.
Indeed, I also think people would have tromped on an elder that made the same remarks.
The way I understood it, in calling for Athenian democracy, Chowderhead is wanting a limited franchise democratic theocracy, the re-institution of slavery (though not race based, we want to be fair), and the the barring of females from education. I think he may be on to something. Oh, and older men will have to take on a younger man as a 'mentor'. Say, when the boy is about 12-14.
If this isn't sarcasm, I think I'll blow a gasket.
Well, I'm old enough that the only people that heard my thoughts when I was 14 were my friends.
BTW, that was hilarious Nugrlitch. I've felt that the words "gay agenda" have a pretty horrible meaning to the christian right, but damned if I know what it is.
Gailbraithe wrote:Come on guys, the kid is 14. Let he amongst you who didn't subscribe to some poorly thought out bad ideas at 14 throw the first stone.
I would have but I was too busy dodging Egyptian arrows. Oh what a day that was.
Eh, once again. Free speech...I'm willing to bet that this Assistant Attorny General is probably a major troll on several websites. But still...his opinions are his opinion, and he's not breaking a law unless he's actively calling for an illegal act to be performed. We may not like it, but it doesn't mean we have the right to censor it.
On the Athenian democracy debate...no. Just, no. We think that our decision making process is slow now with making some 400 odd members of Congress trying to come to agree? Imagine how much harder it would be to get anything done if for any decision you had to take a general election involving all 300 million Americans? There's a reason we moved away from pure direct democracy, and that reason is it is far too inefficient and slow when it comes to running a large country. That's why we elect people to represent our interests in higher government, and it is my opinion that the republic is a far superior system of government. Heck, in an ideal world I'd vote for a benevolent dictatorship (not necessarily, but hopefully, ruled by an Anatolian calling himself 'the Emperor' ) Of course, what with humans being humans and all a benevolent dictatorship will never work......ah well, I can dream can't I?
OP - dont take the age attack too personal. It just happens. My niece is 17 and is easily the most immature person Ive ever had the pleasure of knowing. Most teens are the same way. Im honestly surprised that at 14 you show interests in politics. It shows a bit a maturity, but your still young mate. Older people hark on you because young = inexperience. You wont get experience until your older thats just how life works. One of my cousins is just about to turn 15, and she might be more mature in life then I am at 26. The girl wakes upself up for school, makes herself breakfast, wakes her younger brother up, makes HIM breakfast, is a strait A student, has cheer leading after school, walks across town to actually TEACH gymnastics and then home for the night to wash her clothing and do home work. BUT...... I still have seen her pull the teenager thing and completely lose track of what she is suppose to do. Again, age brings experience.....usually.
I have to say about the VID, that guy is a serious asshat. Way to look like a total Ahole on TV buddy
ChrisWWII wrote:Eh, once again. Free speech...I'm willing to bet that this Assistant Attorny General is probably a major troll on several websites. But still...his opinions are his opinion, and he's not breaking a law unless he's actively calling for an illegal act to be performed. We may not like it, but it doesn't mean we have the right to censor it.
Yeah, but free speech ends well before you end up getting barred from a university campus for stalking the object of your speechifying, and showing up at his residence at weird hours of the night. The guy is either completely nuts, or completely gay but so deep in the closet that the only thing he can do about his gay crush is go completely stalker about it.
He's on leave now pending getting fired.
EDIT: I'd say so much for free speech, but I support the right of public employers (ie tax paid for supporters) terminating people who are abhorrent to the public.
Bookwrack wrote:
Yeah, but free speech ends well before you end up getting barred from a university campus for stalking the object of your speechifying, and showing up at his residence at weird hours of the night. The guy is either completely nuts, or completely gay but so deep in the closet that the only thing he can do about his gay crush is go completely stalker about it.
....Yeah. Good point. I was more referring to his blog postings. The stalker part? Camping outside the guys house? Ok, I'm fairly sure there's a law against that.
Frazzled: Good to know then.....I'm in agreement. He's entitled to his opinions, but...the way he's going about expressing them, and the immaturity of said expression? I'd call that grounds for termination.
Free Speech does not imply any obligation on the part of employers, government or private, to continue in positions of responsibility people who are obviously morons. He can continue to picket this guy if he wants, but he'll probably be too busy looking for a job.
chowderhead13 wrote:If this isn't sarcasm, I think I'll blow a gasket.
Athenian democracy just doesn't work today. Sure it used to when you were dealing with a city state with a population of maybe a quarter million and territory you could walk across in a day at a brisk pace. When your population is pretty static, your laws half set because the gods say so, and your budget can be done on the back of a napkin you can work things directly.
You can't do it today. 300+ million people, a country you need a car and the better part of a week to get across, far flung trade and military interests with constant interaction and integration of new peoples and cultures.
The shear volume of legislation working its way through Congress at any given time would mean the only way you could stay on top of it would be to have nothing at all to do every day, all day, but read legislation. Forget doing research, talking to other people, or even really thinking it out and debating it. Just keeping up with everything would be a full time job. Then you've got to vote on it, tweak it if it doesn't pass, revote, etc. Budgeting by a committee of 300 million? Are you kidding me? Forget things like scheduling votes, determining what needs to be put forth as a bill or just trying to coral all the bills people would be putting in for consideration.
To refer to such a situation as pure chaos would be an understatement of epic proportions.
No, a representative republic is a good compromise. The key is making sure you elect good representatives.
Frankly the amount of legislation passed by some parliaments is beyond anyone's capacity to keep track of.
For example, the UK parliament created something like 6,000 new criminal offences in the past 10 years -- this is on top of everything that already existed. The Solicitor General himself said he had no idea what they all might be and didn't think anyone else would either.
I think it was Frank Herbert who wrote a short story about a society that employed professional saboteurs to prevent legislation from overwhelming society.
chowderhead13 wrote:If this isn't sarcasm, I think I'll blow a gasket.
Athenian democracy just doesn't work today. Sure it used to when you were dealing with a city state with a population of maybe a quarter million and territory you could walk across in a day at a brisk pace. When your population is pretty static, your laws half set because the gods say so, and your budget can be done on the back of a napkin you can work things directly.
You can't do it today. 300+ million people, a country you need a car and the better part of a week to get across, far flung trade and military interests with constant interaction and integration of new peoples and cultures.
The shear volume of legislation working its way through Congress at any given time would mean the only way you could stay on top of it would be to have nothing at all to do every day, all day, but read legislation. Forget doing research, talking to other people, or even really thinking it out and debating it. Just keeping up with everything would be a full time job. Then you've got to vote on it, tweak it if it doesn't pass, revote, etc. Budgeting by a committee of 300 million? Are you kidding me? Forget things like scheduling votes, determining what needs to be put forth as a bill or just trying to coral all the bills people would be putting in for consideration.
To refer to such a situation as pure chaos would be an understatement of epic proportions.
No, a representative republic is a good compromise. The key is making sure you elect good representatives.
You could just set up the votes as a twitter account and make everyone tweet yes or no on every decision. The real problem with something like this is if you had 51% of people who had some crazy idea like gay people can't get married, or slavery is good or anything that would violate basic rights of a group that isn't bigger than 51% of the people. With the speed technology is progressing a direct democracy would be doable, but it wouldn't be good.
Polonius wrote:BTW, that was hilarious Nugrlitch. I've felt that the words "gay agenda" have a pretty horrible meaning to the christian right, but damned if I know what it is.
Yeah, that was awesome Nurglitch. And I think the 'gay agenda' basically means people being openly gay, and going about their lives without shame. Seeing other people going about healthy, satisfying, openly gay lives when you're deep in the closet must be pretty confronting.
Not that this Asst Attorney General would be fighting any gay urges. No siree. Not at all.
BrockRitcey wrote:Athenian democracy just doesn't work today. Sure it used to when you were dealing with a city state with a population of maybe a quarter million and territory you could walk across in a day at a brisk pace. When your population is pretty static, your laws half set because the gods say so, and your budget can be done on the back of a napkin you can work things directly.
True. What's more, even at the scale of Athens they couldn't produce have direct democracy - it was only accessible to the top tiers of society.
Frazzled wrote:He's on leave now pending getting fired.
EDIT: I'd say so much for free speech, but I support the right of public employers (ie tax paid for supporters) terminating people who are abhorrent to the public.
Maybe - sort of. I think it matters when the abhorrent opinions relate to their job. I think if it was a machinist then they should be quite welcome to spend their weekends complaining about the takeover
But if the job involves a level of professional judgement relating to the issue he's completely nuts about, it's a different matter. The law plays a key role in protecting the rights of gay people, so when an Asst Attorney General is completely bonkers about the issue, it throws into doubt his willingness to use his offce to properly protect their rights. As such there's a decent case to be made that he isn't fit for office.
Of course, it may be possible he's executed his role admirably in protecting homosexuals, stranger things have happened. If that's true, and such cases can be provided, then he really should be entitled to keep his position.
I think another point here is that his 1-man-crusade directly relates to his competence, not just to enforce the laws, but in a more general sense. The man is a political apointee and he's running around embarrassing his boss, who is an elected official. It speaks to his intelligence that, given the nature of his employment, he doesn't have the good sense to keep his stone age opinions to himself. So..... I guess to me the broader principle here is that he might be too dumb to fulfill the essential functions of his job, if he doesnt have the good sense to not do this kind of thing.
I encourage free speech as a basic tool of good governance however. It makes the wackos so much easier to identify and remove AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: That being said I don't think that asking the taxpayers to subsidize trans-gendered housing on campus was a particularly helpful suggestion on the part of this student activist. I mean suppose he carries the idea - what next? will the govt be paying for special dorms for midgets? super-stable, super-serene nurseries for autistic students? what about on-campus psychiatric wards so crazy people can go to school? At some level people have to be able to cope with their..... peculiarities.... and overcome the awkwardness it might cause them, or else they can't participate. It's not the government's job to babysit people.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
That being said I don't think that asking the taxpayers to subsidize trans-gendered housing on campus was a particularly helpful suggestion on the part of this student activist. I mean suppose he carries the idea - what next? will the govt be paying for special dorms for midgets? super-stable, super-serene nurseries for autistic students? what about on-campus psychiatric wards so crazy people can go to school? At some level people have to be able to cope with their..... peculiarities.... and overcome the awkwardness it might cause them, or else they can't participate. It's not the government's job to babysit people.
As I understand it the student was campaigning for gender-blind housing, which means that students can cohabitate regardless of sex or gender identification. It also means that, in dorms where bathrooms are shared, at least some of the facilities will be open to all people, regardless of sexual or gender identification.
BrockRitcey wrote:You could just set up the votes as a twitter account and make everyone tweet yes or no on every decision. The real problem with something like this is if you had 51% of people who had some crazy idea like gay people can't get married, or slavery is good or anything that would violate basic rights of a group that isn't bigger than 51% of the people. With the speed technology is progressing a direct democracy would be doable, but it wouldn't be good.
...you think that's the biggest problem with that idea? No, the problem isn't allowing everyone to vote, that's simple. So simple I didn't even address it. The entire problem is that there is simply not enough time for anyone to keep up with all the legislation working its way through Congress, do research on it, formulate an opinion, debate about it, consider it some more, then cast an intelligent vote. We have an entire class of jobs called Congressmen who that's their only job and even they can't do it. They have to employ staffs, have other people write position papers, etc. to even have a hope of keeping up with a small fraction of it. There is no way direct democracy can work in a country of any size. There's just too much to do.
sebster wrote:
Tyyr wrote:Athenian democracy just doesn't work today. Sure it used to when you were dealing with a city state with a population of maybe a quarter million and territory you could walk across in a day at a brisk pace. When your population is pretty static, your laws half set because the gods say so, and your budget can be done on the back of a napkin you can work things directly.
True. What's more, even at the scale of Athens they couldn't produce have direct democracy - it was only accessible to the top tiers of society.
Only about one in four men actually qualified to vote and if memory serves most of them didn't. At some points they had to pay people to show up for votes because without it they couldn't reach a quorum.
Additionally, beyond the time concern, how in Terra's name do you manage an election of that size? Even if only 10% of the population turned up to vote, that's still 30 million people. How can you fight vote fraud on that scale? How can you have any sort of meaningful discussion on that scale? You quite simply can't. You can't gather 30 million people in a room, and ask them all to give their opinion, let alone 10 times that.
