tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post4924733541900256857..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Action vs orientationRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-21629200581367562502011-12-05T09:37:21.414-06:002011-12-05T09:37:21.414-06:00"MINE is easily categorised. That's not t..."MINE is easily categorised. That's not true for everyone."<br /><br />So on what basis should one categorise other people's ontology?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45624407825405408332011-12-05T09:35:09.426-06:002011-12-05T09:35:09.426-06:00Just as a reminder: are you going to give any exam...Just as a reminder: are you going to give any examples of the legislation that you're railing against, or the "super rights" that you object to, bearing in mind that none of the links you've provided so far have mentioned either of those things?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-50648267298887946082011-12-05T09:29:48.447-06:002011-12-05T09:29:48.447-06:00“Yes, that's called a reductio ad absurdum. Yo...“Yes, that's called a reductio ad absurdum. Your "ontology matters not at all" position can't acct for all the data. It is therefore to be rejected.”<br /><br />My position is that race is socially constructed around a number of factors, one of which is physical appearance. I'm not sure why you think that position doesn't account for this particular instance?<br /><br />“I believe I've made my position clear, and it's not that 'race is static'. I have said "YOUR SKIN COLOR REMAINS STATIC. That is why I keep referring to ONTOLOGY."”<br /><br />Ah, thanks for clarifying. I had falsely assumed that you thought race = skin colour, so I apologise. I can't dispute that skin color remains static, but I hope that you're aware that the designations “black” and “white” don't refer to skin colour, but are racial categories? Are you arguing now that there is no such thing as racial groups? It's very confusing.<br /><br />“And in Japan, most all non-Asians are "gaijin".”<br /><br />Are American-born Japanese “gaijin” also? That would be the equivalent to the example I gave. I was using my experience that your ontological assumptions are not shared by others, and therefore are unlikely to actually be ontological. <br /><br />“and your mistake is in forgetting that those physical features are one of the CAUSES of the different constructs.”<br /><br />Yes, but since race is constructed differently in different cultures in different places and different times, those physical features are not themselves “ontological”. I worry that I am misunderstanding your use of the word ontological. Perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by it?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-73507402727546038842011-12-05T09:25:24.555-06:002011-12-05T09:25:24.555-06:00MINE is easily categorised. That's not true fo...MINE is easily categorised. That's not true for everyone.<br />The constant here is your confusion (and obstinacy).Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38259355842945498782011-12-05T09:19:33.517-06:002011-12-05T09:19:33.517-06:00"Another category error - assuming that one&#..."Another category error - assuming that one's ontology is easily categorised. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist."<br /><br />That's funny, because earlier, when arguing against the social construction of race, you said that "I am white. I can't be black. Because I'm white. See the difference?" Back then you clearly thought that one's ontology was easily categorised - have you changed your mind, or did you just forget what your position was?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57299796133545283112011-12-05T09:08:19.944-06:002011-12-05T09:08:19.944-06:00Another category error - assuming that one's o...Another category error - assuming that one's ontology is easily categorised. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-13109701020844108872011-12-05T09:04:38.048-06:002011-12-05T09:04:38.048-06:00“Newsflash: They are what they are. You know, onto...“Newsflash: They are what they are. You know, ontology.”<br /><br />So what are they? White or black?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-10441105964122006982011-12-05T08:02:42.178-06:002011-12-05T08:02:42.178-06:00merkur said...
