About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Looking at his original column, there's little more than prudishness so he's right to call the girl on his supposed sexual harassment. He sure isn't fighting the good fight though:
... Chancellor Moeser is now under pressure to add “gender identity” to UNC’s non-discrimination policy.

This new initiative would enable transsexuals in all stages of transition, such as cross-dressers, “inter-sexed” persons, and “inter-gendered” persons – groups that all deny their birth sex - to be included in the non-discrimination policy.

The Student Advisory Committee to the Chancellor recently met with Moeser to discuss what he should do and how students “feel” about this issue. Needless to say, if "gender identity" is added to the UNC non-discrimination policy, it could have serious implications. For example, the creation of gender neutral bathrooms and special counseling to help students “transfer” gender could follow.

Given what we have just learned about the UNC students’ Orgasm Awareness Festival, it might be advisable for taxpayers to contact James Moeser (chancellor@unc.edu) to offer some insight on “gender identity discrimination.”

Clearly, UNC needs some guidance from outside the walls of the asylum. The inmates have been in charge for too long.
That isn't part of the good fight, it's little more than a display of ignorance.

Sarah

Post 1

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah-
Whether you agree with his 'prudishness' or not, he is fighting the good fight, in that he is saying you do not have a right to be protected from having your feelings hurt.  Have some balls(or chop them off if it's you're preference), and if another individual thinks you are a whack(pun intended)-job, get the fuck over it.


Post 2

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and by the way:  in the article that I posted, where is he being a 'prude'?

Post 3

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

Non-discrimination polices aren't about feelings. His comments, and yours, are akin to saying, "Those silly wheelchair bound folk are all just whiners because they can't use stairs and no elevators are provided. They just need to get the fuck over it."

And I was talking about his original column. Other than the part I quoted, he's just criticizing a public discussion of women and sex. Prudishness? Check.

Sarah

Post 4

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Those silly wheelchair bound folk are all just whiners because they can't use stairs and no elevators are provided. They just need to get the fuck over it."


For the sake of argument Sarah, let's suppose I do say this.  What is your answer?  that "there oughta be a law."?  That one persons misfortune(which certainly is not the case with trannies) constitutes a "right" that lays out how others MUST treat them?

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 11/03, 5:25pm)


Post 5

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

Not at all. There's no right to get to the second floor or right to use a unisex bathroom. This line of thinking is closely related to the Animal Torture thread in that there is no legal basis to require providing these sorts of things. Let me ask you, do you know if there is a difference between a law and a policy in lawyer-speak? Maybe a company could just say that it's a "policy" to provide handicap access and resources/protection for transsexuals and then let the market pressures determine the demand for such "polices," i.e., companies or schools with handicap access receive more business than those without therefore it is in the companies' interest to provide handicap access.

Edit:
which certainly is not the case trannies
I don't understand this comment. Could you please explain?

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 11/02, 7:59pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That was pretty funny, Jody.  Thanks for posting it.

It is too bad his talk at University of Florida was cancelled.  I might have made a road trip to hear the man speak.

As a North Carolina State University graduate, I can tell you that we used to crack jokes all the time about our arch-rivals at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  I see the comments of Dr. Adams corroborate some of the worst ones.  While I appreciate the desire of women (and men) to fulfill themselves sexually, is an "Orgasm Awareness Festival" the right way to do that?  Whatever happened to romance in the Valentine's Day tradition?

This obsession with genitals at the expense of heart and mind quite rightly rubs many people the wrong way -- no pun intended.  It reflects a range-of-the-moment, concrete-bound mentality.

I find it interesting that the Left wants to use free speech to conduct an "Orgasm Festival" on campus at taxpayer expense while restricting the free speech of their critics with specious harassment laws.

Post 7

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I find it interesting that the Left wants to use free speech to conduct an "Orgasm Festival" on campus at taxpayer expense while restricting the free speech of their critics with specious harassment laws."

I find it incredibly boring. Not jumping on Luke or anything, it is just a tired old story. Comes from the left, right, doesn't matter. 
Of course, no one seems to talk about the final solution to debates like this. GET RID OF ALL STATE SCHOOLS.
B.B. King sings and I quote
                                          "As long as I'm payin' the bills, I'm payin the cost to be the boss."
Quite with the "entitlements" and pressure groups fade. I am  firm believer. Of course I have to have FAITH (dare I say) in Ayn Rand on this topic because I have no record or experience of decreased social spending to compare it to.

