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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Yeah....I doubt they would do that, unless it was specifically requested. I can imagine it being extremely uncomfortable for both parties.

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.

How many people share a typical dorm room?

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.

Guitardian wrote:

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?

Ahtman wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

All right.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:All right.

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.

reds8n wrote:

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..."

reds8n wrote:

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'.

Unless you are against dorms, period.

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.

because the inhabitants are young adults who are following a college or university education, i.e. have brains and common sense.

You had me until you said that....

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.