My answer was to your one specific...merkur said...<br /><br /><i>My answer was to your one specific question about a guy who “looks black” and both of whose parents “look black”</i><br /><br />Yes, that's called a reductio ad absurdum.<br />Your "ontology matters not at all" position can't acct for all the data. It is therefore to be rejected.<br /><br /><br /><i>but that answer doesn't mean that race is static.</i><br /><br />I believe I've made my position clear, and it's not that 'race is static'. I have said "YOUR SKIN COLOR REMAINS STATIC. That is why I keep referring to ONTOLOGY."<br />One wonders whether you'll ever move on from this point on which you've clearly been shown to be mistaken.<br /><br /><br /><i>Are they white or are they black?</i><br /><br />Newsflash: They are what they are.<br />You know, ontology.<br />Then they get to choose how they ACT. <br />Hey, wait! That's been my point this whole time!!!! Cool!!!!!!!!1<br /><br /><br /><i>in some countries in which I have worked in Africa, people use the same word for all Americans/Europeans, including those that would be considered black in the US/Europe.</i><br /><br />And in Japan, most all non-Asians are "gaijin". Yes.<br /><br /><br /><i>So what exactly is ontological? It can't be their skin colour, because skin colour varies widely</i><br /><br />Actually, it IS their skin color, b/c their skin color doesn't vary widely ON THE INDIVIDUAL. One's skin color and genome are the same from birth till death (barring extremes like excessive exposure to sun, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc).<br /><br /><br /><i>My point is that “race” is constructed socially around issues such as differences in physical features. </i><br /><br />and your mistake is in forgetting that those physical features are one of the CAUSES of the different constructs.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-90519291247288763672011-12-05T07:57:24.067-06:002011-12-05T07:57:24.067-06:00David said...
This is your rationale? A gay man i...David said...<br /><br /><i>This is your rationale? A gay man is more likely to be "perverse" in accounting than a straight man? </i><br /><br />I know, it's crazy to think that I might strive to be consistent with the Bible. <br /><br />Thanks, you've really, really, really made it clear that anti-anti-discrimination legislation is needed. You've really got some issue, old boy.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30072389898924471732011-12-03T04:53:13.079-06:002011-12-03T04:53:13.079-06:00Lvka, you say:
go back far enough, and you can pr...Lvka, you say:<br /><br /><i>go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.<br /><br />Actually, you can't: We all come from Africa, so the ultimate color is black. :-)</i><br /><br />You have a different idea of "ultimate" than I do. Yes, probably, given the color of chimps and bonobos (our closest living relatives), all human ancestors were "black" (that is, darker than say, my Viking skin color) at one point in our evolution.<br /><br />But our evolution goes back further than the apes in Africa. Apes evolved from other mammals, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from amphibians, which evolved from fish... it seems likely that not all these ancestors were "black".<br /><br />And about those Swiss clocks- somewhere in Switzerland (I'll have to look it up) there is a sixteenth century tower with a clock that runs the same way as the clock in my workshop here: widdershins, or in modern English "counterclockwise". My clock keeps quite good time, but has the unfortunate influence on me that I sometimes do a doubletake when I look at a "normal" clock and have to remember that "normal" clocks go the other way around.<br /><br />rho- sure, sexual orientation is somewhat more labile than skin color. You might wake up one day and decide that you're gay, and thus may have no satisfying sex life any more, because that would be drinking evil coffee. But I would bet against it: most people know from a fairly early age on what sex they are attracted to, and it doesn't change very often. So "ontology" is not really any sort of absolute diagnostic.<br /><br />merkur: interesting stuff about your African experiences. Thanks.<br /><br />cheers from chilly Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-68823786745463029972011-12-02T09:15:47.681-06:002011-12-02T09:15:47.681-06:00“My point is that IT IS PART OF THE EQUATION AND I...“My point is that IT IS PART OF THE EQUATION AND IT IS STATIC! You admitted as much when you said that a man wouldn't be white if he acted white though all his ancestors were black. You're done here. Move on to another argument.”<br /><br />My answer was to your one specific question about a guy who “looks black” and both of whose parents “look black”, but that answer doesn't mean that race is static. I gave you the example of Sandra Laing, which (surprise!) you missed the point of. Don't just look at Sandra, look at her parents. Are they white or are they black? If they're both white, how did they give birth to a black child? If they're both black, how did acting white make them white? If they're both white, would acting black have made them black? If they're both black, etc, etc. The point is that physical characteristics that you associate with racial groups are insufficient; that you (and everybody else) is doing a lot of construction based on social context.