As has been said many times before, the Athenian democracy only allowed a tiny fraction of people to vote. The current democratic republic allows that, but in a much more fair way than the Athenians' determined who had the right to vote.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
That being said I don't think that asking the taxpayers to subsidize trans-gendered housing on campus was a particularly helpful suggestion on the part of this student activist. I mean suppose he carries the idea - what next? will the govt be paying for special dorms for midgets? super-stable, super-serene nurseries for autistic students? what about on-campus psychiatric wards so crazy people can go to school? At some level people have to be able to cope with their..... peculiarities.... and overcome the awkwardness it might cause them, or else they can't participate. It's not the government's job to babysit people.
As I understand it the student was campaigning for gender-blind housing, which means that students can cohabitate regardless of sex or gender identification. It also means that, in dorms where bathrooms are shared, at least some of the facilities will be open to all people, regardless of sexual or gender identification.
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tyrr wrote: Only about one in four men actually qualified to vote and if memory serves most of them didn't. At some points they had to pay people to show up for votes because without it they couldn't reach a quorum.
I think the motivation behind this was to allow working people to take the day off from work so they could participate in politics. Not exactly popular with the upper class since it meant more popular (mob) participation.
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF
What this ignores is that 'growing tits' is not a choice. Some people have a genetic abnormality which results in them possessing both male and female sexual characteristics, as you pointed out, breasts and a penis. They did not choose this lifestyle. It was placed into their genetic code. Many of them choose one gender or another to pursue. This describes intersex individuals, who are physically inbetween sexes.
Transexual individuals are those who feel as if they are placed in a wrong body, and identify completely with the other gender. They may choose to undergo sexchange surgery.
Additionally, he's not asking for whole new buildings to be constructed for them to live in. He's asking for certain buildings to be set as 'gender bllind' aka, normally males and females can not room together in college. However, in these buildings they could room together. This does not seem like too much to ask for people who feel distinctly uncomfortable being forced to live as males when they identify as female or vice versa. Remember, they are not 'choosing' to be transgendered any more than someone 'chooses' to be homosexual.
See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.
*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy.
Why is this particularly difficult though? It doesn't really impinge on the lifestyle choices of anyone else. If you're uncomfortable living with members of the opposite sex, then you are still free to decide not to do so. Its also not an issue limited to transgendered people. Many, many homosexuals are uncomfortable living with members of the same sex due to the resultant sexual tension. I had a lesbian suite-mate in college for this very reason.
Think of it another way. By forcing people to live with members of the same sex the state is effectively taking special measures to accommodate heterosexual individuals to the exclusion of any other possible option. The alternative, gender blind housing, costs very nearly nothing (and very often, absolutely nothing) and appeals to a number of people outside the transgendered community.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF
And self-image is a direct result of the physical state of one's brain, just like all other mental states.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.
*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.
Until you've lived with a woman that you aren't sleeping with you have no idea how horribly inaccurate that statements is.
Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.
*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.
As usual Frazzled, your posts make me laugh at the debate, no matter how serious the topic matter is. But while, no doubt, some would use it as. "Awesome, I can 'room' with my boyfriend/girlfriend." I doubt it'd be that big an issue.....
Would you feel happier if everyone who took the gender blind dorm had to raise an attack dachshund for your army as tribute?
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF
What this ignores is that 'growing tits' is not a choice. Some people have a genetic abnormality which results in them possessing both male and female sexual characteristics, as you pointed out, breasts and a penis. They did not choose this lifestyle. It was placed into their genetic code. Many of them choose one gender or another to pursue. This describes intersex individuals, who are physically inbetween sexes.
no hermaphrodites dont choose their lifestyle. that's true. they have some special challenges no doubt. I just think it would be absurd for universities to provide hermaphrodites with special housing. that's all. other people do in fact choose to grow tits. they take pills especially for that purpose.
Transexual individuals are those who feel as if they are placed in a wrong body, and identify completely with the other gender. They may choose to undergo sexchange surgery.
Additionally, he's not asking for whole new buildings to be constructed for them to live in. He's asking for certain buildings to be set as 'gender bllind' aka, normally males and females can not room together in college. However, in these buildings they could room together. This does not seem like too much to ask for people who feel distinctly uncomfortable being forced to live as males when they identify as female or vice versa. Remember, they are not 'choosing' to be transgendered any more than someone 'chooses' to be homosexual.
people don't choose their predispositions, but they do choose what to do with those predispositions. No one's saying they can't live the way they want to. But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.
Maybe that seems insensitive but if you ask other people to make accomodations for you then you need a better reason than "it will make me feel more comfortable with the extreme lifestyle I choose to practice."
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.
Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.
*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.
As usual Frazzled, your posts make me laugh at the debate, no matter how serious the topic matter is. But while, no doubt, some would use it as. "Awesome, I can 'room' with my boyfriend/girlfriend." I doubt it'd be that big an issue.....
Would you feel happier if everyone who took the gender blind dorm had to raise an attack dachshund for your army as tribute?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy.
Why is this particularly difficult though? It doesn't really impinge on the lifestyle choices of anyone else. If you're uncomfortable living with members of the opposite sex, then you are still free to decide not to do so. Its also not an issue limited to transgendered people. Many, many homosexuals are uncomfortable living with members of the same sex due to the resultant sexual tension. I had a lesbian suite-mate in college for this very reason.
It creates a bad precedent. Next thing midgets get their own dorms because they need short kitchen counters and little refrigerators to not be inconvenienced. You want midgets to go to school don't you? you want them to be happy and well adjusted dont you? Is it really that big of a deal to ask the university to shell out a couple million dollars to refit a few dormatories so midgets will feel better? This kind of thing leads to absurdity. Best to stop it right up front. In addition to that it creates extra rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, etc. It's far, far better to just keep things the way they are. Believe me same-sex dormatories are a god-send to gay university students all over the world.
Think of it another way. By forcing people to live with members of the same sex the state is effectively taking special measures to accommodate heterosexual individuals to the exclusion of any other possible option. The alternative, gender blind housing, costs very nearly nothing (and very often, absolutely nothing) and appeals to a number of people outside the transgendered community.
some heterosexual people might object to this situation - young women and their families, for instance, who are concerned about unwanted sexual advances and rape. I believe the incidence of these would go up if young men and women were housed together on campus. that's surely a bigger problem than the miniscule number of transgendered people on campus....
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF
And self-image is a direct result of the physical state of one's brain, just like all other mental states.
thoughts determine brain chemistry as much as brain chemistry determines thoughts. People have more control over their own mental processes than they like to pretend. The upshot of arguments that thinking is the result of brain chemistry which is beyond one's control is that one's actions are beyond one's control and one is therefore not responsible for them. This is not only politically dangerous, it's also just wrong. Most of us exercise self control every day. Transgendered people make a conscious decision to alter their physical gender. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just shouldn't have to subsidize that decision with my tax dollars, that's all.
AF
No I think its highly accurate. I am old, therefore an expert on all things old. Most of my advice is feth you, if I couldn't do it, you don't get to. (ok most of my advice is really just feth you).
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I just think it would be absurd for universities to provide hermaphrodites with special housing. that's all.
Strawman. No one is suggest special housing for hermaphrodites.
But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.
Again with the straw man. No one is demanding 'special' housing.
And by the way, midgets likely do have the right to special housing under the Americans with Disabilities act. Granted, I might be wrong on that, but it would fall under the same consideration as someone that uses a wheelchair.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I just think it would be absurd for universities to provide hermaphrodites with special housing. that's all.
Strawman. No one is suggest special housing for hermaphrodites.
ChrisWWII did. If he didnt intend to carry his argument about hermaphrodites not choosing their condition to special housing then it doesn't have anything to do with anything.
But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.
Again with the straw man. No one is demanding 'special' housing.
the student president wants to rearrange the housing situation based on the preference of a tiny minority of the student population. that's special accomodations. special 'housing' may not have been the best word. mea culpa.
And by the way, midgets likely do have the right to special housing under the Americans with Disabilities act. Granted, I might be wrong on that, but it would fall under the same consideration as someone that uses a wheelchair.
I doubt it, but would be curious to know what the law actually says.
Team Weinie would be down with appropriately heighted tables and counters. The Shanker gets very tired of having to jump up into any chair left out to access the kitchen table when we are not looking, when he's not dragging dead birds into the house.
thing is the midget would probably have the better claim to special accomodations. after all he has an actual physical condition. the transgendered person just wants to be a boy/girl/whatever.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It creates a bad precedent. Next thing midgets get their own dorms because they need short kitchen counters and little refrigerators to not be inconvenienced. You want midgets to go to school don't you? you want them to be happy and well adjusted dont you? Is it really that big of a deal to ask the university to shell out a couple million dollars to refit a few dormatories so midgets will feel better? This kind of thing leads to absurdity.
There is a massive difference between purpose building dorms for midgets, and 'rezoning' preexisting dorms in a way which is nonexclusive. The midget dorm would be unusable for anyone else, the gender blind dorm would be perfectly acceptable to anyone who wasn't set on living in heterosexually biased housing.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Best to stop it right up front. In addition to that it creates extra rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, etc. It's far, far better to just keep things the way they are. Believe me same-sex dormatories are a god-send to gay university students all over the world.
First off, it hasn't been stopped right up front. Almost all universities in the States offer co-educational and single sex housing, as well as dormitories with permanent quiet hours, religion specific housing (normally this is done for Jews, but I've seen it for Muslims as well, and Christians), and all sorts of other special concessions. Most of which require far more in terms of expenditure than gender blind housing; maintaining Kosher kitchens in Jewish dormitories, for example.
Second, the addition to the bureaucracy is minuscule, if it exists at all. Housing offices at universities will not create additional staff for this sort of thing, its literally just one more housing option that people can choose from in the course of their academic career.
Third, its extremely poor form to speak in general terms about what constitutes a 'god-send' to a large gender category. It isn't as though all heterosexual students enjoy living in coeducational dormitories, or single sex dormitories. Individual people have different preferences, and gender blind housing can accommodate some of them for a minimal cost, if any.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
some heterosexual people might object to this situation - young women and their families, for instance, who are concerned about unwanted sexual advances and rape. I believe the incidence of these would go up if young men and women were housed together on campus. that's surely a bigger problem than the miniscule number of transgendered people on campus....
Young men and women are already housed together in coed dormitories, and almost always have the option of living in single-sex dormitories. The only difference between gender blind dormitories and coeducational dormitories is that men and women can occupy the same room, which is entirely a matter of choice for the residents.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
thoughts determine brain chemistry as much as brain chemistry determines thoughts. People have more control over their own mental processes than they like to pretend. The upshot of arguments that thinking is the result of brain chemistry which is beyond one's control is that one's actions are beyond one's control and one is therefore not responsible for them. This is not only politically dangerous, it's also just wrong. Most of us exercise self control every day.
There is no particular reason that we cannot blame someone because their actions are the result of their brain chemistry instead of what we would conventionally call conscious thought. We blame autistic children for their difficulties, but we're also more understanding of their struggles because we know that its difficult for them to act differently. Homosexuality, and transgender issues are the same way.
You also have to be careful to note that exercising self-control does not mean behaving like everyone else. Exercising self-control means ignoring some impulses while acting on others, which has no necessary bearing on what, specifically, a given person will actually do. For example, I exercise self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another drink. I'm not, however, exercising self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another coffee as I have no impulse to drink coffee.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Transgendered people make a conscious decision to alter their physical gender. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just shouldn't have to subsidize that decision with my tax dollars, that's all.
AF
No, that is completely wrong. Transgendered people have not necessarily undergone surgery to modify their bodies.
AF wrote:
people don't choose their predispositions, but they do choose what to do with those predispositions. No one's saying they can't live the way they want to. But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.
I would totally be on your side if they were building some new building for them or something like that. But they aren't. They're changing the rules of an existing building to allow for trans and intersecual individuals to live more comfortably. Besides, I'm perfectly willing to bet there are straight couples who wouldn't mind rooming together in a college.
The difference between this and midgets getting their own specialized redesigned building is that to renovate a building, you must spend money. To change the rules? Barely anything at all.
Young men and women are already housed together in coed dormitories, and almost always have the option of living in single-sex dormitories. The only difference between gender blind dormitories and coeducational dormitories is that men and women can occupy the same room, which is entirely a matter of choice for the residents.
Well then, to quote She Who Must Obeyed, what exactly is the big ing deal anyway?
