12-04-2002 10:21									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Asher, you're just as close-minded and arrogant as conservative Christians are. The only difference is that your side is the popular one right now. A pox on both your houses.

	12-04-2002 10:24									#62
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Asher, you're just as close-minded and arrogant as conservative Christians are. The only difference is that your side is the popular one right now. A pox on both your houses.

How am I being close-minded for telling you how it is?

You simply do not appoint people with controversial views in very public places in today's world.

Why is that close minded?

Why am I close minded for not caring that a man is whining that because of his public comments about how homosexuals are "not morally correct" he lost a job in a place with many homosexuals? I don't understand.

Stanford's a private place with a reputation. This makes perfect sense.

The reason my side's the popular one is because it's rational.

	12-04-2002 10:24									#63
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MrFun If he had the power to do so, he would definitely set out to enact laws that would deny homosexuals their basic human need for loving relationships.

How exactly do you know this? Like I said before, you guys are setting out to demonize a person you don't know anything about based upon their beliefs. Your are judging a man on his beliefs, not his actions and you can't deny that.

	12-04-2002 10:27									#64
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten How exactly do you know this? Like I said before, you guys are setting out to demonize a person you don't know anything about based upon their beliefs. Your are judging a man on his beliefs, not his actions and you can't deny that.

That's like saying that the Ku Klux Klan would never reenact segregation laws if it was within their power --- after all, it's only their THOUGHTS.

If this coach consistently speaks out against homosexual relationships, then his actions, if he had the power to do so, would be consistent with his thoughts. But, granted, there could be factors where, due to human nature, he might be inconsistent with his thoughts and action.

Are we getting philosophical now with thoughts and action??

	12-04-2002 10:27									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Your are judging a man on his beliefs, not his actions and you can't deny that.

His actions involve denouncing homosexuality on his radio show.
He would have been in a public position at a private university with a large homosexual population.

And I'm out "demonizing" him by saying that it's perfectly fair for Stanford to deny employment to someone who has already publically denounced homosexuality?

It seems like you're trying to paint him as a martyr or something.

	12-04-2002 10:31									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm calling you close-minded because you called the man a "whacko" just because his views differ from yours. Believe it or not, there are many people in this world who don't agree with you on this topic. Are they all whackos too? The arrogance...

quote: You simply do not appoint people with controversial views in very public places in today's world.

Explain to me how Noam Chomsky still has a job then.

The point of this whole thread was to expose Stanford's hypocrisy. They claims to be respectful and inclusive of all cultures and ideals, but then discriminate against a man whose beliefs they don't find palatable. Hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

	12-04-2002 10:33									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Drake, time for multi-tasking.

Get back to me with my latest post when you can.

	12-04-2002 10:34									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I'm calling you close-minded because you called the man a "whacko" just because his views differ from yours. Believe it or not, there are many people in this world who don't agree with you on this topic. Are they all whackos too? The arrogance...

Whackos are, by definition, people with abnormal views as seen by the general public. It's a term.

He is a whacko, accordingly.
Don't worry, I'm a whacko in some cases too. Don't get me strted on those.

quote: Explain to me how Noam Chomsky still has a job then.

Who?
Maybe he was given the job for the free publicity behind it?

quote: The point of this whole thread was to expose Stanford's hypocrisy. They claims to be respectful and inclusive of all cultures and ideals, but then discriminate against a man whose beliefs they don't find palatable. Hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

You're right, Stanford IS hypocritic.
They should allow admission to *EVERYONE*. ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. High school dropouts included.

And how dare they not allow Bin Laden to go there. THEY HATE ALL ARABS.

Death to the hypocrites at Stanford!

And please, btw, find me a link where Stanford says they're inclusive of all cultures and ideals. Even assuming they did say that, it obviously doesn't include views like racism for employees. There's a term for that: liability.

It seems you're so lost in defending your thread you have no idea what it's about. Either that or you don't have a logical thread in your mind, at all...

	12-04-2002 10:38									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Asher It seems you're so lost in defending your thread you have no idea what it's about. Either that or you don't have a logical thread in your mind, at all...