<br /><br />“Hmm, think they might when trying to differentiate between two friends over there, one of whom plays soccer and one of whom is white?”<br /><br />My point being: in a place where there are no white people, the question wouldn't even come up. Let's say that one of their friends is albino, who would be referred to as white. Does that mean that albino Africans are white in the same way as you are white? Of course it doesn't, which is my point: you are assuming that the racial context in which you live is universal, and it isn't.<br /><br />Let's take some specific examples: in some countries in which I have worked in Africa, people use the same word for all Americans/Europeans, including those that would be considered black in the US/Europe. Africans that are part of completely different ethnic groups would fall under the rubric 'black' if they were in the US, but that term has no meaning in their home country. So what exactly is ontological? It can't be their skin colour, because skin colour varies widely; it can't be facial features, because that also varies widely; so what exactly is it that is ontological?<br /><br />“Right, b/c white faces never stick out in Africa. I've experienced that firsthand in Japan.”<br /><br />My point is not that you personally don't stick out in Japan. My point is not that differences in physical features are meaningless. My point is that “race” is constructed socially around issues such as differences in physical features. Another example: to most people, my Jewish friends are physically indistinguishable from anybody else who happens to fall in the 'white' category, but the Nazi regime found them distinguishable enough to kill large numbers of their families. Do you think that the supposedly “ontological” differences between Jews and Aryans would have any meaning at all for a Nigerian?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-11334687249389914852011-12-02T08:16:48.492-06:002011-12-02T08:16:48.492-06:00"The employer may have strong convictions tha..."The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability."<br /><br />This is your rationale? A gay man is more likely to be "perverse" in accounting than a straight man? Holy sheeeet. <br /><br /><br />Thanks, you've really, really, really made it clear that anti-discrimination legislation is needed. You've really got some issue, old boy.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-79468674265684358832011-12-02T07:57:21.756-06:002011-12-02T07:57:21.756-06:00merkur,
bad evidence
I don't exactly spend ...merkur,<br /><br /><br /><i>bad evidence</i><br /><br />I don't exactly spend my time compiling these sorts of things. If you haven't been paying enough attention, again, that's not my problem.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> The entire point of the example is that skin colour is not a good guide to racial categorisation</i><br /><br />And did you even read my last comment? My point is that IT IS PART OF THE EQUATION AND IT IS STATIC! <br />You admitted as much when you said that a man wouldn't be white if he acted white though all his ancestors were black. You're done here. Move on to another argument.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Do you think anybody at all in the middle of Cameroon ever refers to anybody else as “black”? </i><br /><br />Hmm, think they might when trying to differentiate between two friends over there, one of whom plays soccer and one of whom is white?<br />"Which one plays soccer? The white guy?"<br />"No, the black guy."<br /><br />The mountain of Duh continues to grow.<br /><br /><br /><i> but it doesn't to Cameroonians, or at least it doesn't have the same aspect, which is what we mean when we say that race is socially constructed</i><br /><br />Right, b/c white faces never stick out in Africa.<br />I've experienced that firsthand in Japan. It matters. Deal with it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Of course you're openly hetero. You got married, didn't you? When somebody asks you if you're married, you tell them, don't you?</i><br /><br />Yes. What does this have to do with identifying homosexuals? They can't marry (in my state), but there are plenty of single people around.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i> If your boss asks if you're married, you don't walk out of the interview on the grounds that it's none of their business and you don't want to work there.</i><br /><br />You're confusing two things here - interview and work environment.<br />If my boss asks me, I tell him.<br />If the interviewer asks me, I seriously consider respectfully telling him that's none of his business. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>“Conceived” means to form or hold an idea (thanks dictionary!). The fact that you've carefully considered your opinion is the reason why it's preconceived. </i><br /><br />You seem to be in favor of draining all pejorative meaning from the word "prejudiced", to where it lacks any concept of unfair bias based on overgeneralisation and comes to mean fair, reasoned conclusion.<br />Is that your intention? Why did you call me "prejudiced" then?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I have no idea why the interviewer asked. You proposed a purely hypothetical example featuring imaginary people, and now you're expecting me to explain the motivations of those imaginary people. </i><br /><br />Then I suggest you start thinking about that, since we're living in the real world.