Well then, to quote She Who Must Obeyed, what exactly is the big ing deal anyway?
Nog confused.
To me, nothing. But, Abaddon sees it as conforming too much to niche needs. At least, that's what I'm getting out of his arguments...please correct me if I'm wrong.
That's basically what everyone for gender blind dormitories thinks too. It mystifies a lot of people that there is so much opposition to the idea. Usually it comes down to people like the AG mentioned in this thread being against the integration of alternative genders into the student population, or a sort of indefinable wrongness that is felt with respect to the idea of men and women living in the same room. Even though its a basic reality of coeducational housing, its not like all those hetero couples are spending their nights alone. For that matter, its not like all those gay couples are doing it either.
Despite what is usually said against gender blindness, it has almost nothing to do with sex.
dogma wrote:That's basically what everyone for gender blind dormitories thinks too. It mystifies a lot of people that there is so much opposition to the idea. Usually it comes down to people like the AG mentioned in this thread being against the integration of alternative genders into the student population, or a sort of indefinable wrongness that is felt with respect to the idea of men and women living in the same room. Even though its a basic reality of coeducational housing, its not like all those hetero couples are spending their nights alone. For that matter, its not like all those gay couples are doing it either.
Despite what is usually said against gender blindness, it has almost nothing to do with sex.
Well I think we've learned something valuable today. Oh wait, no we haven't. p
The more important question is, which dorm eats more pizza, coed or same sex? Pizzaaaaaa....
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It creates a bad precedent. Next thing midgets get their own dorms because they need short kitchen counters and little refrigerators to not be inconvenienced. You want midgets to go to school don't you? you want them to be happy and well adjusted dont you? Is it really that big of a deal to ask the university to shell out a couple million dollars to refit a few dormatories so midgets will feel better? This kind of thing leads to absurdity.
There is a massive difference between purpose building dorms for midgets, and 'rezoning' preexisting dorms in a way which is nonexclusive. The midget dorm would be unusable for anyone else, the gender blind dorm would be perfectly acceptable to anyone who wasn't set on living in heterosexually biased housing.
the difference is one of degree. once you've admitted the principle that any minority - no matter how small - has the right to make special demands on institutions, you're going to be lead by steps and degrees to exactly this situation. midgets dont have any less right to be happy and well adjusted than LGBT people. if the taxpayers have to shell out a couple of million dollars to make them feel better then that just shows we really are an all-inclusive, equality-based society.
It's the principle I object to.
Best to stop it right up front. In addition to that it creates extra rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, etc. It's far, far better to just keep things the way they are. Believe me same-sex dormatories are a god-send to gay university students all over the world.
First off, it hasn't been stopped right up front. Almost all universities in the States offer co-educational and single sex housing, as well as dormitories with permanent quiet hours, religion specific housing (normally this is done for Jews, but I've seen it for Muslims as well, and Christians), and all sorts of other special concessions. Most of which require far more in terms of expenditure than gender blind housing; maintaining Kosher kitchens in Jewish dormitories, for example.
and all of which are a bad idea. the government shouldn't be paying to segregate its citizens into exclusive little tribes based on race/religion/sexual preference etc. If people want to do that it ought to be on their own dime.
Second, the addition to the bureaucracy is minuscule, if it exists at all. Housing offices at universities will not create additional staff for this sort of thing, its literally just one more housing option that people can choose from in the course of their academic career.
not for this one thing, no. but to enact the principle - that special groups deserve special housing considerations - it absolutely does require an expansion of the bureaucracy. that's more people drawing a salary and making rules that don't actually lead to anything productive. it's just a drain on everyone.
Third, its extremely poor form to speak in general terms about what constitutes a 'god-send' to a large gender category. It isn't as though all heterosexual students enjoy living in coeducational dormitories, or single sex dormitories. Individual people have different preferences, and gender blind housing can accommodate some of them for a minimal cost, if any.
I can't be bothered to tip toe around your sensibilities, dogma. young gay men like having sex with other young gay men. gender based housing increases their sexual opportunities and is likely to be looked upon favorably by that group. However disturbing that frank statement of fact may be to your delicate sense of propriety, it is in fact true.
some heterosexual people might object to this situation - young women and their families, for instance, who are concerned about unwanted sexual advances and rape. I believe the incidence of these would go up if young men and women were housed together on campus. that's surely a bigger problem than the miniscule number of transgendered people on campus....
Young men and women are already housed together in coed dormitories, and almost always have the option of living in single-sex dormitories. The only difference between gender blind dormitories and coeducational dormitories is that men and women can occupy the same room, which is entirely a matter of choice for the residents.
so what's this student activist's problem? why does that situation not satisfy him? Or if it would, and he's advocating for the creation of those dorms, why does it have to be couched in language exclusive to the LGBT community?
thoughts determine brain chemistry as much as brain chemistry determines thoughts. People have more control over their own mental processes than they like to pretend. The upshot of arguments that thinking is the result of brain chemistry which is beyond one's control is that one's actions are beyond one's control and one is therefore not responsible for them. This is not only politically dangerous, it's also just wrong. Most of us exercise self control every day.
There is no particular reason that we cannot blame someone because their actions are the result of their brain chemistry instead of what we would conventionally call conscious thought. We blame autistic children for their difficulties, but we're also more understanding of their struggles because we know that its difficult for them to act differently. Homosexuality, and transgender issues are the same way.
I don't find anything blame worthy that is not chosen. volition is a basic principle of morality. in its absence I dont see how there can be any guilt, blame, or responsibility.
You also have to be careful to note that exercising self-control does not mean behaving like everyone else. Exercising self-control means ignoring some impulses while acting on others, which has no necessary bearing on what, specifically, a given person will actually do. For example, I exercise self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another drink. I'm not, however, exercising self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another coffee as I have no impulse to drink coffee.
It basically boils down to it not hurting anyone (It costs no extra money to have the option and it is not an option forced on someone who doesn't want it). I doubt there is any real argument against it besides wanting to discriminate against someone who is different in one way or another.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the difference is one of degree. once you've admitted the principle that any minority - no matter how small - has the right to make special demands on institutions, you're going to be lead by steps and degrees to exactly this situation. midgets dont have any less right to be happy and well adjusted than LGBT people. if the taxpayers have to shell out a couple of million dollars to make them feel better then that just shows we really are an all-inclusive, equality-based society.
It's the principle I object to.
If that's true, then you shouldn't be opposing this. After all, all state institutions, and institutions that accept state funding, already make concessions to the handicapped in terms of accessibility.
That's the problem with slippery slope arguments, if they hold water, then the conversation that they're being levied with respect to shouldn't be happening. Or, if it is happening, then the whole matter is just a waste of breath as it was settled long ago by an unrelated decision.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
and all of which are a bad idea. the government shouldn't be paying to segregate its citizens into exclusive little tribes based on race/religion/sexual preference etc. If people want to do that it ought to be on their own dime.
Then why are they paying to segregate them on the basis of sex? If the issue really is one of not paying for anything, then gender blind housing is by far the cheapest solution. Anyone can live anywhere, no worries over any delineation.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
not for this one thing, no. but to enact the principle - that special groups deserve special housing considerations - it absolutely does require an expansion of the bureaucracy. that's more people drawing a salary and making rules that don't actually lead to anything productive. it's just a drain on everyone.
And it has already happened. In fact, it happened as soon as colleges became sexually integrated, and began to offer housing.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I can't be bothered to tip toe around your sensibilities, dogma. young gay men like having sex with other young gay men. gender based housing increases their sexual opportunities and is likely to be looked upon favorably by that group. However disturbing that frank statement of fact may be to your delicate sense of propriety, it is in fact true.
Its not a matter of sensibilities, its literally a matter of fact. You're making a broad, inaccurate statement in order to support your argument. That should be criticized so that it can be corrected.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
so what's this student activist's problem? why does that situation not satisfy him? Or if it would, and he's advocating for the creation of those dorms, why does it have to be couched in language exclusive to the LGBT community?
Its not, that's just what the assistant AG was claiming.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I don't find anything blame worthy that is not chosen. volition is a basic principle of morality. in its absence I dont see how there can be any guilt, blame, or responsibility.
Its really quite easy. If a person does something, then they can be blamed for it. If an autistic person were a liability in a given situation we would surely blame him for being autistic, and thus keep him out of the situation in which he would a liability.
Remember, choice cannot occur unless you are constrained, and if you are constrained, and these is no 'homunculus', then its quite likely that you serve as definite constraint on yourself. That may not eliminate choice altogether, but it very certainly redefines its meaning.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF
I think you probably need to do do a lot more reading on the subject, because none of what you wrote there relates in any way to what's being said by the transgendered, or by the people studying their condition. In fact, there are essential biological differences between men's and women's brains, and sometimes they don't always end up in the right body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:It is true, we do. Sex is pretty awesome pretty much the majority of a human's life cycle.
Dude, you're on a wargaming site. That's not a nice thing to bring up.
skyth wrote:It basically boils down to it not hurting anyone (It costs no extra money to have the option and it is not an option forced on someone who doesn't want it). I doubt there is any real argument against it besides wanting to discriminate against someone who is different in one way or another.
dorms cost money to build. if you take a section of the dorm and say "gender-blind only" then that limits its use by other groups of people. Its an allocation of resources to suit the preferences of a tiny minority of people. I'm not against equal treatment - I'm against the reallocation of tax dollars to suit peoples lifestyle choices. AF
Can I have a 'long-haired-rock-dudes-who-like-blondes' dorm? I feel that my personal choices and lifestyle is not being properly embraced by the university community.
Equal treatment means NO treatment. If you want to live with a choice pick of certain types of people and segregate yourself then do so. Don't expect it to be the rest of the community's responsibility to facilitate it though. One year when I was in college I lived in a house with 5 girls and one other guy. Nobody in the house was sleeping with anyone else in the house we all had external GF/BF. None of us had a problem (well except a few days a month when me and the other guy kind of weren't around much because girls living together tend to start cycling together).
I don't see any big deal in wanting a certain type of roommate, I for instance would not want to live with a frivolous annoying gay guy, but then again I wouldn't want to live with anyone frivolous and annoying. My choice. But still, I feel underrepresented by lack of provisions made for 'long-haired-rock-dude' housing.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the difference is one of degree. once you've admitted the principle that any minority - no matter how small - has the right to make special demands on institutions, you're going to be lead by steps and degrees to exactly this situation. midgets dont have any less right to be happy and well adjusted than LGBT people. if the taxpayers have to shell out a couple of million dollars to make them feel better then that just shows we really are an all-inclusive, equality-based society.
It's the principle I object to.
If that's true, then you shouldn't be opposing this. After all, all state institutions, and institutions that accept state funding, already make concessions to the handicapped in terms of accessibility.
That's the problem with slippery slope arguments, if they hold water, then the conversation that they're being levied with respect to shouldn't be happening. Or, if it is happening, then the whole matter is just a waste of breath as it was settled long ago by an unrelated decision.
It is happening but its not necessarily a waste of breath. Laws are written through a participatory process and I'm participating in it. Sure I'd like to end the whole practice. But I'll settle for making a small contribution to limiting its advance in this one area. Handi-capped people have a far better claim to special treatment than transgendered people do - they have a physical disability that is not based on choice and prevents them from getting basic access to institutions that their tax dollars help fund. On that basis the law ought to be rewritten. Transgendered people have a psychological condition that may or may not be based on choice and does not in any case prevent them from doing anything but feeling better about themselves. The university doesn't owe them any special favors.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
and all of which are a bad idea. the government shouldn't be paying to segregate its citizens into exclusive little tribes based on race/religion/sexual preference etc. If people want to do that it ought to be on their own dime.
Then why are they paying to segregate them on the basis of sex? If the issue really is one of not paying for anything, then gender blind housing is by far the cheapest solution. Anyone can live anywhere, no worries over any delineation.
maybe we shouldn't be. thats for individual universities to decide based on the needs of their students. the original theory as I understand it was to get students to concentrate on their studies rather than sex. If thats what university administrators decide helps them run a more efficient school, great. that's in the interests of the institution and therefor permissible - its not a special favor to a couple maladjusted people.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I can't be bothered to tip toe around your sensibilities, dogma. young gay men like having sex with other young gay men. gender based housing increases their sexual opportunities and is likely to be looked upon favorably by that group. However disturbing that frank statement of fact may be to your delicate sense of propriety, it is in fact true.
