12-04-2002 22:39									#91
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui 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.

Comon, Imran, you're smarter than this.
He hasn't said anything about the act of homosexual sex, but homosexuals themselves (so your hate the sin, love the sinners BS won't happen here).

Would you still feel the same way if he made remarks about Arabs on his radio show?

	12-04-2002 23:03									#92
	Re: what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment. Remove this text

double post

	12-04-2002 23:05									#93
	Re: what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave 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. 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" .

Thanks for answering my questions.

Now, onto another question. This means that the opinions of racists should be respected, just as opinions of heterosexists or homophobics should be respected??

I find it very difficult to respect the opinions of heterosexists and homophobics, just as many people find it very difficult to respect the opinions of racists.

	12-04-2002 23:31									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

A. I never get pissy.

B. I reread what transpired, and I agree with Imran even more.
Consider that slavery was the status quo for 2 or so centuries. It took the minority voice of dissent, i.e. the unpopular voice of "intolerance" in that day, to put abolition on the table. Why? Because those voices, even though unpopular and uncomfortable to the status quo, brought about those changes. The peril of living in a free society is you take the good with the bad. There are the good that bring about change and social justice, and the bad, like racist scum.

MrFun Respect is the wrong word. A free (truly tolerant) society only takes into the account the inherent right to expression, not the content itself. It's up to the individual listener and audience to make of it with they will ("respecting their opinions or not"). We are each our own antenna.

Dave

	13-04-2002 02:50									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: He hasn't said anything about the act of homosexual sex, but homosexuals themselves (so your hate the sin, love the sinners BS won't happen here).

I was responding to your statement, not the guy. Saying homophobes are wackos doesn't mean just him, since people call people that disagree with homosexual sex as homophobes (like even liberal members of the Church).

quote: A free (truly tolerant) society only takes into the account the inherent right to expression, not the content itself.

Exactly. I wasn't saying that tolerance of those views is good or bad, I was merely pointing out what tolerance meant. In fact, I believe that intolerance isn't always a bad thing (when it means being intolerant of intolerant views)... however we should try to forcible suppress those views, just not tolerate them being as equal as tolerant views.

	13-04-2002 03:01									#96
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I was responding to your statement, not the guy. Saying homophobes are wackos doesn't mean just him, since people call people that disagree with homosexual sex as homophobes (like even liberal members of the Church).

I'm not aware of that definition.
Homophobes are people who don't like (to say the least) homosexuals.

It's fine to find homosexual sex to be disgusting, go ahead and talk all you want about it, more power to you.

But to take that a step farther (like this guy did) and to label homosexuals as "morally incorrect" (and I'm sure he's said much more,too) in a public spotlight, and then whine about how a liberal private university didn't hire him because of it, is just retarded.

	13-04-2002 03:47									#97
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher Comon, Imran, you're smarter than this. He hasn't said anything about the act of homosexual sex, but homosexuals themselves (so your hate the sin, love the sinners BS won't happen here).

This isn't even true Asher. You seem hellbent on convincing people that Brown hates homosexuals, but the facts aren't on your side. I think the article makes it clear that he disapproves of the act of homosexual sex, not homosexuals themselves.

quote: "I don't believe homosexuality is biblically correct," he said. "But that doesn't mean I disdain the people or do anything to disrespect anyone here."

Remember this quote? Does this sound like hatred for homosexuals?

Sounds just like "hate the sin, love the sinner" to me...

	13-04-2002 04:41									#98
	Inflate your Upload Space

You left out some of the other quotes.

quote: In November 1999, Brown drew heavy media attention after he called homosexuality a sin on his Christian radio talk show, then called "Husker Sports Report." On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child.

I applaud is effort of reversing that now by saying "No I didn't mean it, I love them, I just don't think they're morally correct", but it's quite clear that he hasn't changed one bit and has now just clued in that it won't get him very far in public positions to have such views publically.

	13-04-2002 04:50									#99
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Who argues that people who argue against homosexual relationships should be entitled to the same level of respect as people who argue against interracial marriages receive?

	13-04-2002 04:51									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Oh yes, you're right! Nobody's view on life changes from the views they had in childhood! If he hated homosexuals in his youth, he must hate them now, despite any proof to the contrary![/sarcasm]

Why don't you just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? You're bias towards this subject is affecting your reasoning.