I'm expected to pay for someone else's snot nosed brat to go get brainwashed by a bunch of hippies that cringe at the idea of trying to make it in the marketplace and any language I can use against their devices or curriculum will be labeled as harrassment. When I open my privately funded                                                                                                                        SIPES COLLEGE OF FREE MARKET STUDIES FOR DIKES AND TRANNIES,
the bible thumpers will show up and protest, but they will leave as soon as we float the keg and run out of barbeque. 



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I agree with most of what you are saying.  But private schools and businesses face most of the same regulations of speech and action as do government schools.  In addition to replacing government schools with a private system, we need to repeal harassment and discrimination laws.  Let people speak their minds and take total responsibility for handling their own emotions and lives without fear of government retribution.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

...we need to repeal harassment and discrimination laws.  Let people speak their minds and take total responsibility for handling their own emotions and lives without fear of government retribution.
Agree wholeheartedly.  But in addition, let those who would treat others in an uncivil manner take total responsibility for their actions (i.e. if you annoy someone long enough, you might just get bopped in the schnoz.  And if you do, it's your own darn'd fault).

SmS


Post 10

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Someone has hijacked your login and is posting to Solo as you.

“Whatever happened to romance in the Valentine's Day tradition? This obsession with genitals at the expense of heart and mind quite rightly rubs many people the wrong way”

Whoever you are—we’re not buying it! Stop it now, give us the old Luke back.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon, I still like titties!

There, does that satisfy you that I am indeed the Luke Setzer?


Post 12

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Summer, if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that "fighting words" could justify a retaliatory assault.  I don't know all the details, and I am not sure I agree with it morally, but that would still be preferable to the PC speech code gobbledygook we have now.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Agree wholeheartedly.  But in addition, let those who would treat others in an uncivil manner take total responsibility for their actions (i.e. if you annoy someone long enough, you might just get bopped in the schnoz.  And if you do, it's your own darn'd fault).
Who gets to decide what is uncivil?  Is 'bopping someone in the schnoz' an appropriate response to being 'annoyed'.  Is being annoyed an objective concept or a floating abstraction?

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/03, 7:40am)


Post 14

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

and I am not sure I agree with it morally, but that would still be preferable to the PC speech code gobbledygook we have now.
I'm not sure I agree with the morality of it either, but I think it would depend upon the specific circumstances.

What I was advocating, with respect to such matters was:

a)  Some minimum level of civility.
b)  Leaving grown-ups to govern their own behavior and be responsible for the consequences of same.

And both irrespective of government edict/intervention.


And yes, the PC nonsense has gotten way out of hand.

Summer



Post 15

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some minimum level of civility.
Summer,

Is civility not in the eye of the beholder?



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Is civility not in the eye of the beholder?
To some small extent, yes.  Do you see no line between saying, "Good morning" and "F*** you"?  Are you saying that there is no objective criteria for what is civil and what isn't?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you see no line between saying, "Good morning" and "F*** you"?
I do.  But perhaps this is all that men of good will can agree upon regarding civility.  Civility is the underlying justification for PC guidelines.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

  
Civility is the underlying justification for PC guidelines.


 
And so the fact that the PC crowd has coopted civility for their own idiotic purposes (and stretched it to the point of absurdity) means that I should cast aside civility as one of the principles by which I govern my own behavior?


Edit:  And if you think civil = PC, then you've bought into their absurdity as you've allowed them to redefine the term for you.

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 11/03, 8:16am)


Post 19

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Summer,

I think Robert's on the idea that PC was created because men couldn't be civil or reasonable with respect to superficial differences. If so, I agree with him, but I also agree that it's reached the point of absurdity. The idea of throwing out all harassment and discrimination laws and let people fight it out for themselves gives me pause. I don't like the idea of society tearing itself apart any more than PC nut-jobs telling us exactly what to say. Where's the line between hurt feelings and actual mental abuse (which, given a crowd, can easily turn into physical abuse)?

Sarah

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.