Its not a matter of sensibilities, its literally a matter of fact. You're making a broad, inaccurate statement in order to support your argument. That should be criticized so that it can be corrected.
If you have a specific disagreement lets hear it - but criticizing the language I'm using as "bad form" is silly. It doesnt have anything to do with anything - other than your personal sensibilities.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
so what's this student activist's problem? why does that situation not satisfy him? Or if it would, and he's advocating for the creation of those dorms, why does it have to be couched in language exclusive to the LGBT community?
Its not, that's just what the assistant AG was claiming.
he sounded like a radical activist to me. The AG was a moron but that doesn't mean the student government guy wasn't.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I don't find anything blame worthy that is not chosen. volition is a basic principle of morality. in its absence I dont see how there can be any guilt, blame, or responsibility.
Its really quite easy. If a person does something, then they can be blamed for it. If an autistic person were a liability in a given situation we would surely blame him for being autistic, and thus keep him out of the situation in which he would a liability.
no we would not blame him for being autistic. but we would recognize that he has a condition for which he is not responsible and on that basis try to keep him out of situations where his presence would be a problem. there is no moral component to autism - its not chosen anymore than baldness lefthandedness or skin color is, and is therefore not subject to moral judgment.
The thing is, they're NOT denying the use of the dorms to the rest of the population. A straight couple could just as easily live in gender blind housing as could a gay couple, or two transgendered people. Or two regular guys, or two straight women. ANYONE can live there, as there is no delineation. It'd actually be cheaper as you no longer have to have unfilled rooms because you have more boys than girls, and thus have rooms on 'girls only' floors or in 'girls only' buildings sitting empty. Anyone can live anywhere with anyone. Period.
I don't see how that's creating an additional expense, and I can easily see a way it would save money, as well as make one more fraction of the population happier. What's wrong with that?
As to the sex argument (if that's actually being discussed? o.O) that is so the student's choice. The student chooses to waste his/her time boinking his/her boy/girlfriend instead of studying and then flunks out....whose fault is that? The university for not keeping them separated? Or the students for not focusing more.
ChrisWWII wrote:The thing is, they're NOT denying the use of the dorms to the rest of the population. A straight couple could just as easily live in gender blind housing as could a gay couple, or two transgendered people. Or two regular guys, or two straight women. ANYONE can live there, as there is no delineation. It'd actually be cheaper as you no longer have to have unfilled rooms because you have more boys than girls, and thus have rooms on 'girls only' floors or in 'girls only' buildings sitting empty. Anyone can live anywhere with anyone. Period.
I don't see how that's creating an additional expense, and I can easily see a way it would save money, as well as make one more fraction of the population happier. What's wrong with that?
As to the sex argument (if that's actually being discussed? o.O) that is so the student's choice. The student chooses to waste his/her time boinking his/her boy/girlfriend instead of studying and then flunks out....whose fault is that? The university for not keeping them separated? Or the students for not focusing more.
I thought dorm rooms and roommates were selected by the dorm and not the person?
I think in general they are chosen by the dorm, but a person can request to room with someone specific I believe. Somehow, I think a gender blind room would be something you'd have to specifically request, just like how at my uni I could request a single room or whatever.
ChrisWWII wrote:I think in general they are chosen by the dorm, but a person can request to room with someone specific I believe. Somehow, I think a gender blind room would be something you'd have to specifically request, just like how at my uni I could request a single room or whatever.
I would see extreme difficulty in a dorm forcing a man and woman to sleep in the same room.
It's perfectly reasonable to say, transgender people can room with other people as long as the other people are accepting of the situation, and if no-one wants to do it, then I'm sorry but there aren't any available rooms this year.
That is a different thing to either forcing people together, or forcing them apart.
Depends entirerly on the university. My dorm has 5 individual people per flat, but I could also have gone for a standard me and one roommate, or I could have a triple, etc. etc. Though, I assume the closest thing to a standard dorm is two people per room.
Kilkrazy wrote:
How many people share a typical dorm room?
I think the standard is 2, though I am sure their are some exceptions. I always had one roommate and most of my friends that went to college did as well. My friends that went straight from High School into the military on the other hand had a lot more roommates.
ChrisWWII wrote:The thing is, they're NOT denying the use of the dorms to the rest of the population. A straight couple could just as easily live in gender blind housing as could a gay couple, or two transgendered people. Or two regular guys, or two straight women. ANYONE can live there, as there is no delineation. It'd actually be cheaper as you no longer have to have unfilled rooms because you have more boys than girls, and thus have rooms on 'girls only' floors or in 'girls only' buildings sitting empty. Anyone can live anywhere with anyone. Period.
I don't see how that's creating an additional expense, and I can easily see a way it would save money, as well as make one more fraction of the population happier. What's wrong with that?
As to the sex argument (if that's actually being discussed? o.O) that is so the student's choice. The student chooses to waste his/her time boinking his/her boy/girlfriend instead of studying and then flunks out....whose fault is that? The university for not keeping them separated? Or the students for not focusing more.
Yeah that's what apartments are for. Last I heard you are legally an adult at 18. Nobody needs to babysit you and tell you the rules any more. If you want to live in a coddling environment (undergrad college really is just a big babysitter so these supposed 'adults' can put off growing up for 4 years anyway) then you have to abide by its rules. I hated that my university tried to lead us into thinking they required all freshmen to live in the dorms. I contested it, and got my own room in a boarding house under my own jurisdiction. Sorry I don't need an RA bugging me for coming in too late. I'm a legal adult. I can make my own choices. If that includes boinking away instead of paying attention to my classes well that's my decision isn't it? College kids are big babys pretending to be grownups. If you need a babysitter to keep the boys away from the girls or make sure you aren't drinking underage then move back in with mommy and daddy.
ChrisWWII wrote:The thing is, they're NOT denying the use of the dorms to the rest of the population. A straight couple could just as easily live in gender blind housing as could a gay couple, or two transgendered people. Or two regular guys, or two straight women. ANYONE can live there, as there is no delineation. It'd actually be cheaper as you no longer have to have unfilled rooms because you have more boys than girls, and thus have rooms on 'girls only' floors or in 'girls only' buildings sitting empty. Anyone can live anywhere with anyone. Period.
I don't see how that's creating an additional expense, and I can easily see a way it would save money, as well as make one more fraction of the population happier. What's wrong with that?
As to the sex argument (if that's actually being discussed? o.O) that is so the student's choice. The student chooses to waste his/her time boinking his/her boy/girlfriend instead of studying and then flunks out....whose fault is that? The university for not keeping them separated? Or the students for not focusing more.
Yeah that's what apartments are for. Last I heard you are legally an adult at 18. Nobody needs to babysit you and tell you the rules any more. If you want to live in a coddling environment (undergrad college really is just a big babysitter so these supposed 'adults' can put off growing up for 4 years anyway) then you have to abide by its rules. I hated that my university tried to lead us into thinking they required all freshmen to live in the dorms. I contested it, and got my own room in a boarding house under my own jurisdiction. Sorry I don't need an RA bugging me for coming in too late. I'm a legal adult. I can make my own choices. If that includes boinking away instead of paying attention to my classes well that's my decision isn't it? College kids are big babys pretending to be grownups. If you need a babysitter to keep the boys away from the girls or make sure you aren't drinking underage then move back in with mommy and daddy.
Didn't you say before that you didn't finish college?
ChrisWWII wrote:The thing is, they're NOT denying the use of the dorms to the rest of the population. A straight couple could just as easily live in gender blind housing as could a gay couple, or two transgendered people. Or two regular guys, or two straight women. ANYONE can live there, as there is no delineation. It'd actually be cheaper as you no longer have to have unfilled rooms because you have more boys than girls, and thus have rooms on 'girls only' floors or in 'girls only' buildings sitting empty. Anyone can live anywhere with anyone. Period.
I don't see how that's creating an additional expense, and I can easily see a way it would save money, as well as make one more fraction of the population happier. What's wrong with that?
As to the sex argument (if that's actually being discussed? o.O) that is so the student's choice. The student chooses to waste his/her time boinking his/her boy/girlfriend instead of studying and then flunks out....whose fault is that? The university for not keeping them separated? Or the students for not focusing more.
Yeah that's what apartments are for. Last I heard you are legally an adult at 18. Nobody needs to babysit you and tell you the rules any more. If you want to live in a coddling environment (undergrad college really is just a big babysitter so these supposed 'adults' can put off growing up for 4 years anyway) then you have to abide by its rules. I hated that my university tried to lead us into thinking they required all freshmen to live in the dorms. I contested it, and got my own room in a boarding house under my own jurisdiction. Sorry I don't need an RA bugging me for coming in too late. I'm a legal adult. I can make my own choices. If that includes boinking away instead of paying attention to my classes well that's my decision isn't it? College kids are big babys pretending to be grownups. If you need a babysitter to keep the boys away from the girls or make sure you aren't drinking underage then move back in with mommy and daddy.
Didn't you say before that you didn't finish college?
No he said he didn't finish the collage. He's artistically inclined but his attention span is almost as short as mine.
I left college to do better things. Thanks for reminding me. I did just fine when I was there, I just no longer needed to be in college I had better things to do (like become part of the real world). This isn't about my edumacationism though.
Guitardian wrote:I left college to do better things.
Were those better things collages? Or rewriting Oedipus?
I don't care if you dropped out, I'm just trying to put your post into context with what you have said before, and thought you had said you dropped out before but wasn't sure.
Guitardian wrote:
Yeah that's what apartments are for. Last I heard you are legally an adult at 18.
That's why you can go out and buy all that alcohol no doubt.
I'm a legal adult. I can make my own choices.
Which, it seems, led you to dropping out altogether, being homeless for a while, having legal issues preventing you from doing various things and being unable to afford health insurance whilst making sure that you don't fall off ladders.
Perhaps there's an argument for a somewhat steadying hand for people, even at the mighty age of 18, to ensure they perhaps go further towards achieving their potential. It won't work in every case of course, but it is pointless to just assume that 18 year olds will magically suddenly become more mature and capable as if they've just levelled up in some crappy computer game.
Guitardian wrote:
Yeah that's what apartments are for. Last I heard you are legally an adult at 18.
That's why you can go out and buy all that alcohol no doubt.
I'm a legal adult. I can make my own choices.
Which, it seems, led you to dropping out altogether, being homeless for a while, having legal issues preventing you from doing various things and being unable to afford health insurance whilst making sure that you don't fall off ladders.
Perhaps there's an argument for a somewhat steadying hand for people, even at the mighty age of 18, to ensure they perhaps go further towards achieving their potential. It won't work in every case of course, but it is pointless to just assume that 18 year olds will magically suddenly become more mature and capable as if they've just levelled up in some crappy computer game.
Thats pretty harsh redy. Going to college just means you went to college. I know more than a few losers with college degrees.
So it turns out that dorm rooms contain from one to two people each.
If they want to allow transgender people to live in dorms, what they need to do is allow transgender people to live in dorms. This will cost them $000.000 of conversion costs, since transgender people have no special requirements.
They will not have to set up a pairing arrangement, identical to the one that already exists, because it already exists.
Anyone who wants to room together can, and anyone who doesn't want to, doesn't have to.
So it turns out that dorm rooms contain from one to two people each.
If they want to allow transgender people to live in dorms, what they need to do is allow transgender people to live in dorms. This will cost them $000.000 of conversion costs, since transgender people have no special requirements.
They will not have to set up a pairing arrangement, identical to the one that already exists, because it already exists.
Anyone who wants to room together can, and anyone who doesn't want to, doesn't have to.
End of problem.
Your use of facts and logic have no place on the OT board.
Frazzled wrote: Thats pretty harsh redy. Going to college just means you went to college. I know more than a few losers with college degrees.
..Like me !
I fail to see how, apparently, letting 18 year olds stand entirely free to fail and crash and burn is a worthwhile point to even be suggesting. there's enough other/normal things in life that they'll do in that regards anyhow, without college administrators/whomever seeming to actively conspire against them.
But that's probably socialism as well. or something. Good old OT board.
Frazzled wrote: Thats pretty harsh redy. Going to college just means you went to college. I know more than a few losers with college degrees.
..Like me !
Ditto on this end.
I fail to see how, apparently, letting 18 year olds stand entirely free to fail and crash and burn is a worthwhile point to even be suggesting.