<br />If I'm an interviewer, I want to know whether the person can do the job. I don't care about their sexual preferences. But if they volunteer that information, then that's a strike against them, honestly. Um, thanks for telling me. Now go write some code. YOu know, what you're paid to do.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>“3) When's the last time an interviewer asked you how you like your sex?”<br /><br />Absolutely never, which is why this hypothetical question looks like paranoid gobbledygook.</i><br /><br />Or why the fear driving the anti-discrim legislation is.<br />I think you're a bit confused at this point. If it doesn't happen, why make laws about it?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>So in your view the category of “black” is a combination of genetic disposition and social interpretation, which is of course exactly the same for the category of “gay”. Unfortunately this flatly contradicts your earlier rejection of any comparisons between being black and being gay.</i><br /><br />You forgot something - homosexual sex is an action. The "social interpretation" is irrelevant.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-85269290080625497882011-12-02T07:50:42.657-06:002011-12-02T07:50:42.657-06:00Feather Rogers,
Homosexuals dont talk about their ...Feather Rogers,<br /><i>Homosexuals dont talk about their sex life on the job.</i><br /><br />How do you know? Have you interviewed all homosexuals?<br />Then what's the need for this legislation? How is anyone to know?<br /><br /><br /><i> How sheltered do you have to be to realize that homosexuals are just like you- they don't brag about the bedroom.</i><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=gay+pride+parade" rel="nofollow">Your ignorance is astonishing.</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-80344353377289329242011-12-02T07:45:27.159-06:002011-12-02T07:45:27.159-06:00David,
Are there any scenarios in which an employ...David,<br /><br /><i>Are there any scenarios in which an employer can find out an employee is gay, and yet, it would be wrong to fire that employee on the grounds of sexual orientation?</i><br /><br />How would the employer find out?<br />That would involve the employee saying so, wouldn't it?<br />My state is an at-will employment state. They can fire me whenever they want. Make the case why an employer shouldn't be able to release employees b/c he doesn't like their sexual preferences.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> the employee does the polite thing and introduces the guy as his boyfriend. Would it be wrong if the employer then fires the guy because he’s gay? </i><br /><br />So the employee told the employer. Mistake #1. <br />No, I would not have a problem with that. If the employer wants to fire someone for that reason, let him. The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability. Maybe he is wary of ending up on the wrong end of that deal and so fires the employee. And then of course he has to replace the employee, which is costly both in time and money. Nobody wins in h-ity, bottom line.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Maybe you are clueless about the history of discrimination and violence against gay</i><br /><br />Or maybe I've thought it through farther than you could hope to.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I’d want a law that protects me against discrimination by folks such as yourself.</i><br /><br />You have the right to your opinion, even really irrational opinions like that one. Government education has failed you too.<br /><br /><br />zilch,<br /><i>And as far as "all your ancestors being black" goes, there's no such thing- go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.</i><br /><br />1) And yet YOUR SKIN COLOR REMAINS STATIC.<br />That is why I keep referring to ONTOLOGY. <br />2) This is an argument on gay rights agenda-ists' own grounds. THEY are the ones who compare h-ity with ethnicity, not me. I'm showing why that's a bad comparison.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-60986822528244716252011-12-02T04:53:46.360-06:002011-12-02T04:53:46.360-06:00Are you saying that girl-on-girl action is okay wi...<i>Are you saying that girl-on-girl action is okay with the Bible?</i><br /><br />No. (Romans 1:26-27).<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><i>Or is it just "beautiful" in the way that sin is "beautiful"?</i><br /><br />Yes.<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><i>Lvka is right</i><br /><br />Always. :-) Like a Swiss clock. :D (Don't mind me saying so myself... I mean: I don't want to create the impression of "false humilty", now, would I?). :p<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><i>go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.</i><br /><br />Actually, you can't: We all come from Africa, so the ultimate color is black. :-)<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><i>the sociology of race, as merkur and thomas have pointed out, is even more complex.</i><br /><br />I agree. I just don't give a rat's S about what "society" thinks. For me what matters is Truth, as found in revelation, conscience, logic (reason), and science [the last of which explains how black children are born to white parents].<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><i>you must therefore think that paedophilia is outright hilarious</i><br /><br />I don't.