Now, now --- give the poor guy some time.

He might prove himself with his yet-latest response to my latest post.

	12-04-2002 10:41									#70
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Asher He would have been in a public position at a private university with a large homosexual population.

He has already proven himself to be a qualified candidate. Right now he is in a public position at a public university with a large homosexual population. The majority of the people in this area will readily admit that Brown is a good man and upstanding citizen, regardless of what they think of his personal beliefs. Maybe I'm just from a "whacko" part of the country, where we judge people by what they do, not what they think.

quote: That's like saying that the Ku Klux Klan would never reenact segregation laws if it was within their power --- after all, it's only their THOUGHTS.

I'm not even going to comment on this. I draw the line at comparing a black football coach to the KKK. My absurdity filter can only handle so much.

And Asher, I've said several times that Stanford is well within its rights to not hire Brown based on his beliefs. My question all along has been about whether Stanford's actions were right and whether they were hypocritical or not. You've done a good job of avoiding these questions, but why don't we get back on topic?

	12-04-2002 10:45									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: That's like saying that the Ku Klux Klan would never reenact segregation laws if it was within their power --- after all, it's only their THOUGHTS. I'm not even going to comment on this. I draw the line at comparing a black football coach to the KKK. My absurdity filter can only handle so much.

Again, you miss my point -- I am not comparing a black coach to applying for membership of the Ku Klux Klan. You are denying the premise of my argument.

We have a disagreement on the connection between thought and action. Before we can proceed further on this issue, we need to have common ground established on any connection between a person's thought and action.

You are using the straw man fallacy intentionally, or by mistake with no intention by weakening my argument into something else.

	12-04-2002 10:47									#72
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Maybe I'm just from a "whacko" part of the country, where we judge people by what they do, not what they think.

Okay, and I'm judging him by his actions he took on his radio show. He's shown that he doesn't rate homosexuals as the same level as heterosexuals, since they're "not morally correct", so what's to guarantee that he won't say that again and embarass his new employer?

I judge people upon their history (actions) and what they believe in. This man has a history, and he believes in something I find highly offensive, as do a great many people in today's world.

quote: My question all along has been about whether Stanford's actions were right and whether they were hypocritical or not. You've done a good job of avoiding these questions, but why don't we get back on topic?

Maybe I'm crazy, but the thread topic to me reads as: " Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?". To which the answer is a resounding no, unless all Christians condemn homosexuality (which they all haven't, last I checked).

Stanford's actions were "right" in the sense that it's not illegal, and it's perfectly making sense to me why they haven't. I mean, it's Stanford. They can afford to be picky with this kind of thing.

How have I avoided that topic, btw? I thought we beat that to death.

And again, your hypocritical statement hinges on evidence that Stanford said that they're "inclusive of ALL ideologies" or whatever. I'm sure people they consider liabilities don't make it on their payroll unless they have to, which is how most private institutions work.

	12-04-2002 10:51									#73
	The Plot Thickens... Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, the administration at Stanford just made the following comments on the article.

quote: Religion not a consideration An article in the April 11 edition of the Daily Nebraskan, "Religious beliefs present hurdles for coach's career" asserted that the religious views of Nebraska football Coach Ron Brown were a consideration in his candidacy for the head football coaching position at Stanford University. The article inaccurately portrayed the issue of religion in Stanford's decision not to hire Coach Brown. Ron Brown has established himself as one of the finest assistant coaches in college football, and we were honored he would consider coming to Stanford. I enjoyed my discussions with Ron regarding the head coaching position at Stanford and thought him to be an excellent candidate. However, we simply decided to go another way. Religion played no role in our decision-making process, and to assert that Ron's religious views were a consideration is inaccurate. Stanford University supports a diverse community in which beliefs of all faiths are welcomed and accepted. Discrimination in this manner is not tolerated. Our previous football coach, Tyrone Willingham, who left Stanford to become the head coach at Notre Dame, had a strong religious background and enjoyed seven very successful seasons at Stanford. Ted Leland Stanford University director of athletics Comments misrepresented In response to the April 11 article, "Religious beliefs present hurdles for coach's career," comments attributed to me were misrepresented by the reporter. My comments were of a general nature and not specific to Ron Brown or his candidacy for the head football coaching position at Stanford University. I have known Ron Brown for more than 25 years and consider him to be a friend. He is an excellent football coach, and an outstanding candidate for a head coaching position. I endorsed Ron's candidacy for the position of head football coach at Stanford University and, in fact, recommended him to Stanford Athletic Director Ted Leland. The comments attributed to me in the article were taken out of context. Ron's religious views were not a consideration in the decision-making process. Alan Glenn Stanford University assistant athletic director Human Resources Editor's note: The Daily Nebraskan maintains the validity of all Stanford officials' comments in an April 11 story regarding Assistant Football Coach Ron Brown.