Quiet you. You're messing with my plan: "son you're 18, time for college. Yea your stuff is already packed in your car. What am I doing? Just changing the locks. No reason..."
Guitardian wrote:
Yeah that's what apartments are for. Last I heard you are legally an adult at 18.
That's why you can go out and buy all that alcohol no doubt.
I'm a legal adult. I can make my own choices.
Which, it seems, led you to dropping out altogether, being homeless for a while, having legal issues preventing you from doing various things and being unable to afford health insurance whilst making sure that you don't fall off ladders.
Perhaps there's an argument for a somewhat steadying hand for people, even at the mighty age of 18, to ensure they perhaps go further towards achieving their potential. It won't work in every case of course, but it is pointless to just assume that 18 year olds will magically suddenly become more mature and capable as if they've just levelled up in some crappy computer game.
I didn't want this to become like this but sure I'll take the flame-bait.
#1 I can buy alcohol becasue I am allowed to, and I like beer. The end. I don't know what your condescending "all that alcohol" is supposed to mean. Doooo IIii seeem druunk?
#2 dropped out to go on tour, be featured at the Cannes film festival, work on movie soundtracks, produce albums, and be flown all over the world to work in recording studios and hang out in 5 star hotels and schmooze in the music industry without having to spend a dime... next...
#3 problems with immigration and getting a reinstated I.D. led me to being homeless for a while. I suggest you try it prick (oops I mean 'mod'), so you can learn to be less judgemental of people you don't know.
#4 I don't get health insurance because I don't fall off ladders It is a personal decision and really only mine to make.
but to address you actual, non personal point: I agree that plenty of people who have reached the 'mighty age of 18' are completely incapable of dealing with what we can call real life. Legally they are adults, but a lot of times, intellectually they are still stoopid kids. This doesn't mean that all of them are. Some kids grow up fast and others need to be coddled in a dorm and have mom stop by to do their laundry for them and a cafeteria to cook for them. That doesn't mean all of them are immature. College kids live in a deluded limbo, especially in a dorm environment.
I believe everything he says about his globe -trotting, jet-setting, insuranceless-living-on-the-edge lifestyle of fame and fortune. You are Justine Bieber, aren't you?
All kidding aside, I think the alcohol thing had to do with the fact that the legal drinking age is 21. He was saying if a person is so grown up at 18, why can't they buy alcohol? He is both commenting on the ridiculousness of using the law to determine maturity as well as the stupidity of having the legal drinking age so high when everything else is 18.
Oh, and yes, you do come across as posting while drunk quiet frequently.
The alcohol line was actually a reference to the vast majority of states not allowing people to buy alcohol until they're 21, despite the somewhat grandiose claim that at 18 you're an adult and can legally do what you want.
And yes, many if not most of your posts are so borderline incomprehensible that we often do wonder if you are drunk or under the influence of strong substances. They're very rarely well thought out, structured or even relevant to the topic at hand anyway.
The line about being judgemental especially cracked me up, irony has such a sweet flavour at times.
Limbo indeed
On the plus side you'll have plenty of time to work on more hits for your international pop career now, I hear there might still be hope for the headlining slot at Glastonbury. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.
Frazzled wrote:I would see extreme difficulty in a dorm forcing a man and woman to sleep in the same room.
It would be grossly inappropriate. This is a long thread and I've had a few drinks tonight but honestly, a lot of people would have an issue with this. Many people are not comfortable sharing a room with someone of the opposite sex that they don't know, furthermore a lot of religious people would take serious exception with mixed dorms or even mixed buildings, I appreciate that as an atheist.
I don't see why just anyone can't share a room with anyone they like. Anyone thinking that setting up dorms in a certain way will stop students fething like rabbits is naive in the extreme. Except that and move on, the only way to address the situation is to make contraception freely available so that the inevitable will at least be responsible. I shared a house with a gay and and several girls and amazing as it might sound - none of us slept with each other. And we all got along fine.
This Andrew Shrivell guy sounds like a nutter. The 'cult' of homosexuality? Someone that vile and bigoted is unfit for employment by the state IMO, it's ok to express an opinion but this is both hateful and brings the Attorney General Office into disrepute. Calling a person a racist and nazi is probably defamatory and libellous, I wish the student all the best in legal action against this harassment.
I don't mind if a man and a woman share a place together, as long as they are attractive. That is just good TV really. Two girls and a guy living together is a good porn, or Three's Company (or Man of the House if your in the UK), but either way it isn't good TV.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
dorms cost money to build. if you take a section of the dorm and say "gender-blind only" then that limits its use by other groups of people. Its an allocation of resources to suit the preferences of a tiny minority of people. I'm not against equal treatment - I'm against the reallocation of tax dollars to suit peoples lifestyle choices. AF
Gender-blind doesn't restrict the use. Same sex or different sex people can be roomates there. The non-gender-blind dorms are the ones that actually 'reallocate tax dollars to suit peoples lifestyle choices'.
ChrisWWII wrote:Eh, once again. Free speech...I'm willing to bet that this Assistant Attorny General is probably a major troll on several websites. But still...his opinions are his opinion, and he's not breaking a law unless he's actively calling for an illegal act to be performed. We may not like it, but it doesn't mean we have the right to censor it.
Are there laws against slander in the USA? or harassment? Obviously, this asst attorney general is extremely screwed up... and closet homosexual.
Frazzled wrote:He's on leave now pending getting fired.
EDIT: I'd say so much for free speech, but I support the right of public employers (ie tax paid for supporters) terminating people who are abhorrent to the public.
Hey, the man was allowed to say any groxgak in his own time, but they way he voices his opinion is so utterly slowed for a guy his age and with his specific vocation, that is completely logical that he gets fired.
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:It is true, we do. Sex is pretty awesome pretty much the majority of a human's life cycle.
Dude, you're on a wargaming site. That's not a nice thing to bring up.
And about the non-gender specific dormitory issues:
I understand many universities already accommodate various needs of various people by offering various housing options. Why is this so hard, and why is a state official going insane about it?
I mean, is it suspicion? Is it the prudish morality of the ideal family valued citizen that has absolutely no trust or confidence in their own young adults? Is there actually an islamist morality in the USA that says "if man sees woman in bed room = always make sexytime!" ? Does average USA think so? Is that the whole thing about mixed dorms? the fear that consenting adults might actually have sex?
Heck, in most European countries campuses are few and far between and if they exist they are not much different from normal housing. The only differnce is that each student has his/her own private room and shares the cooking and bathroom facilities with a bunch of other people... European college students usually live in the city near their college, or in the suburbs of that city. Some student housing does have policies made up by either the landlord or the residents, but most are non restrictive. There are no regular reports of shocking incidents of appalling sexual depravity in these houses, because the inhabitants are young adults who are following a college or university education, i.e. have brains and common sense.
Herohammernostalgia wrote:I mean, is it suspicion? Is it the prudish morality of the ideal family valued citizen that has absolutely no trust or confidence in their own young adults? Is there actually an islamist morality in the USA that says "if man sees woman in bed room = always make sexytime!" ? Does average USA think so? Is that the whole thing about mixed dorms? the fear that consenting adults might actually have sex?
Other than being a Puritanical morality instead of Islamist, that is pretty much 100% correct. We are a conflicted country.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to say, transgender people can room with other people as long as the other people are accepting of the situation, and if no-one wants to do it, then I'm sorry but there aren't any available rooms this year.
yes. this I support. At least where I'm from people are pretty tolerant and even if they werent LGBT has a strong enough presence on alot of campuses so that finding someone willing to share a room with a transgendered person would not be a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
I don't see how that's creating an additional expense, and I can easily see a way it would save money, as well as make one more fraction of the population happier. What's wrong with that?
anytime you change administrative procedures there's expense involved. that's why bureaucracies are so slow to respond to changing situations. It costs time, money, and energy to get them to make even the slightest changes.
Not sure what the solution is. Obviously with Co-ed Dorms its alot simpler. But in the case where I went there were only two officially co-ed. One was purely for Upper Classmen, and the other was Dean List students.
However, the problem with a Purely transgender dorm (aside from the fact that well they shouldnt get special treatment/exclusion) Do you seriously think that there are that many transgender students at any one University that would be able to fill a Dorm, assuming in the first place that they even wanted to stay there?
I understand where the Asst. AG is coming from, but he is a complete idiot for attacking the problem the way he did. Unless he was just looking to cause a firestorm. However, I highly doubt he is that smart.
Though, sure this has already been discussed. Skipped half the thread to avoid the needless American Government class the OP is going to get in a few years anyway.
Comintern wrote:However, the problem with a Purely transgender dorm
A purely Transgender dorm has never been the argument. I suppose to show how twisted away from the original point this thread has gotten that a ficticious dorm is now the focus. A gender blind (aka coed) dorm was what was being presented.
Wait now you people want a twisted dorm? Thats going to play hell with the architecture. Back in my day we had the ass end of a cave, and were glad we had it (when the wolves were outside).
AbaddonFidelis wrote:with the primary intent of benefiting transgendered people iirc
Well, the point with transgendered people is that they are transgendered people who are psychologically their own opposite sex. This is of course, rather awkward if they only have the choice between a boys-only dorm ("but I am a girl!") or a girls-only dorm ("but I'm a boy!"). Having a mixed dorm eliminates that, for transgendered people awkward choice, so yes, it benefits them because it makes life easier.
For non-transgendered students, mixed dorms have other advantages, like a better social relationship with the opposite sex. Romance and sexytimes are only a possibility here. From mixed-gender student housing experience I'd say the average chance on getting it on with roommates of the opposite sex is 1/10. I have not tried to get it on with the same sex because I am pretty much preoccupied by the opposite sex, me being a heterosexual and all.
Given that there are a lot fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, it might actually be harder.
It appears I am quite preoccupied with the sex motivation here, but I think that an conservative stance on sexuality is at the core of the one-sex-only dorm system.
Frazzled wrote:Wait now you people want a twisted dorm? Thats going to play hell with the architecture. Back in my day we had the ass end of a cave, and were glad we had it (when the wolves were outside).
imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to say, transgender people can room with other people as long as the other people are accepting of the situation, and if no-one wants to do it, then I'm sorry but there aren't any available rooms this year.
Eh? What if a transgender person can't find someone willing to share with them then they are the one out of luck and unable to have a room? I don't see that someone should be left without a room because of the prejudices of others. Have I read that right?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.
Then it could depend on the strictness of the on-sex-only dorm policy. If it is actively enforced with curfews and strict rules about opposite-sex guests and demerits or even expulsions for breaking them, the motivation for gender-blind dorms is different. In that case it's about the social development of young adults in dealing with the opposite sex, the fact that college students are at an age where they could be trusted to make responsible decisions and the plain idiocy for failing classes or being expelled for being in love.
My earlier remark of a one-sex-only dorm policy being islamist, is because radical/fundamentalist/taliban Islam views on man-woman relations are like this: "women are seductive whores, if a man and a woman meet each other, they are immediately going to have sex, all the time"
AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.
There's an old rule of thumb about such statements. You reapply it to Jews, or black people, or disabled people, and see if it sounds fair and reasonable.
jews, black people, and disabled people are sizable minorities. I dont have a problem with government accomodation to their demonstrated needs. protection from racism in the 1st two cases, the americans with disabilities act in the other. Unless a group can demonstrate that their fundamental human or constitutional rights are being violated by not receiving special attention, then it really is just about the numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rusy. that pic is the awesome. love it.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:with the primary intent of benefiting transgendered people iirc
That would be an incorrect recollection. Of course, maybe I am not recalling correctly either.
Yeah, it's weird. Suddenly this has turned from mixed-sex dorms, in which gay guys can live with straight girls (which is, I'm guessing, the most likely situation to arise from this proposal), to the captain of the football team suddenly being FORCED to live with a hairy-armed tranny!
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It is happening but its not necessarily a waste of breath. Laws are written through a participatory process and I'm participating in it.
Then its not a slippery slope, and there is no necessary connection between granting concessions to one group, and not others.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Handi-capped people have a far better claim to special treatment than transgendered people do - they have a physical disability that is not based on choice and prevents them from getting basic access to institutions that their tax dollars help fund. On that basis the law ought to be rewritten. Transgendered people have a psychological condition that may or may not be based on choice and does not in any case prevent them from doing anything but feeling better about themselves. The university doesn't owe them any special favors.
