RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
nunya's comments:
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
I guess I do have a little more to say!
@Tom D Ford.
Oops! I made a HUGE mistake and owe you an apology! I accidentally confused your post on being bullied in school for being smart with someone else's post on being bullied for being homosexual! I guess that's what I get for trying to divide my time between Verilog logic synthesis and writing to this forum! My sincere apologies! I guess I did accidentally equate your "intelligent lifestyle" with being a poor one! I have no one to blame but myself for my inattention at the time I wrote the post. Again, I am SOOOOOO sorry! That being said, I guess I really should have said "the homosexual lifestyle" as opposed to "your lifestyle". Nevertheless, everything I said in my very last post with respect to your lack of logical coherence and stooping to petty put-downs still holds. My having made a silly mistake doesn't change that.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
@Tom D Ford
Tom, you claim that I don't understand or am unwilling to understand. So far, all I have seen is that you don't understand basic statistics and logic; you've misunderstood my clear arguments at nearly every post and resorted to using half-veiled put-downs in place of reason to further your arguments.
Case in point: "And I think it is hilarious that you think of a person being intelligent as a "lifestyle" choice."
Like I just posted to scottmill, I have made no arguments for or against a given cause of homosexuality. It isn't relevant. biological goals are simply an object measure of the value of a human behavior regardless of cause for said behavior. In no way whatsoever did I convey the thought that being intelligent is a "lifestyle choice". All I said was that being highly intelligent is an example of being some standard deviations away from the norm that furthers the meeting of biological imperatives as opposed to hampering them. Your lack of logical coherence astounds me!
Though I didn't find any of your arguments particularly compelling, as they were mostly emotional and without reason, I appreciate your time too. You obviously feel strongly about this. Thank you for discussing this via an appropriate environment, i.e. this forum and not a fourth grade classroom. I hope you are more careful in the future about labeling people; after all, that is literally what the Nazi's did.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
@scottmill
What is statistically normal biologically is not irrelevant, it is an objective measure by which to judge to value of human behavior. I have not provided evidence for a causal relationship between biological or social factors and homosexuality, because it doesn't matter the cause, what matters is the inherent value of the behavior itself with respect to biological goals. As per my last post, there are no acceptable reasons to discriminate or persecute another human-being. Talking about who you are, what you are, or how you feel is fine; however, I think many people would take issue with a hermaphrodite walking up to a fourth grade student and unsolicitedly telling him, "I have a penis and a vagina." Clearly, the problem with logic is not mine in this case. Indeed, the Mr. Staumbaugh's advocacy comes in the form of unsolicited whining about pretended persecution, veiled though his whining may have been.
I neither have any more to say about this issue, nor do I have the time to say more; I've said enough and I need to get back to my studies. I do appreciate your thoughts, Scott; my posting to this forum began as a thought experiment (no, not trolling), and your responses were much more well thought out than I expected. It hasn't changed my stance, but I'm glad to see people who deeply think about these issues instead of simply following emotional appeals or party lines. I appreciate the time you took to respond. Would that I could talk to more people like you. If I had a way of safely getting you my contact info., I'd take you to lunch sometime.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
@Tom D Ford
I am in no way whatsoever furthering the "Gay Holocaust," and I'm not using pretty words; in fact, I accidentally misspelled "conscience" in my last post. I'm merely using the language of mathematics and science. I am not for the culling of people based on their sexuality or for any other reason. It feels like you are calling my a Nazi, which seems like more of a Glenn Beck thing to do than an anything else. Let's not be base here. Finding homosexual relations to be of an adverse value when compared to heterosexual relations, and treating it as such is logical. This does not imply in anyway that homosexuals should be treated as less than human. To make the jump to saying that I am furthering a "Gay Holocaust" is defamatory to those who have been victims of actual holocausts and is exceedingly kind to the perpetrators of holocausts. It's like seeing a picture of president Obama with a Hitler mustache. It's apples and oranges, and it is really just a form of unsubstantiated, base name calling. I can understand your not being pleased with someone articulately illustrating that the lifestyle you live is a poor lifestyle at best. But I don't see the need to resort to quasi-name calling and hyperbole.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
@Tom D Ford
There is a big difference between negative and positive standard deviations. Being a nerd might not feel desirable, but being extra intelligent is definitely in the positive direction statistically and biologically speaking, i.e it better furthers biological goals than the norm.