I don't really know what to make of this response. They certainly don't make Brown sound like a homophobic whacko, however.

	12-04-2002 10:55									#74
	Re: The Plot Thickens... Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I don't really know what to make of this response. They certainly don't make Brown sound like a homophobic whacko, however.

This latest development is not going to let you off the hook.

We have yet to establish common ground on the connection between thought and action. Read my latest post if you wish to continue the current argument.

thanks

	12-04-2002 10:55									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

What did I tell you.

	12-04-2002 10:56									#76
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Again, you miss my point -- I am not comparing a black coach to applying for membership of the Ku Klux Klan. You are denying the premise of my argument.

Sorry Mr. Fun, but your argument is stupid. You are implying that Ron Brown, a man you know nothing about, would act in the same manner as a hate filled organization like the Ku Klux Klan if put into power. You have no evidence for any of this other than your mistaken belief that Brown hates homosexuals. Why should I give any credence to an argument as worthless as this? I've waded through enough of your contrived hypothetical situations for one night.

	12-04-2002 10:58									#77
	Re: The Plot Thickens... Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I don't really know what to make of this response. They certainly don't make Brown sound like a homophobic whacko, however.

Homophobes are whackos by default, that's redundant.

And of course they don't make him sound like a homophobic whacko.

They'd be sued so fast they wouldn't know what hit 'em if they said that.

It doesn't change the fact that he admits to making public comments on his radio show about how homosexuals are not "morally correct" (homophobic).

Retreat, Drake, before it's too late.

	12-04-2002 10:59									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Sorry Mr. Fun, but your argument is stupid. You are implying that Ron Brown, a man you know nothing about, would act in the same manner as a hate filled organization like the Ku Klux Klan if put into power. You have no evidence for any of this other than your mistaken belief that Brown hates homosexuals. Why should I give any credence to an argument as worthless as this? I've waded through enough of your contrived hypothetical situations for one night.

Hmmm . . . . . ad-hominem attacks.

Damn -- I thought you and I could continue a civil discussion on establishing common ground on the connection between thought and action.

But I guess you withdraw from that argument.

I am not saying that the coach would absolutely do that -- note before, that I have considered in a previous post that he might not necessarily act in that manner.

I wanted to find some agreement on thought and action, but you just do not want to continue that argument.

	12-04-2002 11:00									#79
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai What did I tell you.

I never discounted the possibility. Now the question is "Who is telling the truth?" Is Ron Brown trying to gain sympathy for an as yet unmentioned lawsuit? Or is Stanford just trying to cover its ass? Find out on the next exciting episode of "Palo Alto"....

	12-04-2002 11:04									#80
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I wanted to find some agreement on thought and action, but you just do not want to continue that argument.

We've talked about this before (on one of the hate crimes threads) and I therefore know that we aren't going to come to any sort of agreement. I prefer to ignore people's thoughts entirely and focus on their actions, while you seem to think that both must be considered equally. Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it.

edit: I don't know how my disdain for your argument is an ad hominem attack. I thought an ad hominem attack was directed at the person, not their argument. I said that your argument is stupid, not that you were stupid. If we can't attack arguments, how are we supposed to debate?