Its not a matter of being owed anything. The university doesn't owe handicapped people anything either as they didn't cause their handicap. After all, you already argued that it would be absurd to make concessions for midgets, and they are most definitely handicapped. The point is that the university has an incentive to accommodate potential students in order to attract more of them.
Also, as regards transgendered people, its not 'may or may not be based on choice', its not based on choice. The decision to undergor surgery is based on choice, the decision to be transgendered is not based on choice. There is literally no evidence to support that idea.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
maybe we shouldn't be. thats for individual universities to decide based on the needs of their students.
That's exactly what's going on here with respect to student governance, and you've already said that you're against it.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the original theory as I understand it was to get students to concentrate on their studies rather than sex. If thats what university administrators decide helps them run a more efficient school, great. that's in the interests of the institution and therefor permissible
So no university could ever conclude that its in their best interests to accommodate as many different lifestyles as possible?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
- its not a special favor to a couple maladjusted people.
So, you're problem is that you can't consider this in any light other than a normative one? Yeah, that explains pretty much everything.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If you have a specific disagreement lets hear it - but criticizing the language I'm using as "bad form" is silly. It doesnt have anything to do with anything - other than your personal sensibilities.
I already explained my specific criticism. You're being overly general without announcing that fact, and that is bad form in all cases. I noted this in my first post regarding this particular facet of the debate.
Moreover, you've previously argued from the perspective of possible objections to a blanket policy vis a vis concerns over rape. You did not, however, suppose that rape might occur more frequently amongst homosexual couples forced to live in same sex dormitories. This is trange to me, as you seem to be sensitive to one set of minority concerns, and not another set; especialyl as evidenced by your comment regarding the joy homosexuals feel at being surrounded by potential sexual partners.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
he sounded like a radical activist to me. The AG was a moron but that doesn't mean the student government guy wasn't.
Of course he did, you don't agree with what he wants. Simply defining radicalism as that which one does not agree with really isn't particularly useful, as its simply left as a eupehmism for "I don't like him." The changes he is requesting are hardly radical in that they represent a mass departure from current school policy. It isn't like he's asking for people to be forced to live with members of the opposite sex.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no we would not blame him for being autistic. but we would recognize that he has a condition for which he is not responsible and on that basis try to keep him out of situations where his presence would be a problem. there is no moral component to autism - its not chosen anymore than baldness lefthandedness or skin color is, and is therefore not subject to moral judgment.
To blame is to find fault. It is the autistic person's fault that they are autistic. That doesn't mean they caused their autism, it means that they possess the fault of autism in situations where autism is a fault. As such, they are blameworthy in those situations. That doesn't mean they are the only blameworthy individuals in such situations, but they would certainly be among those to be blamed.
Even if we suppose that no one can be blamed for things that they cannot control, we must still acknowledge that there is a moral component to autism in that it would have to modify what a person could reasonably be blamed for. You can't simply pull morality out of it, since morality necessarily deals with the actions of individuals, and autism affects the capacity of a person to act.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.
I disagree. Why should housing stay the same to benefit the small minority of people who have a problem with this?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo there needs to be a more compelling reason to reshuffle the system than to benefit a tiny minority of students. the proposal isnt inherently unreasonable - but the student government guy needs to make a better case than "it will help transgendered people adjust." there just arent enough of them to merit special consideration.
I disagree. Why should housing stay the same to benefit the small minority of people who have a problem with this?
because it doesnt cost any money to keep things the same. It does cost money to change it.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It is happening but its not necessarily a waste of breath. Laws are written through a participatory process and I'm participating in it.
Then its not a slippery slope, and there is no necessary connection between granting concessions to one group, and not others.
the connection is obvious. if you dont see it I cant explain it to you.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Handi-capped people have a far better claim to special treatment than transgendered people do - they have a physical disability that is not based on choice and prevents them from getting basic access to institutions that their tax dollars help fund. On that basis the law ought to be rewritten. Transgendered people have a psychological condition that may or may not be based on choice and does not in any case prevent them from doing anything but feeling better about themselves. The university doesn't owe them any special favors.
Its not a matter of being owed anything. The university doesn't owe handicapped people anything either as they didn't cause their handicap. After all, you already argued that it would be absurd to make concessions for midgets, and they are most definitely handicapped. The point is that the university has an incentive to accommodate potential students in order to attract more of them.
the university administrators appear to have decided that it's not worth the fuss just to attract a few extra midget/transgendered people to their system. doubtless they wouldnt have rearranged their facilities to suit handicapped people either, except the law makes them do it.
Also, as regards transgendered people, its not 'may or may not be based on choice', its not based on choice. The decision to undergor surgery is based on choice, the decision to be transgendered is not based on choice. There is literally no evidence to support that idea.
I dont know what its based on and you dont either. thats why I said may or may not. transgendered people are not in any way disbarred by government action, or lack thereof, from living rich and meaningful lives. on that basis the government doesnt have to rearrange things just to suit them. it is up to them, if they *choose* to go through life as a different gender than they were born, to accomodate *themselves* to the social norms that surround them, as long as those norms do not violate their human or constitutional rights. How they *feel* about their gender identity and their physical gender is something for them to resolve in their personal lives; it does not create any government obligations.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
maybe we shouldn't be. thats for individual universities to decide based on the needs of their students.
That's exactly what's going on here with respect to student governance, and you've already said that you're against it.
yes. exactly. I support the university administrators in their decision to ignore this one fruit cake radical. I agree with that decision. I disagree with their decision to segregate their students into little tribes of like minded people, but if they choose to do it, then that's their call.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the original theory as I understand it was to get students to concentrate on their studies rather than sex. If thats what university administrators decide helps them run a more efficient school, great. that's in the interests of the institution and therefor permissible
So no university could ever conclude that its in their best interests to accommodate as many different lifestyles as possible?
ofcourse they could.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
- its not a special favor to a couple maladjusted people.
So, you're problem is that you can't consider this in any light other than a normative one? Yeah, that explains pretty much everything.
whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If you have a specific disagreement lets hear it - but criticizing the language I'm using as "bad form" is silly. It doesnt have anything to do with anything - other than your personal sensibilities.
I already explained my specific criticism. You're being overly general without announcing that fact, and that is bad form in all cases. I noted this in my first post regarding this particular facet of the debate.
whatever.
dogma wrote:
Moreover, you've previously argued from the perspective of possible objections to a blanket policy vis a vis concerns over rape. You did not, however, suppose that rape might occur more frequently amongst homosexual couples forced to live in same sex dormitories. This is trange to me, as you seem to be sensitive to one set of minority concerns, and not another set; especialyl as evidenced by your comment regarding the joy homosexuals feel at being surrounded by potential sexual partners.
homosexual rape might occur in single sex dorms. is it occurring, though? idk. if it is, and there's reason to believe that single sex dorms are a major contributing factor, then maybe we should look at making coed housing standard, if real benefits in terms of reducing rapes across all categories can reasonably be expected from that policy. obviously the university has an interest in seeing that its students arent raped whether it occurs in a hetero or a homosexual context.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
he sounded like a radical activist to me. The AG was a moron but that doesn't mean the student government guy wasn't.
Of course he did, you don't agree with what he wants. Simply defining radicalism as that which one does not agree with really isn't particularly useful, as its simply left as a eupehmism for "I don't like him." The changes he is requesting are hardly radical in that they represent a mass departure from current school policy. It isn't like he's asking for people to be forced to live with members of the opposite sex.
radicalism in this context means someone who is on the fringe left (a reactionary would be on the fringe right.) just because a person is a radical doesn't mean they're wrong - what it does mean is that they need to do a better job of arguing for their particular point of view. I don't know whether I like him or not. It doesnt have anything to do with anything.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no we would not blame him for being autistic. but we would recognize that he has a condition for which he is not responsible and on that basis try to keep him out of situations where his presence would be a problem. there is no moral component to autism - its not chosen anymore than baldness lefthandedness or skin color is, and is therefore not subject to moral judgment.
To blame is to find fault. It is the autistic person's fault that they are autistic.
what? are you serious? It's not at all their fault. what are you talking about?
dogma wrote:
That doesn't mean they caused their autism
yeah exactly. that's why it's not their fault.
dogma wrote:
it means that they possess the fault of autism in situations where autism is a fault. As such, they are blameworthy in those situations.
whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.
Mmm...I see we have a new member for Frazzled gang of angry bitter pills. the weiner dogs will set another place at the table.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the connection is obvious. if you dont see it I cant explain it to you.
You're not getting it. You're arguing that we can't offer gender blind housing because if we do, then we'll have to offer other sorts of housing. I'm point out that, for that argument to hold, any campus that has more than one type of housing must offer other type of housing. Since that plainly isn't the case, the argument from a slippery slope is fallacious.
More specifically, University of Michigan has more than one type of housing. If any type of housing beyond one type of housing necessarily requires all other types of housing to be built, then the slippery slope holds water. Since it doesn't, as you've demonstrated by noting that decisions are made by agents, it is not s a slippery slope.
Also, if you can't explain something its probably because you don't have an explanation, not because the explanation is obvious.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university administrators appear to have decided that it's not worth the fuss just to attract a few extra midget/transgendered people to their system. doubtless they wouldnt have rearranged their facilities to suit handicapped people either, except the law makes them do it.
I doubt that, honestly. It isn't as though the law makes them construct co-ed dorms.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I dont know what its based on and you dont either.
Actually, having studied neuroscience for a good chunk of my life, particularly as it relates to gender constructs, I'm pretty confident that I do know what its based on. You can argue from universal ignorance all you like, but then your earlier argument from 'its obvious' starts to look quite poor.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
transgendered people are not in any way disbarred by government action, or lack thereof, from living rich and meaningful lives. on that basis the government doesnt have to rearrange things just to suit them.
First of all, the state has very little to do with the housing policy at a public university.
Second, you can't conclude that transgendered people aren't being prevented from leading rich and meaningful lives on the basis that you say so.
Third, the government rearranges things based on the preferences of its citizens all the time, and most of the time its not because their rights were being violated. If the state didn't do that, it wouldn't be the state for particularly long.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
it is up to them, if they *choose* to go through life as a different gender than they were born,
That's not what being transgender entails. You are born with a certain sex; male, female, or transsexual. You acquire your gender as your body matures, and your brain develops subconscious preferences in accordance with external stimuli. There is nothing approaching even the bound sort of choice discussed by soft determinism.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
to accomodate *themselves* to the social norms that surround them, as long as those norms do not violate their human or constitutional rights. How they *feel* about their gender identity and their physical gender is something for them to resolve in their personal lives; it does not create any government obligations.
Again, why are you mentioning the government, or obligations? No one has brought up either the state, or obligation.
Moreover, considering the massive impact that gender has on someones personal life, and how tightly woven personal lives are into daily interaction within the public sphere, the idea that it has no bearing on anyone but them is patently absurd. Indeed, the very fact that you're arguing from a stance of 'keep it toy yourself' implies that it necessarily effects you, as you're here to have input on it.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.
So, yeah, you can't consider this from any position that isn't normative.
What I find hilarious is that you're leaping to the conclusion that this will have anything to do with your tax dollars. Even if it does increase university costs, it isn't as though students don't pay tuition.
Either you're being irrational, or you've got an ax to grind with people living alternative lifestyles. Given the conversations that we've had about social norms in the past, I think its the latter.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
homosexual rape might occur in single sex dorms. is it occurring, though? idk. if it is, and there's reason to believe that single sex dorms are a major contributing factor, then maybe we should look at making coed housing standard, if real benefits in terms of reducing rapes across all categories can reasonably be expected from that policy. obviously the university has an interest in seeing that its students arent raped whether it occurs in a hetero or a homosexual context.
Coeducational housing still forces people to live in the same room with people of the same sex. Single sex housing reserves the whole building for people of the same sex. Gender blind housing, what the 'radical' was proposing is the option that allows people to live in the same room with members of the opposite sex.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
radicalism in this context means someone who is on the fringe left (a reactionary would be on the fringe right.) just because a person is a radical doesn't mean they're wrong - what it does mean is that they need to do a better job of arguing for their particular point of view. I don't know whether I like him or not. It doesnt have anything to do with anything.
I can tell you right now that, from what I've read aboutthis kid, he's not that fringe. Gender blind housing is not really a radical concept on the left.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
what? are you serious? It's not at all their fault. what are you talking about?