Also, being born with deficiencies is not not being born right. I doubt the mother of a child with down syndrome would say that their child wasn't born right. We are all born differently some of us with more advantages than others, and some with significantly great deficits. I'm not suggesting we treat people with less respect and dignity due to their short comings. But making illogical concessions to ease people's consciouses or advocating for said concessions doesn't sit well with me.
@scottmill
My apologies, to be honest, I am not convinced that all cases of homosexuality are biological, I was merely using biological imperatives as a standard of measure; nevertheless, what I meant was that homosexuality should not be advocated for as an appropriate lifestyle or as a lifestyle that is equal in value to those that significantly better meet said biological imperatives. To be blunt, if you are homosexual, there is something wrong with you (maybe biologically, maybe not, though more likely not). This flaw should not be paraded about as though it is a fine way to be, especially in front of children. Acknowledging that homosexuality is adversely abnormal by denying gay marriage, among other things, is not a form of persecution, and it would appear as though Mr. Stambaugh would like to cleverly convey that he thinks the opposite at every given chance no matter how inappropriate or uncalled for.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
@Tom D Ford
Right, there is a percentage of homosexuality in nearly all animal populations, including humans. If it didn't then it wouldn't be measurable as being a deviation from the norm. It turns out the human sexuality falls rather nicely into a Gaussian distribution, with homosexuality being, by definition, significantly far below the norm of sexual preferences/lifestyles. The same can be said of mental and physical disabilities; yes, they occur in the population with a fairly stable level of occurrence, at any given time, but they are not the biological norm for the population of human beings. I am not suggesting that homosexuals be treated as less than human, just as I would not suggest that a physically or mentally disabled person be treated as less than human despite their deficiencies; however, it does not make me a bigot to recognize that being disabled is an undesirable and abnormal state to be in. Nor does it make me a bigot to take steps to try to diminish the occurrence of said disabilities and help others to overcome their disabilities. Interestingly enough, incidence of physical and mental disabilities have been significantly reduced in our time due to modern medical science. Note, I am not trying to say that being homosexual is disabling like unto mental illness or physical handicap; it is merely to illustrative of the statistical relevance of being N- standard deviations from the biological norm. What I am saying is that, homosexuality is not a desirable state to be in, not to the same degree as handicap to be sure, but it is absolutely not something to be advocated for in a fourth grade classroom.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
I'd prefer it if the comparable millions of Chinese murdered by the Japanese had some sort of recognition in this country. It is shameless racism that has kept them from receiving the same levels of recognition for the atrocities perpetrated on them as what the Jews have.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
Homosexuality deviates from the biological norm, not merely a social norm as in your example of the black man. It follows that this kind of advocacy is in fact ideological and political in nature. Also, political and ideological advocacy is inappropriate for an elementary classroom.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Equal Protection for Sexual Minorities?
Suppose the inverse of this situation. A student asks a male heterosexual teacher if they are married and the teacher responds, "Yes, because it is legal." When the student asks why, the teacher elaborates, "Well, I prefer to be married to a woman."
Does this make sense? The only response requisite to answer the original question was given in the first word of the response; what follows from that first word is a string of non-sequiturs!
Look, was this Seth guy's answer inappropriate? I don't know, but nearly all of it was not warranted given the question asked. Should he have been removed from the classroom for his reponse? I don't know that either. What I do know is that I am highly suspect of anyone teaching children whose sexual habits are more than 1.5 standard deviations from the norm and who is, however slyly, advocating for for those habits in front of impressionable children.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