	13-04-2002 05:02									#101
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Oh yes, you're right! Nobody's view on life changes from the views they had in childhood! If he hated homosexuals in his youth, he must hate them now, despite any proof to the contrary![/sarcasm] Why don't you just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? You're bias towards this subject is affecting your reasoning.

Erm...if you consider 2 years ago his "childhood", then perhaps he is a bit immature.

http://www.truthwalk.com/archives/A...099/112399.html

quote: Coach Brown made the following comments on the radio (paraphrased), "One of our responsibilities as Christians is to reach out to and love people struggling with homosexuality. The church must not do anything to ostracize these people, but love them, because they are in real need of the life transforming power of a relationship with Jesus Christ."

What a great man!
He doesn't hate them anymore like he did when he was a kid, but now they require the "life transforming power of a relationship with Jesus Christ."

Gee, I wonder why Stanford gave him the thumbs down.

	13-04-2002 05:17									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I rest my case. Your quote proves that while Brown disapproves of homosexual sex, he doesn't preach hate toward homosexuals. He is not a great man, but he is also not a hate filled man like you have tried to make him out to be. He is a decent man with an unpopular viewpoint on this issue. Should this viewpoint be used as a reason to deny the man employment? I know what you think, Asher, so why don't we let other people voice their opinions?

	13-04-2002 05:20									#103
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I have voiced my opinions, but you cut our argument off when you started to become intimidated by my rational constructs.

	13-04-2002 05:24									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I have voiced my opinions, but you cut our argument off when you started to become intimidated by my rational constructs.

When "rational constructs" begin to resemble the Gordian knot, I begin to wonder whether the discussion is worth continuing...

Not to mention that it was getting pretty late...

	13-04-2002 05:25									#105
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I rest my case. Your quote proves that while Brown disapproves of homosexual sex, he doesn't preach hate toward homosexuals.

I never said he preached hate, I said he calls homosexuals sinners and he keeps saying that the need to be healed by Jesus or whatever you want to call it. It's not outright hate, but he's saying that they're freaks and they need to be fixed.

This is way too common an attitude. Many christians (not most, or all) believe homosexuals can be converted, and they believe the power of God can help them convert.

From the quotes I've seen of Ron Brown, he's one of those people. He advocates encouraging homosexuals to go to church, not because he cares about them, but because he wants them to be cured. After all, the church would tell them that they live a life of sin...

quote: He is not a great man, but he is also not a hate filled man like you have tried to make him out to be.

You're the one constantly bringing up hate.
I've said many times now that he's intolerant (as evidence by him still calling homosexuality a sin). I don't care how he dresses it, even if it's in a nice and "We need to help them" sort of way.

quote: He is a decent man with an unpopular viewpoint on this issue. Should this viewpoint be used as a reason to deny the man employment? I know what you think, Asher, so why don't we let other people voice their opinions?

Because nobody else cares.

Stanford is private.
Ron Brown has already caused national controversy with his comments with his previous employer.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Stanford rejecting his application as Head Coach, as that's a very public position, and they'd rather not deal with the controversy and backlash of having someone with such views and chooses to air them publically.

Did you also miss the quotes from the Stanford students that said he wouldn't quite be welcome there?

You can call it hypocrisy, but I don't think Stanford ever advocated supporting every viewpoint in the world, particularly when that viewpoint is at the expense of minorities.

It's not my reasoning that's flawed, it's yours. I don't care about who the man is. He's caused controversy nationally with his comments before, what's to stop him from doing it again? That's why he didn't get the job.

There's nothing more to troll about, you've run out of steam.
Hey, maybe you can talk more about how I said he's a hate filled man and a demon, then I can sit here arguing that I didn't some more. That's real fun.

	13-04-2002 05:39									#106
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher Ron Brown has already caused national controversy with his comments with his previous employer.

quote: He's caused controversy nationally with his comments before, what's to stop him from doing it again?

National controversy? Since when is a controversy in Lincoln, Nebraska a national controversy? I live here and can tell you that Lincoln is the only place on Earth less important than Calgary. I least you have a giant rodeo...