Of course its their fault. The person is autistic, and so the autism is theirs. In circumstances where autism is a fault, it would be their fault.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
yeah exactly. that's why it's not their fault.
Possession of a fault does not imply that the possessor caused the fault.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the connection is obvious. if you dont see it I cant explain it to you.
You're not getting it. You're arguing that we can't offer gender blind housing because if we do, then we'll have to offer other sorts of housing. I'm point out that, for that argument to hold, any campus that has more than one type of housing must offer other type of housing. Since that plainly isn't the case, the argument from a slippery slope is fallacious.
More specifically, University of Michigan has more than one type of housing. If any type of housing beyond one type of housing necessarily requires all other types of housing to be built, then the slippery slope holds water. Since it doesn't, as you've demonstrated by noting that decisions are made by agents, it is not s a slippery slope.
it doesnt necessarily require all different types of housing. but it does create (or continue, in this case) bad precedents that can be used for other small groups of people to support their special claims to the general injury of the community. it does not require, of necessity, that the arguments of those groups be accepted by university or state administrators - but it does make it more likely. As you pointed out, the university already considers the housing preferences of christians as opposed to other religious groups, and makes an effort to accomodate them. so when this sg guy starts his petition, he can point to the christians and say "if you did it for them, why not us?" and he's right. the university shouldn't be doing it for anybody just to suit their preferences. it should be based on averting real dangers, not making people feel better -whether they're christian or transgendered or midgets or whatever.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university administrators appear to have decided that it's not worth the fuss just to attract a few extra midget/transgendered people to their system. doubtless they wouldnt have rearranged their facilities to suit handicapped people either, except the law makes them do it.
I doubt that, honestly. It isn't as though the law makes them construct co-ed dorms.
co-ed dorms don't require bathrooms accessible to handicapped people or ramps outside of buildings etc. these things cost money to build so naturally administrators are reluctant to do it if there isn't a law around. co-ed dorms cost money too, but alot less.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I dont know what its based on and you dont either.
Actually, having studied neuroscience for a good chunk of my life, particularly as it relates to gender constructs, I'm pretty confident that I do know what its based on. You can argue from universal ignorance all you like, but then your earlier argument from 'its obvious' starts to look quite poor.
I dont believe people choose to feel like they're a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa. but the decision to undergo the surgical changes is obviously voluntary. you don't have to be a neuroscientist to see that. There is no more consensus about what causes trans-gender among scientists than there is among lay people. The most you can possibly have, as a result of your training, no matter how extensive it is, is a plausible guess. My argument is only based on ignorance in so much as I admit that I don't know what causes people to be transgendered. You are the one who is claiming knowledge. What I am pointing out is that the decision to make physical alterations - clothing, mannerisms, surgery - to better suit one's own gender self-image is a conscious decision, and that is, in fact, obvious.
So just leave out the bluster, k?
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
transgendered people are not in any way disbarred by government action, or lack thereof, from living rich and meaningful lives. on that basis the government doesnt have to rearrange things just to suit them.
First of all, the state has very little to do with the housing policy at a public university.
that would qualify as "lack thereof"
dogma wrote:Second, you can't conclude that transgendered people aren't being prevented from leading rich and meaningful lives on the basis that you say so.
no more can you conclude that they are because you say so. you're really good at these double standards, dogma. you call my opinions ignorance, but provide no facts. you say I'm making blanket assertions, but you provide no grounding whatever for your opinions. I conclude that transgendered people are not being prevented from living rich and fulfilling by the government because laws exist to protect them from hate-crimes because laws exist to protect them from discrimination and because those laws are enforced what is it about this situation that you find unsatisfactory?
dogma wrote:
Third, the government rearranges things based on the preferences of its citizens all the time, and most of the time its not because their rights were being violated. If the state didn't do that, it wouldn't be the state for particularly long.
sure, if there are enough of them. that's voting. the state also regularly ignores the preferences of tiny fractions of its populations because they are not able to present a compelling case that the laws/procedures/whatever should be rearranged. that's exactly what's happening here - transgendered people are too small a minority of people and have too weak a case for either the state or the university to change their policies. don't like it? tough. that's democracy. maybe they should organize a little better hmmmm?
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
it is up to them, if they *choose* to go through life as a different gender than they were born,
That's not what being transgender entails. You are born with a certain sex; male, female, or transsexual. You acquire your gender as your body matures, and your brain develops subconscious preferences in accordance with external stimuli. There is nothing approaching even the bound sort of choice discussed by soft determinism.
just out of curiosity, do you think there's such a thing as free choice at all? the arguments you're making about trans-gender could easily be applied to any sort of behavior pattern whatever.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
to accomodate *themselves* to the social norms that surround them, as long as those norms do not violate their human or constitutional rights. How they *feel* about their gender identity and their physical gender is something for them to resolve in their personal lives; it does not create any government obligations.
Again, why are you mentioning the government, or obligations? No one has brought up either the state, or obligation.
Moreover, considering the massive impact that gender has on someones personal life, and how tightly woven personal lives are into daily interaction within the public sphere, the idea that it has no bearing on anyone but them is patently absurd. Indeed, the very fact that you're arguing from a stance of 'keep it toy yourself' implies that it necessarily effects you, as you're here to have input on it.
the university is a state funded organization. changing its policies is a form of state action.
It has bearing on other peoples lives. but that bearing is not very significant. it isn't absurd at all to think that a tiny fraction of the population would be responsible for a tiny fraction of what's going on in the social sphere.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
whether you think its a problem or not depends on whether you're a left wing wackjob or not. if people choose to pursue lifestyles that are outside of the norm then they're free to do it - they are not free to waste my tax dollars in order to better accomodate their lifestyle choices. as long as their constitutional and human rights are upheld, I don't give a feth about them and I don't care how the feth they feel about the rest of society. pretty clear, I hope.
So, yeah, you can't consider this from any position that isn't normative.
have zero interest in the specific viewpoint of transgendered people. that's right.
dogma wrote:
Either you're being irrational, or you've got an ax to grind with people living alternative lifestyles. Given the conversations that we've had about social norms in the past, I think its the latter.
whatever.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
homosexual rape might occur in single sex dorms. is it occurring, though? idk. if it is, and there's reason to believe that single sex dorms are a major contributing factor, then maybe we should look at making coed housing standard, if real benefits in terms of reducing rapes across all categories can reasonably be expected from that policy. obviously the university has an interest in seeing that its students arent raped whether it occurs in a hetero or a homosexual context.
Coeducational housing still forces people to live in the same room with people of the same sex. Single sex housing reserves the whole building for people of the same sex. Gender blind housing, what the 'radical' was proposing is the option that allows people to live in the same room with members of the opposite sex.
because it will make transgendered people feel better. great.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
radicalism in this context means someone who is on the fringe left (a reactionary would be on the fringe right.) just because a person is a radical doesn't mean they're wrong - what it does mean is that they need to do a better job of arguing for their particular point of view. I don't know whether I like him or not. It doesnt have anything to do with anything.
I can tell you right now that, from what I've read aboutthis kid, he's not that fringe. Gender blind housing is not really a radical concept on the left.
specifically to suit transgendered people? sure it is. practically all trans-gendered based politics coming out of the left is radical. It has to be, because the number of people affected is so small. which is a point I keep trying to drive home for you, apparently without success.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
what? are you serious? It's not at all their fault. what are you talking about?
Of course its their fault. The person is autistic, and so the autism is theirs. In circumstances where autism is a fault, it would be their fault.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
yeah exactly. that's why it's not their fault.
Possession of a fault does not imply that the possessor caused the fault.
This conversation about autism is obviously absurd. I'm not going to entertain it any longer.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
it doesnt necessarily require all different types of housing. but it does create (or continue, in this case) bad precedents that can be used for other small groups of people to support their special claims to the general injury of the community. it does not require, of necessity, that the arguments of those groups be accepted by university or state administrators - but it does make it more likely.
No it doesn't. The decision to have one type of housing does not make it more likely for another type to be created. It might indicate that the decision making body is more open to that sort of thing, but it does not, itself, influence the probability of any other event.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
As you pointed out, the university already considers the housing preferences of christians as opposed to other religious groups, and makes an effort to accomodate them. so when this sg guy starts his petition, he can point to the christians and say "if you did it for them, why not us?"
And the university can simply say that they like Christians more. The fact that he can say something given a certain set of circumstances only matters if the administrators care about those circumstance in a motile fashion.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
and he's right. the university shouldn't be doing it for anybody just to suit their preferences. it should be based on averting real dangers, not making people feel better -whether they're christian or transgendered or midgets or whatever.
Why is it bad to make people feel better? After all, the only reason we try to avert rape is because it makes people feel better. If we were only concerned with 'physical' crimes, then we would have stopped at murder.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
co-ed dorms don't require bathrooms accessible to handicapped people or ramps outside of buildings etc. these things cost money to build so naturally administrators are reluctant to do it if there isn't a law around. co-ed dorms cost money too, but alot less.
But they still cost money, so administrators should be reluctant to have them. In fact, housing costs money, so administrators should be reluctant to have that. Teachers cost money too, so it seems like they would be reluctant to employ them. Hell, it seems like they should be reluctant to have a school at all.
Theoretical reluctance is not sufficient to explain behavior.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I dont believe people choose to feel like they're a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa. but the decision to undergo the surgical changes is obviously voluntary.
Yes, but no one is presuming that transgendered people are undergoing surgery in their fancy new dormitories.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
There is no more consensus about what causes trans-gender among scientists than there is among lay people. The most you can possibly have, as a result of your training, no matter how extensive it is, is a plausible guess.
Yeah, that's how all knowledge works. You can only make a plausible guess, for example, that you won't fall through the Earth and into space.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
My argument is only based on ignorance in so much as I admit that I don't know what causes people to be transgendered. You are the one who is claiming knowledge. What I am pointing out is that the decision to make physical alterations - clothing, mannerisms, surgery - to better suit one's own gender self-image is a conscious decision, and that is, in fact, obvious.
No, it isn't obvious. Do you make conscious decisions to put on clothes in order to suit your own gender self image? Do you carefully consider what people of your gender should wear?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
So just leave out the bluster, k?
What bluster? I'm claiming knowledge. That's what happens in the course of argument.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
that would qualify as "lack thereof"
Then why are you bringing up the government at all? If it isn't relevant, then it isn't support for any argument.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no more can you conclude that they are because you say so. you're really good at these double standards, dogma. you call my opinions ignorance, but provide no facts. you say I'm making blanket assertions, but you provide no grounding whatever for your opinions.
I'm grounding my statements in yours. My only controversial points, that aren't minimalist (and therefore not requiring support) have been based on what you are arguing (or basic definitions). Its a sort of RAA argument.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I conclude that transgendered people are not being prevented from living rich and fulfilling by the government because laws exist to protect them from hate-crimes because laws exist to protect them from discrimination and because those laws are enforced what is it about this situation that you find unsatisfactory?
The fact that laws exist to protect someone does not indicate that they are sufficiently protected. If it did, then there would be no murder. Moreover. no law exists to protect people due to their gender. Sex and gender are not the same.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the state also regularly ignores the preferences of tiny fractions of its populations because they are not able to present a compelling case that the laws/procedures/whatever should be rearranged. that's exactly what's happening here - transgendered people are too small a minority of people and have too weak a case for either the state or the university to change their policies. don't like it? tough. that's democracy. maybe they should organize a little better hmmmm?
Well, its not actually democracy. Democracy would imply that the body politic, the students, could vote. They can't, they can only appeal to their overlords.
As far as making cses go, isn't that what we're doing by arguing? You seem more concerned with shutting this down than actually concluding what is correct.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
just out of curiosity, do you think there's such a thing as free choice at all? the arguments you're making about trans-gender could easily be applied to any sort of behavior pattern whatever.
What do you mean by 'free choice'?
I think that peopel a free to choose those options that are available to them, but I don't think choice is 'free' in the classical sense. You can't choose to be a bird, for example.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university is a state funded organization. changing its policies is a form of state action.
Not really, if state funding were sufficient to indicate state action, then all recipients of welfare would be acting at the behest of the state.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It has bearing on other peoples lives. but that bearing is not very significant. it isn't absurd at all to think that a tiny fraction of the population would be responsible for a tiny fraction of what's going on in the social sphere.
Yes, that's what I said. But that's not what you said. You said that their dealings with gender were personal.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
have zero interest in the specific viewpoint of transgendered people. that's right.
