Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

(Looks at state laws passed concerning the University of Texas)
You're right, you might want to agree to disagree at this point.

If there are state laws governing something that isn't funding, then you have a point.

I can't find anything, but then I don't know what to look for. Any hints besides "laws governing UT"?

dogma wrote:If there are state laws governing something that isn't funding, then you have a point.

I can't find anything, but then I don't know what to look for. Any hints besides "laws governing UT"?

For example, there laws against CCLs on UT campus. Those are state laws.

What's a CCL?

Concealed Carry License I believe.

I can't believe the great State of Texas would pass a law that contravenes the Second Amendment.

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.

Concubine Copulation Licencse

res8n is probably right but mine is more fun.

reds8n wrote:Concealed Carry License I believe.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Concubine Copulation Licencse

res8n is probably right but mine is more fun.

No we don't need those here.

Ahtman wrote:

res8n is probably right .

..well duh!



Either way I sleep assured that the Catfighting Christian Lesbians of Texas go about their business legally.

And on webcam for only $4.99 a month, if you would like to know more then please send cash, cheques or money orders to the usual address.

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.

ok I go with that.
AF

I don't see how you can treat everyone equally by not treating everyone equally.

Also, wasn't your argument that some minorities "don't count" because there aren't enough of them?

Does that also apply to people who support and vote for the minorities?

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.