	12-04-2002 14:13									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Now that the bogus "intolerance of Christianity" issue has been disposed of, it seems that the remaining issue is whether or not the intolerance of intolerance is hypocritical.

How is this so?

Tolerance is an ideal. In an ideal world, either the tolerance or the intolerance of bigotry would not be an issue, because there would be no bigotry to be tolerant or intolerant OF. However, we live in a world where the concept of tolerance conflicts with the concept of bigotry. In this situation, support for one cause naturally leads to intolerance of the other, simply because they are mutually exclusive.

Tolerating bigotry in the name of tolerance WOULD be clearly hypocritical. It would be directly equivalent to tolerating slavery in the name of freedom (in this case, the freedom of the slavers).

In a less-than-ideal world, "tolerance" REQUIRES the intolerance of intolerance, just as supporting "freedom" requires opposition to those who oppose freedom.

	12-04-2002 15:22									#82
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The point of this whole thread was to expose Stanford's hypocrisy. They claims to be respectful and inclusive of all cultures and ideals, but then discriminate against a man whose beliefs they don't find palatable. Hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

Very very true. A liberal inclusive university rejects someone because they don't agree with them.

He says he finds homosexuals to be morally wrong... so what? So do plenty of people, but they aren't going to actively discriminate against them. They just find the sexual act horrid. What about hate the sin, love the sinner? It isn't just a catch phrase, it occurs often.

quote: Homophobes are whackos by default, that's redundant.

If believing that homosexual sex is repugnant is 'wacko', then a substantial portion of the population is such... including those that are tolerant of homosexuals in every other aspect.

quote: In a less-than-ideal world, "tolerance" REQUIRES the intolerance of intolerance, just as supporting "freedom" requires opposition to those who oppose freedom.

This makes little sense. To complete the analogy correctly, it would say... freedom requires taking away freedom from those that oppose it. Because in your first statement you say that.. tolerance requires intolerance to those that aren't.

I totally disagree. If you are REALLY tolerant then you tolerate intolerance as well. If you don't then you are not really tolerant.

	12-04-2002 16:15									#83
	Full PM-box? Change here!

...Which is why I used the phrase "in a less-than-ideal world". Many people feel that a bending of the ideal of "tolerance of everything" is necessary and justifiable against bigotry, because otherwise tolerance will not prevail. Just like imprisoning those who oppose freedom: this is necessary and justifiable if there is a genuine danger that those "opponents of freedom" would otherwise prevail.

	12-04-2002 18:45									#84
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I totally disagree. If you are REALLY tolerant then you tolerate intolerance as well. If you don't then you are not really tolerant.

Thank jebus that so many people across the world decided that the above quote is a piece of crap and decided to be intolerant of slavery.

	12-04-2002 19:49									#85
	Tired of ads?

I must be unenlightened. I still dont quite understand how actively engaging, or tolerating, slavery is synonymous with having an opinion about homosexuality. If im opposed to affirmative action or slave reparations, am I automatically a racist and/or a slave trader? This smacks of a false dichotomy.

	12-04-2002 20:43									#86
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Slavery isn't really a problem in the US anymore. Bigotry, however, is. If slavery was an ongoing problem, there would be a greater imperative to take sides. You could campaign for or against, but if you do nothing, you'd be endorsing the status quo (pro-slavery in the Confederacy).

"For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good men do nothing".

	12-04-2002 21:18									#87
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten We've talked about this before (on one of the hate crimes threads) and I therefore know that we aren't going to come to any sort of agreement. I prefer to ignore people's thoughts entirely and focus on their actions, while you seem to think that both must be considered equally. Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it. edit: I don't know how my disdain for your argument is an ad hominem attack. I thought an ad hominem attack was directed at the person, not their argument. I said that your argument is stupid, not that you were stupid. If we can't attack arguments, how are we supposed to debate?

I felt that the word stupid was directed towards me as well as my argument. Guess not.
But there are more polite ways to attack a person's argument.