Anyway, I'll say again (hopefully for the last time) that I understand why Stanford didn't hire him and think that the decision is well within their rights. That being said, I do think that their decision is hypocritical in light of Stanford's stated commitment to diversity. As for your belief that Stanford has no such commitment...

quote: Stanford University supports a diverse community in which beliefs of all faiths are welcomed and accepted.

says the Stanford Athletic Director. Seems like hypocrisy to me...

I still can't get over the fact that you have no idea who Noam Chomsky is...

	13-04-2002 05:46									#107
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten National controversy? Since when is a controversy in Lincoln, Nebraska a national controversy? I live here and can tell you that Lincoln is the only place on Earth less important than Calgary. I least you have a giant rodeo...

Do a google search, it was apparently news back in 1999.
Hell, CNN did a story on it.

quote: That being said, I do think that their decision is hypocritical in light of Stanford's stated commitment to diversity. As for your belief that Stanford has no such commitment... quote: Stanford University supports a diverse community in which beliefs of all faiths are welcomed and accepted. says the Stanford Athletic Director. Seems like hypocrisy to me...

So they're also hypocritic if they denied admission to racists, too?

There is a thing called absurdity, and you crossed it long ago. Who cares if you think they're being hypocritical? They want to save their asses from potential liability.

You'd better be just as up in arms if they refuse to employ a skinhead Neo-Nazi, since the Athletic Director said they accept all faiths and beliefs.

quote: I still can't get over the fact that you have no idea who Noam Chomsky is...

Why would I know of or care about an MIT Linguistics professor?

Get off your high horse. You're starting to act like a jackass.

You've changed your argument numerous times since this started and you still can't make a logical statement about any of it.

	13-04-2002 05:50									#108
	Inflate your Upload Space

Asher: Don't try and justify it man. Just say it's Stanford's right to choose anyone they want for a position at their campus. Just like Baylor has every right to choose who they want. It's all pretty much the same isn't it? Baylor wants to foster a certain image just like Stanford claims to do.

He should have pretty much guessed that would happen when he went for the interview.

	13-04-2002 05:52									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Asher Get off your high horse. You're starting to act like a jackass.

Speaking of hypocrisy...

	13-04-2002 05:52									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Asher: Don't try and justify it man. Just say it's Stanford's right to choose anyone they want for a position at their campus. Just like Baylor has every right to choose who they want. It's all pretty much the same isn't it? Baylor wants to foster a certain image just like Stanford claims to do. He should have pretty much guessed that would happen when he went for the interview.

I'm not trying to justify anything.
And I actually said exactly what you said in one of my first posts.

Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

	13-04-2002 05:56									#111
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Asher Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

I thought that's what he's been saying all along.

	13-04-2002 05:56									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Speaking of hypocrisy...

It's really cool how you keep ignoring all my points.

Would you call it hypocritic still if Stanford denied to employ a skinnhead neo-nazi? Yes or no.

If yes, you're simply crazy.

If no, how is this different than the Ron Brown situation? One line is drawn closer than the other?

When they say those comments, they mean all faiths that don't compromise the rights, dignity, and respect of the other faiths on campus.

If you've got someone going around saying that homosexuals are sinning and the Church can save them -- that's not respecting the rights of the homosexuals on campus.

	13-04-2002 05:59									#113
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I thought that's what he's been saying all along.

Look at the thread title.

Stanford's not discriminating against Christians, but rather against someone with an unpopular political opinion that goes against what the vast majority of students at the university believe, as well as being a political liability for having a tendancy to publically express these beliefs.

And now the argument is reduced to technicalities and semantics over what the Athletic Director meant when he said all faiths are welcome, and apparently Draken can't see some obvious exceptions to that comment.

	13-04-2002 05:59									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Asher: Don't try and justify it man. Just say it's Stanford's right to choose anyone they want for a position at their campus. Just like Baylor has every right to choose who they want. It's all pretty much the same isn't it? Baylor wants to foster a certain image just like Stanford claims to do. He should have pretty much guessed that would happen when he went for the interview.

quote: Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

Actually, Asher, I totally agree with Sprayber's statement. Stanford has the right to choose whoever they want for a job (as I've said several times). My point has always been that it is hypocritical to screen job applicants by their religious beliefs while at the same time purporting to run a university that is inclusive of all faiths. Is this really so hard to understand?