<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><i>Apparently homosexuality is like paedophilia and zoophilia, and also homosexuality is outright hilarious, which seems a pretty strange position to take.</i><br /><br />When I watch Tom and Jerry going at each other with knives and guns I laugh; when I see or hear of two people doing this in real life I don't.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-62196207384319134372011-12-01T11:16:19.681-06:002011-12-01T11:16:19.681-06:00But hey! Let's grant you the benefit of the do...But hey! Let's grant you the benefit of the doubt. Your position now is that “of course, questions of social identity and behavior play into it but so does the genetic makeup and skin color... If you think I've ever said that it's ALL ontological, you're simply guilty of a false assumption.”<br /><br />So in your view the category of “black” is a combination of genetic disposition and social interpretation, which is of course exactly the same for the category of “gay”. Unfortunately this flatly contradicts your earlier rejection of any comparisons between being black and being gay.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72958550787381301312011-12-01T11:10:54.684-06:002011-12-01T11:10:54.684-06:00“That's the problem word - "openly"....“That's the problem word - "openly". I'm not "openly" hetero. I don't talk about my sex life on the job, or in job interviews. Why would anyone else?”<br /><br />Of course you're openly hetero. You got married, didn't you? When somebody asks you if you're married, you tell them, don't you? When your boss asks how your wife is, you tell him, don't you? That's being openly hetero. If your boss asks if you're married, you don't walk out of the interview on the grounds that it's none of their business and you don't want to work there. That's being openly hetero, and it's something you don't have to worry about because being hetero is the norm. <br /><br />“And my "opinion" about this isn't preconceived. It's the result, the conclusion of a great deal of careful thought and consideration.”<br /><br />“Conceived” means to form or hold an idea (thanks dictionary!). The fact that you've carefully considered your opinion is the reason why it's preconceived. The dictionary is your friend.<br /><br />“1) And how would the employer know that the interviewee is homosexual? Did the interviewee tell him? Why did the interviewer ask?”<br /><br />I have no idea why the interviewer asked. You proposed a purely hypothetical example featuring imaginary people, and now you're expecting me to explain the motivations of those imaginary people. That seems a little fucking deranged, not least because it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion how the employer knows that the interviewee is homosexual.<br /><br />“2) You're actually proposing that if an interviewer asks an interviewee about his/her sexual preferences, the interviewee should just answer, rather than walk out, figuring that place is not where s/he'd want to work? <br /><br />No, I'm proposing reasons why an interviewee might not walk out.<br /><br />“3) When's the last time an interviewer asked you how you like your sex?”<br /><br />Absolutely never, which is why this hypothetical question looks like paranoid gobbledygook. You asked for reasons why a homosexual might not just go and look for another job if he was asked about his sexual orientation in an interview. I gave you three reasons, and it really isn't relevant that you don't think those reasons are good enough. <br /><br />Also, I'm really confused about what exactly you're objecting to. At the moment, you appear to be objecting to employers asking staff about their sexual orientation.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-6863460045065185072011-12-01T11:08:18.789-06:002011-12-01T11:08:18.789-06:00Alan,
Homosexuals dont talk about their sex life...Alan, <br /><br />Homosexuals dont talk about their sex life on the job. How sheltered do you have to be to realize that homosexuals are just like you- they don't brag about the bedroom. They just don't want to hide or live a lie. They want to be able to be seen together just like you and wife when you're out and about, without being judged or discriminated against. Thats the real issue, not sex positions. You're applying this perverse, deviant label to homosexuals, and that kind of generalization is just naive and silly.Feather Rogersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24917813096707722092011-12-01T11:02:57.972-06:002011-12-01T11:02:57.972-06:00“Except the person's skin would be dark brown....“Except the person's skin would be dark brown. Except her genetic makeup would reflect an African descent. YOu know, except for all that stuff.”<br /><br />Did you even read about Sandra Laing? The entire point of the example is that skin colour is not a good guide to racial categorisation. And everybody's genetic makeup reflects an African descent. So what are you talking about?<br /><br />“What YOU seem to be missing is that yes, of course, questions of social identity and behavior play into it but so does the genetic makeup and skin color. You have to admit that at least part of it ONTOLOGICAL, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. If you think I've ever said that it's ALL ontological, you're simply guilty of a false assumption.”