I want to hear from other people on my two questions:

1) What is the difference between revulsion towards interracial marriages compared to revulsion towards homosexual marriages??

2) What connection is there between thought and action??

	12-04-2002 21:51									#88
	what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment. Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 1) What is the difference between revulsion towards interracial marriages compared to revulsion towards homosexual marriages??

No difference at all. The more relevant question should be why my employment, or potential employment, status should be contingent on whether I support or oppose either one.

quote: 2) What connection is there between thought and action??

Mutually exclusive concepts, and a slippery slope to imply one necessarily leads to another. If I oppose gay marriage in Thought, it doesnt mean I'm going to marginalize or discriminate against people in my workplace or other aspects of my life. Same goes for interracial marriage. Most of us carry unfounded opinions and prejudgements against someone or something ( no matter how petty or significant they may be), but we rarely act upon those prejudgements because legal and societal restraints dissuade us from doing so. The exceptions, of course, are the freaks like Aryan Nations and other terrorists who use terror and violence to enforce their beliefs. But that shouldn't force others into silencing their views, no matter how bizarre, because they're environment deems it the "right thing to do" .

	12-04-2002 22:11									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave I must be unenlightened. I still dont quite understand how actively engaging, or tolerating, slavery is synonymous with having an opinion about homosexuality. If im opposed to affirmative action or slave reparations, am I automatically a racist and/or a slave trader? This smacks of a false dichotomy.

Before you get all pissy, could you at least do me the courtesy of the reading what I've posted, and what I've responded to first? Imran said: "the truly tolerant will tolerate intolerance". I reply: "it's a good thing that people did not tolerate intolerance [in the form of thinking that blacks are lesser people who should be slaves]". At least you admitted that your post was a false dichotomy though, because it certainly couldn't have applied to mine.

	12-04-2002 22:30									#90
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I felt that the word stupid was directed towards me as well as my argument. Guess not. But there are more polite ways to attack a person's argument. I want to hear from other people on my two questions: 1) What is the difference between revulsion towards interracial marriages compared to revulsion towards homosexual marriages?? 2) What connection is there between thought and action??

I have some revulsion for homosexual acts (mostly those that are Man on Man, they turn me off). And I think that homosexuality is a result of sin and that homosexual actions are sinful. (See numerous biblical references)

However, all people sin and we have to live our lives in a sinful world. This means that sin corrupts things which were meant to be good for us and often to take the good we must take sin as well.

Also, there is much to be gained from permanent monogamous relationships, I consider what is to be gained to be worth far more than the sin inherant in homosexual actions. Therefore I support, for most homosexuals, homosexual marriage so that they can gain all the good things that are possible from a loving monagomous relationship. I think that many of the problems with homosexuality today would be fixed by having and supporting homosexuals to enter into homosexual marriage.

Basically I am arguing that marriage is good and homosexuals should be allowed to and encouraged to experience it (just like heterosexuals). Oh, I think the same about sex (in case that was not clear).

If you call me a bigot that is OK. Just know that I do not think less of you or anybody else for being homosexual, it is just an additional burden of sin to carry (I am sure that I carry some heterosexual related that you do not) as we all carry burdens of sin on this earth. In fact, some of the greatest men on this earth have been homosexual (and men I idealise) .

Also in responce to your questions. There are no actions which are associated with a race, they do nothing different than anyone else (and the marriage wouldn't be any different (I admit if they were different cultures it could be)).

In the US we follow the idea that the state should not decide what is true, rather every individual for themselves. Now the state must sanction some generally agreed upon truth for society to function, so action gets a response in the US. But since we think that everyone should decide for themselves what is true (freedom of concience), we do not dictate what people can think (or if we do it is against our consitution). I think that this is a good way for society to function.

I admit I don't want race to go away, there are some extremely good looking people from Africa and East Asia and all over the world and it would be a shame to lose their distinctive looks (but I would jump at the chance to get into a interracial relationship).

I am sure that some people are going to read what I wrote wrongly. I usually don't show my religious thinking here (it changes too often).

Jon Miller