First you try to speak for Ron Brown, now you're trying to speak for me. I'd appreciate it if you let me decide what I agree or disagree with.

	13-04-2002 06:02									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Actually, Asher, I totally agree with Sprayber's statement. My point has always been that it is hypocritical to screen job applicants by their religious beliefs while at the same time purporting to run a university that is inclusive of all faiths. Is this really so hard to understand?

Yes, because they don't care for his religious beliefs.
You think no Christians work at Stanford?

They care because there's already public knowledge about the Coach's controversial opinions, which he expresses publically.

Therefore, he's not hired. This is not hypocritic, because it has nothing do with his faith, but rather his history and how he enjoys running his mouth about homosexuals.

quote: First you try to speak for Ron Brown, now you're trying to speak for me. I'd appreciate it if you let me decide what I agree or disagree with.

When did I try to speak for Ron Brown *OR* for you?

BTW, you can bet your ass Stanford wouldn't hire an Atheist who said all Christians need to saved from themselves for believing in something that doesn't exist, either. Is that discriminating against Atheists, or against one man who is a potential liability?

Why is it so difficult for you to differenciate between those?

	13-04-2002 06:03									#116
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asher Look at the thread title.

I'm sorry that I didn't think that "Is Stanford hypocritical for denying a conservative Christian employment while at the same time claiming to be a diverse institution?" would be a good title for this thread. Sorry for confusing you. I guess I was wrong in assuming you could read my posts and comprehend what my argument was...

	13-04-2002 06:03									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher I'm not trying to justify anything. And I actually said exactly what you said in one of my first posts. Draken disagrees, and now all he has left for an argument is the university is being hypocritical because they say they welcome all faiths.

Ok. I gave up reading on the first page.

Of course they are being hyporcritical. They are human after all. I don't hold self styled open minded people any higher than I hold self styled righoutous people. Bottom line is that they, like Baylor, has the right to project whatever image that they desire. If they appear hyporcritical to those that don't hold the same views,like Baylor, then oh well. Thats life. Thankfully, there are other places to go besides Baylor and Stanford. Choice is what it's all about.

	13-04-2002 06:07									#118
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I'm sorry that I didn't think that "Is Stanford hypocritical for denying a conservative Christian employment while at the same time claiming to be a diverse institution?" would be a good title for this thread. Sorry for confusing you. I guess I was wrong in assuming you could read my posts and comprehend what my argument was...

Here's your first post:

quote: Personally, I think that this definitely seems like discrimination. I don't agree with Brown's views on homosexuality, but I certainly think that he is entitled to believe whatever he wants. I've never heard of an incident where his personal beliefs have affected his performance as a football coach, so I don't really see what basis Stanford has for their decision.

Tell me what we didn't cover? Thanks.
And where's the bit of hypocrisy?

You added that cr*p (which is pointless, btw) long after your original post was generally shot down by most people here, which you now concede to seeing the logic behind.

	13-04-2002 06:17									#119
	Suffering from ads?

I give up. You ***** about getting into an argument about technicalities and semantics, yet you're the one searching old posts for the word "hypocrisy" to try and prove that you are right. I never mentioned hypocrisy directly in my first posts, but it was implied to anyone with any knowledge of Stanford and its commitment to diversity. Loinburger was smart enough to note it, but you can't seem to. You have run me off with your concentrated and sustained idiocy. You shouldn't be (but probably are) proud...

	13-04-2002 06:24									#120
	Tired of ads?

Man, that's so lame.

Kudos to you.

I don't try to read subtexts to what people say, because then you get into stupid little things called assumptions, which aren't very nice.

I take things for face value.
If you wanted to discuss hypocrisy, you should have dicussed hypocrisy. You're using it as some kind of salvation for your horrible argument in the thread, and even then you haven't established if it even matters that they're being hypocritical about it.

It's in their right to do it, it makes sense to do it, they did do it. It may be hypocritical, but you've ignored my question twice now of whether it'd still be hypocritical if they denied employment to a Neo-Nazi.

You're just pissed off because you ran out of things to argue about.