<br /><br />My assumption was based on your own words. When I first pointed out that “race is socially constructed, you replied “Sorry, it isn't”. you then went on to say “Those things you said, pan-ethnic descriptor, racial designation, nationality... all those are ONTOLOGICAL aspects to a person, which is what I've been saying all this time. One does not DO them. One IS a member of them.” You accompanied that statement by saying that “even if your challenge had merit, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand”, i.e. that even if race is socially constructed, it's irrelevant to your argument. So you can try and wriggle your way out of the net you cast for yourself, but your protest that I'm making a false assumption is fucking bullshit.<br /><br />“What if ALL your ancestors are black? How did the ancestors know they were black, anyway? Was it b/c of their society or b/c all their skin was heavy on the melanin?”<br /><br />Do you think anybody at all in the middle of Cameroon ever refers to anybody else as “black”? Clue: no, they don't. If they did use the word “black”, do you think they would use it in the same way that you use it, with the same social and cultural connotations that it possesses for you? Clue: no, they wouldn't. Your claim is that “black” has an ontological aspect – but it doesn't to Cameroonians, or at least it doesn't have the same aspect, which is what we mean when we say that race is socially constructed. For everybody's sake, just do some reading. I know you can lead a horse to water, etc, etc, but here's a nice article to get you started: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/. This is a really interesting topic, and I promise that reading about it won't make you a gay Satanist.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-20925675920172636272011-12-01T10:13:06.507-06:002011-12-01T10:13:06.507-06:00So your examples are:
Homosexual History Month in...So your examples are:<br /><br />Homosexual History Month in your town. No “anti-anti-homosexual legislation” is mentioned, and the decision was made after public consultation.<br />Lund vs Boisson in Canada. No legislation is mentioned, and the Court of Queen's Bench found in favour of Boisson, who had made the anti-homosexual remarks.<br />SunTV, again in Canada. No legislation is mentioned, and Erickson's petition on Change.org appears to have a whopping 476 signatures.<br /><br />Those are shitty, shitty examples, but I suppose for you they constitute evidence of - well, at this stage I have no idea what you think they constitute evidence of. You appear to be a very confused young man.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36335388576788997762011-12-01T10:05:01.896-06:002011-12-01T10:05:01.896-06:00rho- David said it. If there were no discriminati...rho- David said it. If there were no discrimination of the kind you also seem to deplore against gays, then this legislation would not be necessary.<br /><br />lvka and rho- both of you seem to be laboring under the delusion that being black or white is the matter of one gene, and can be pigeonholed one way or another. Sorry, the genetics of race is more complex than that, and the sociology of race, as merkur and thomas have pointed out, is even more complex. And as far as "all your ancestors being black" goes, there's no such thing- go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84546833557383831422011-12-01T09:47:44.617-06:002011-12-01T09:47:44.617-06:00All you did in your reply was move the goalposts, ...All you did in your reply was move the goalposts, introduce issues and scenarios that are different from those addressed by anti-discrimination legislation and throw out endless red herrings and digressions. <br /><br />Are there any scenarios in which an employer can find out an employee is gay, and yet, it would be wrong to fire that employee on the grounds of sexual orientation? Say an employer accidentally bumps into a male employee at the movies, and the employer sees that the employee is with his boyfriend. What if the employee’s boyfriend picks up the employee at the office; and the employee does the polite thing and introduces the guy as his boyfriend. Would it be wrong if the employer then fires the guy because he’s gay? <br /><br />Maybe you are clueless about the history of discrimination and violence against gays, and therefore truly ignorant about the need for anti-discrimination legislation. Maybe the problem is that you are simply too young to know first-hand about the history of persecution of gays, and therefore, you can’t understand why gays might want a “pride day”. Or maybe you are simply blinded by your personal feelings about homosexuality. <br /><br />Regardless, you continue to make the case for the need for anti-discrimination legislation. If I was gay, and I read your comments, then damn straight, I’d want a law that protects me against discrimination by folks such as yourself.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-37414026934655713322011-12-01T09:11:49.649-06:002011-12-01T09:11:49.649-06:00zilch,