No, that's not what normative means. The notion that you are operating according to norms indicates that you aren't interested in what is occurring, only how what is occurring makes you feel. That's ironic, really, given that you seem to believe feelings means nothing.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
because it will make transgendered people feel better. great.
Not having transgendered housing seems to be what would make you feel better. Why are your feeling more important?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
specifically to suit transgendered people? sure it is. practically all trans-gendered based politics coming out of the left is radical. It has to be, because the number of people affected is so small. which is a point I keep trying to drive home for you, apparently without success.
Maybe you should argue with greater clarity. Why must something involving a minority be radical?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
This conversation about autism is obviously absurd. I'm not going to entertain it any longer.
AF
No, its not obviously absurd. I don't think its absurd, so it, at the very least, seems to lack the necessary self-evidence to qualify for obviousness.
You should know that my description of blame places us in exactly the same place that you seem to want to be in, its simply that my description better deals with determinism.
And the university can simply say that they like Christians more. The fact that he can say something given a certain set of circumstances only matters if the administrators care about those circumstance in a motile fashion.
That would violate federal nondiscriminatory legislation actually.
Not really, if state funding were sufficient to indicate state action, then all recipients of welfare would be acting at the behest of the state.
Actually state run institutions do act under color of state law and are subject to such. Just pointing that out.
Frazzled wrote:
As soon as they are PUBLIC schools I will.
They all take state funding and, like all private schools, must comply with federal regulations in order to qualify for that funding. They're almost exactly like state universities, with the exception of territoriality.
Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter. they are effectively under color of law to being a state actor.
They're not, actually. State universities are corporatist institutions. They have their own culture and legislative stances despite being heavily subsidized, well, in most cases anyway. The nearest popular analogue is Fanny/Freddy pre-bailout.
Frazzled wrote:
As soon as they are PUBLIC schools I will.
They're almost exactly like state universities, with the exception of territoriality.
But they aren't. They are private insitutions. Therte is a substantial difference under the law.
Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter. they are effectively under color of law to being a state actor.
They're not, actually. State universities are corporatist institutions. They have their own culture and legislative stances despite being heavily subsidized, well, in most cases anyway. The nearest popular analogue is Fanny/Freddy pre-bailout.
They are state instutions and are run by the state and paid for by the state. they are subject to that oversight.
Frazzled wrote:
But they aren't. They are private insitutions. Therte is a substantial difference under the law.
Yes, they are private. My argument is that state schools are not state institutions in the sense of something like the IRS. They were founded by the state, and are funded by the state, but they are not governed by the state in the sense that their policies are left open to legislative debate.
Frazzled wrote:
But they aren't. They are private insitutions. Therte is a substantial difference under the law.
Yes, they are private. My argument is that state schools are not state institutions in the sense of something like the IRS. They were founded by the state, and are funded by the state, but they are not governed by the state in the sense that their policies are left open to legislative debate.
State legislatures often are the controlling entities in regards to state schools, depending on the actual state.
But yea, if its a state its a state entity, just like a public school.
Those laws govern private schools as well. They have nothing to do with state control over public schools.
Utah, the only state that actually intervenes in university affairs, is the only state that allow CC on college campuses. They do this by preventing universities from making their own regulations. In most states public schools are simply state sponsored corporate entities.
Right - O. There was an issue recently with a nut that went on campus and shot himself. Hence remembering the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Those laws govern private schools as well. They have nothing to do with state control over public schools.
I suggest you research public schools, tenure, and discrimination regulations. Public schools are indeed quite different, but as you say we can agree to disagree.
well this conversation is degenerating rapidly, isn't it....
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
As you pointed out, the university already considers the housing preferences of christians as opposed to other religious groups, and makes an effort to accomodate them. so when this sg guy starts his petition, he can point to the christians and say "if you did it for them, why not us?"
And the university can simply say that they like Christians more. The fact that he can say something given a certain set of circumstances only matters if the administrators care about those circumstance in a motile fashion.
I'm afraid not. If they give the christians what the christians want and dont give the midgets what the midgets want, they invite the criticism that they're anti-midget. obviously we can't have that - better give the midgets what they want. better yet, don't give anybody special concessions, just treat everybody equally. Radical concept in the age of victimhood and entitlement, I know, but there it is.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
and he's right. the university shouldn't be doing it for anybody just to suit their preferences. it should be based on averting real dangers, not making people feel better -whether they're christian or transgendered or midgets or whatever.
Why is it bad to make people feel better? After all, the only reason we try to avert rape is because it makes people feel better. If we were only concerned with 'physical' crimes, then we would have stopped at murder.
its not bad. its wonderful. I want everyone to be happy. I want them to feel so fething happy all the fething time. really, I do. I just don't want to have to pay for their good feelings. I want them to take advantage of the many wonderful opportunities this country provides so that they can earn money to pay for their own good feelings. my property rights take priority over the feelings of transgendered people. Callous I know, but there it is.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
co-ed dorms don't require bathrooms accessible to handicapped people or ramps outside of buildings etc. these things cost money to build so naturally administrators are reluctant to do it if there isn't a law around. co-ed dorms cost money too, but alot less.
But they still cost money, so administrators should be reluctant to have them. In fact, housing costs money, so administrators should be reluctant to have that. Teachers cost money too, so it seems like they would be reluctant to employ them. Hell, it seems like they should be reluctant to have a school at all.
doubtless they would be if they didn't expect to reap the benefits of an educated workforce. you're being reductivist.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
There is no more consensus about what causes trans-gender among scientists than there is among lay people. The most you can possibly have, as a result of your training, no matter how extensive it is, is a plausible guess.
Yeah, that's how all knowledge works. You can only make a plausible guess, for example, that you won't fall through the Earth and into space.
right. so when you say I'm arguing from ignorance when you infact don't have any definitive conclusions to offer yourself, you know what that makes you? ridiculous. you don't know anything more about it than I do. we both have opinions. that's all.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
My argument is only based on ignorance in so much as I admit that I don't know what causes people to be transgendered. You are the one who is claiming knowledge. What I am pointing out is that the decision to make physical alterations - clothing, mannerisms, surgery - to better suit one's own gender self-image is a conscious decision, and that is, in fact, obvious.
No, it isn't obvious. Do you make conscious decisions to put on clothes in order to suit your own gender self image? Do you carefully consider what people of your gender should wear?
yes dogma. I make a conscious decision to buy jeans when I go to the store. not skirts.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
So just leave out the bluster, k?
What bluster? I'm claiming knowledge. That's what happens in the course of argument.
which we have already established you don't have. see above.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
no more can you conclude that they are because you say so. you're really good at these double standards, dogma. you call my opinions ignorance, but provide no facts. you say I'm making blanket assertions, but you provide no grounding whatever for your opinions.
I'm grounding my statements in yours. My only controversial points, that aren't minimalist (and therefore not requiring support) have been based on what you are arguing (or basic definitions). Its a sort of RAA argument.
ok, silly question. if you're grounding your statements in mine, and mine are based on ignorance, then how do your statements acquire the superior distinction of knowledge? I can't be ignorant and the foundation of your knowledgeable opinions at the same time. Pick one. You can't have both.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I conclude that transgendered people are not being prevented from living rich and fulfilling by the government because laws exist to protect them from hate-crimes because laws exist to protect them from discrimination and because those laws are enforced what is it about this situation that you find unsatisfactory?
The fact that laws exist to protect someone does not indicate that they are sufficiently protected. If it did, then there would be no murder. Moreover. no law exists to protect people due to their gender. Sex and gender are not the same.
then lobby for more effective enforcement. and god bless you.
who said they were?
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the state also regularly ignores the preferences of tiny fractions of its populations because they are not able to present a compelling case that the laws/procedures/whatever should be rearranged. that's exactly what's happening here - transgendered people are too small a minority of people and have too weak a case for either the state or the university to change their policies. don't like it? tough. that's democracy. maybe they should organize a little better hmmmm?
Well, its not actually democracy. Democracy would imply that the body politic, the students, could vote. They can't, they can only appeal to their overlords.
in Michigan the board of trustees appoints the university president. the people vote for the members of the board of trustees directly. the process is quite democratic.
dogma wrote:
As far as making cses go, isn't that what we're doing by arguing? You seem more concerned with shutting this down than actually concluding what is correct.
sure it's what we're doing. I'm not trying to stifle this guy. even morons have the right to freedom of speech. god bless the usa. I too have the right to freedom of speech - ie the guys a moron and I said so. if he can get enough people on board then maybe he can get his program pushed through.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the university is a state funded organization. changing its policies is a form of state action.
Not really, if state funding were sufficient to indicate state action, then all recipients of welfare would be acting at the behest of the state.
as many of them in fact are, for fear of losing said funding. in any case this university is specifically a public institution. it has a govt not a private charter, its run by a govt appointed ceo, etc. its an extension of the state if any organization is.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It has bearing on other peoples lives. but that bearing is not very significant. it isn't absurd at all to think that a tiny fraction of the population would be responsible for a tiny fraction of what's going on in the social sphere.
Yes, that's what I said. But that's not what you said. You said that their dealings with gender were personal.
sure. they're personal in as much as how they deal with it is their own business. as long as they don't start running around breaking laws it's not any of my concern what they do. that's personal. it becomes public when they start breaking the laws.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
have zero interest in the specific viewpoint of transgendered people. that's right.
No, that's not what normative means. The notion that you are operating according to norms indicates that you aren't interested in what is occurring, only how what is occurring makes you feel. That's ironic, really, given that you seem to believe feelings means nothing.
I see. ummmm..... we all act based on how what's occurring makes us feel... dogma. I'm not sure what the substance of this criticism is. You think i'm having a knee jerk reaction....? You think my argument is based on emotion...? can you explain further? I've done as good a job as I know how to argue that its not prejudice, but concern for property rights, that motivate my opposition to this guy's program. and that I think he's a moron and I'm opposed on principle to morons ever getting their way. ever.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
because it will make transgendered people feel better. great.
Not having transgendered housing seems to be what would make you feel better. Why are your feeling more important?
because in a democracy the feelings of the majority matter more than the feelings of the minority, where issues of constitutional and human rights are not concerned. my feelings are representative. the feelings of this lgbt far left nutjob are not.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
specifically to suit transgendered people? sure it is. practically all trans-gendered based politics coming out of the left is radical. It has to be, because the number of people affected is so small. which is a point I keep trying to drive home for you, apparently without success.
Maybe you should argue with greater clarity. Why must something involving a minority be radical?
ummmmmm.... no necessary connection I suppose. radical=fringe left, reactionary=fringe right. he's out of the mainstream, he's on the left, he's making demands that most people don't agree with, etc. I'd call that radical based on those criteria. whether it's radical or not doesn't really have any bearing on whether he's right or not. truth isn't a vote after all. if the term is offensive to you then we can drop it. it's not really central to what I'm saying.
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
This conversation about autism is obviously absurd. I'm not going to entertain it any longer.
AF
No, its not obviously absurd. I don't think its absurd, so it, at the very least, seems to lack the necessary self-evidence to qualify for obviousness.
You should know that my description of blame places us in exactly the same place that you seem to want to be in, its simply that my description better deals with determinism.
ummmmmm...... to your 1st point. can you explain more what you mean? I don't understand.
to your 2nd yes their opinions dont count unless there are enough like minded people to pass legislation. excepting their constitutional and human rights of course. those always matter. it applies to any group that isnt numerous/active enough to influence legislation. sometimes thats me, sometimes thats my neighbor, sometimes its the transgendered people in michigan.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm afraid not. If they give the christians what the christians want and dont give the midgets what the midgets want, they invite the criticism that they're anti-midget. obviously we can't have that - better give the midgets what they want. better yet, don't give anybody special concessions, just treat everybody equally. Radical concept in the age of victimhood and entitlement, I know, but there it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:ummmmmm...... to your 1st point. can you explain more what you mean? I don't understand.
to your 2nd yes their opinions dont count unless there are enough like minded people to pass legislation. excepting their constitutional and human rights of course. those always matter. it applies to any group that isnt numerous/active enough to influence legislation. sometimes thats me, sometimes thats my neighbor, sometimes its the transgendered people in michigan.
Since you are the only person in this thread who is arguing for the suppression of transgender dorms, your opinions don't count.
) Of course, what with humans being humans and all a benevolent dictatorship will never work......ah well, I can dream can't I?
you we missed out so screw you too.