"There are really not many jobs that a...zilch,<br /><i>"There are really not many jobs that actually require a penis or a vagina, and all other occupations should be open to everyone."</i><br /><br />Actually, I can think of several that don't require a penis per se but require that men do them, or in which it is at least highly preferable that men do them, and not women.<br />Bricklayer and other jobs that require brute physical strength. Which is really quite a lot.<br />Soldier in combat zones.<br />Pastor.<br /><br />On the other side of the equation, it honestly baffles me why it is acceptable that men become OBGYNs. Yes, I know there are women OBGYNs. The question is why any women ever choose a male one.<br />Babysitters and childcare workers - a women is much preferable to a man, all things being equal.<br />Nurses in military hospitals.<br />Etc.<br /><br />Bottom line - news flash, men and women aren't the same. Each generally do different jobs better than the other.<br />But outside of that, yes, I agree with the 2nd half of the statement that many, many occupations should be open to everyone.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The same thing goes for what people choose to do with their twiddly bits in the privacy of their bedrooms: it shouldn't really affect their jobs, so as long as they behave nicely, it shouldn't really be anyone's business.</i><br /><br />So you agree with me over and against merkur. Thanks.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38809064476158802372011-12-01T09:11:40.919-06:002011-12-01T09:11:40.919-06:00merkur said:
you still haven't made an argume...merkur said:<br /><i> you still haven't made an argument as to why being openly homosexual should disqualify anybody from any job, any more than being openly heterosexual should.</i><br /><br />That's the problem word - "openly". I'm not "openly" hetero. I don't talk about my sex life on the job, or in job interviews. Why would anyone else?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Prejudiced: “any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.” </i><br /><br />And my "opinion" about this isn't preconceived. It's the result, the conclusion of a great deal of careful thought and consideration. And thanks for quoting me - that's exactly right. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"If the employers insists on knowing the guy's preferred mode of sexual expression, why not just go look for another job?”<br />a) Because he's not you. You seem to have great difficulty in understanding that other people aren't the same as you.</i><br /><br />That's no answer. Please try again. You don't know anything about me. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>What difference does his preferred mode of sexual expression make in doing the job? <br />b) None at all.</i><br /><br />Good, so you agree with me that it shouldn't be an issue FOR EITHER OF THEM. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>If the employers insists on knowing the guy's preferred mode of sexual expression, why not just go look for another job?<br />c) Because jobs are hard to find, especially in a society where prejudice against homosexuals is widespread.</i><br /><br />1) And how would the employer know that the interviewee is homosexual? Did the interviewee tell him? Why did the interviewer ask?<br />2) You're actually proposing that if an interviewer asks an interviewee about his/her sexual preferences, the interviewee should just answer, rather than walk out, figuring that place is not where s/he'd want to work? <br />3) When's the last time an interviewer asked you how you like your sex?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>If you could give us a specific example of this “anti-anti-homosexual discrimination legislation”</i><br /><br /><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/10/its-homosexual-history-month.html" rel="nofollow">Here.</a><br /><a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4876" rel="nofollow">Here.</a><br /><a href="http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/09/112825/" rel="nofollow">Here.</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>what you're saying just sounds like paranoid gobbledygook.</i><br /><br />You're just not paying attention. Maybe you should read more widely.<br />Or, to quote you: The problem here is that you think that your perceptions are the norm.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>No, it's because racial and ethnic identities are socially constructed,</i><br /><br />Even though you said that a man born to a black woman and a black man would be black even if he acted "white". Sounds to me like you really don't know what you think.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> For me this is clear indication that the categories of "white" and "black" were socially constructed.</i><br /><br />Except the person's skin would be dark brown. Except her genetic makeup would reflect an African descent.<br />YOu know, except for all that stuff.<br />What YOU seem to be missing is that yes, of course, questions of social identity and behavior play into it <b>but so does the genetic makeup and skin color</b>. You have to admit that at least part of it ONTOLOGICAL, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. If you think I've ever said that it's ALL ontological, you're simply guilty of a false assumption.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>So if one of your ancestors is black, then you are "truly black"? </i><br /><br />What if ALL your ancestors are black?<br />How did the ancestors know they were black, anyway? Was it b/c of their society or b/c all their skin was heavy on the melanin?<br />Yeah, both. Exactly. You only want to admit the former when it's clearly both.<br />Lvka is right (for a change) when he says: You haven't actually disproven Alan's point, you just offered a quainter, more exotic, and more complex example than the one he gave, that's all.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com