The right to privacy?

From Donald Douglas:

California State Colleges and Universities May Screen for Sexual Orientation in Admissions Applications

Tina Korbe beat me to this story, “California state colleges consider asking students about sexual orientation on application forms.

Korbe’s commenting on this morning’s front-page Los Angeles Times article, “California state colleges weigh asking students about sexual orientation.” But she’s missing something especially key at the report: LGBT screening will embed another layer of political correctness on campus and put pressure on instructors to satisfy the grievances of the various student constituencies. Years ago, at UCSB, a student in my Black Politics course told me that I wasn’t teaching the class the right way. He said I wasn’t supposed to focus on all these statistics and historical details, etc. I was supposed to teach the class from the approved perspective, to conform with the activist agenda. I was frankly shocked that a student had that much confidence to try to set the instructor straight. It was clear that I was supposed to teach in solidarity with the brothers and sisters. I was supposed to focus on the oppressed. It was a nightmare. (During that same class, I caught some black students cheating on the final exam and it turned into a disaster when the students’ parents got involved. As a doctoral candidate, I had no choice but to pass the students. It didn’t matter what happened. I heard talk of a lawsuit so no matter what happened during the final there would be no consequences for the students. The department chair had upbraided me earlier in the semester after minority students complained that I was grading too hard. By the time I dealt with the cheating thing I just wanted to get away from this upside down world where rules and standards didn’t matter all all, at the University of California.) I’m reminded of this after reading this quote at the Times‘ report:

UC Berkeley student Andrew Albright, who is gay and a student government activist, said some gay and lesbian students might be initially nervous about how their responses would be used.

But he said most would participate if the potential benefits, such as increased services, are made clear and if UC keeps its promises that an individual’s information will be confidential and only used in aggregates.

“I think in general it’s a good thing,” said Albright, a third-year political science and sociology major. Beyond counseling services, professors might alter approaches to various lectures if they know a sizable percentage of the class is gay or lesbian, he said.

More at Dr Douglas’ original.

I was interested in Mr Albright’s statement. While he stated that numbers would be held only in the aggregate, it would still make a difference in how professors would approach their class structure and lessons. But professors already know that there are people with non-traditional sexual orientations (how’s that for a euphemism?) in their colleges; for them to know that there are a larger number in their classes, individually, would mean that the professors would have to have some means of getting that information. Perhaps the registrar could print a pink triangle next to the non-traditional sexually oriented students’ names?1 As soon as that happened, and one person with a non-traditional sexual orientation failed one of a professor’s classes, such would be presented as evidence that he failed the student deliberately, or at least graded him more harshly, because the professor disapproved of non-traditional sexual orientations, and were specifically aware of that student’s.

College students wind up with plenty of opportunities to reveal their sexual orientations, though such things are normally done in the student center cafeteria, in dorms, and in student parties. In those, they wind up revealing their sexual orientations to the people they want to know their sexual orientations (not that they necessarily think about it in quite those dispassionate terms) as they try to engage in the particular activities toward which their sexual orientations push them.

I had thought, silly me!, that our friends on the left believed that people’s sexual orientations and activities were supposed to be private matters, and nobody’s business — certainly not the government’s business! — but their own and those with whom they chose to copulate. Yet we have people like the lovely Sandra Fluke telling us that not only should contraception be widely available — which it already is — but that other people should be compelled to pay for contraception for those who wished to use it. And now we have the non-traditional sexual orientees telling us that no, it’s not really private, but that a person’s sexual orientation ought to be a part of someone’s official government records, for whatever purposes the government has in keeping such records.

After all of their effort at persuading people that people’s sex lives are their own, private business, an effort which was largely successful, why do they feel a need now to make them the public’s business?

More, we have been told, by our friends on the left, that it is simply wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of his sexual orientation. However, unlike race or ethnicity, a person’s sexual orientation is not a visible marker; it can only be determined if that person chooses to somehow communicate his sexual orientation to others, chooses to make his sexual preferences public information. To discriminate against someone based on his sexual orientation requires that someone’s sexual orientation be known; the surest way to prevent such discrimination is to not make it public information.
__________________________________

  1. The Nazis used pink triangles as identifying marks on homosexuals in concentration camps.

61 Comments

  1. “To discriminate against someone based on his sexual orientation requires that someone’s sexual orientation be known; the surest way to prevent such discrimination is to not make it public information.”

    What a ridiculous and hateful thing to say! In other words, homosexuals better stay in the closet, is that it Mr Editor? Aren’t you violating your libertarian ideology by this statement? Your statement should have been aimed at the conduct of discriminators, not of the discriminated, thus yours is mighty twisted thinking, in my view!

  2. “What a ridiculous and hateful thing to say.”

    Hateful? Hateful? Are you serious Wagonwheel? How is it hateful to suggest one keeps his sex life private? What makes it my our your business what Koolo’s or Hitchcock’s or Anna Nova’s sexual proclivities are? Why would you or I care? Then why should you or I be exposed (ha ha) to the sexual proclivities of a homosexual?

    Then you come up with: ” In other words, homosexuals better stay in the closet, is that it Mr. Editor?”

    Wrong again Wagonwheel. As you combitched “in other words” (making up words for the Editor, as per usual ) a person’s sex life is private and the only way anyone’s sex life can be used against them is if they make it public. But if one is gay and openly uses his gayness to claim “victim” status with you leftists then he should expect that many people who would never have known his gayness now will, and so may not approve. Or do you now demand that people who do not see buggering a dude some sort of romantic left wing cause accept it or they must be “haters”?

  3. You know Wagonwheel, when anyone disagrees with you they’re either “hateful”, or idologues, or raaaaacists. Can’t someone not hold your view without being called in one way or another sub-human and heartless? You really need to get a grip on your name calling.

  4. For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
    1) An abomination
    2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
    3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.

    Tammy Bruce is a homosexual. And I have, multiple times, declared my high regard for her.
    Aphrael is a “married” homosexual Liberal. And I have, multiple times, declared my respect for his debating.
    Jeff is a strong supporter of the homosexual political agenda. And I have, multiple times, declared my respect for his debating.

    Now here comes Wagonwheel, who sees the Editor write about a group of public universities which are considering the possibility of requesting an applicant provide his or her sexual preference on college application forms, and decides to comment. Does Wagonwheel say it’s none of the universities’ business what sexual preference the applicants have? No! Instead, Wagonwheel accuses the Editor — who said it’s none of the universities’ business what sexual preferences the applicants have — of being hateful in not supporting a position of DEMANDING PEOPLE DECLARE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE in order to go to college. Talk about a warped sense of propriety! Talk about a warped mind! Wagonwheel has that, in spades! (Next up: Wagonwheel accuses me of being racist and using dog-whistles only unhinged Leftists can hear, because I used the colloquial expression “in spades”.)

  5. Wagonwheel, how about a comment like this to our Editor/ “Mr. Editor, I would figure having Libertarian leanings you would consider the plight of the homosexual as he is discriminated against in society”

    Same end, no “hateful”, sound civil don’t it?

  6. “You really need to get a grip on your name calling.”

    When are you going to criticize Hitchcock and koolo for theirs, Hoagie? This is why I don’t take such one-sided criticism from you, or koolo, or Mr Hitchcock, very seriously. But yes, I do not feel constrained from pushing back at stuff like that.

    Moreover, your response to my criticism of our Editor did not at all counter said criticism. My point, based on his quote which I posted, was that he was advising a homosexual to avoid making known his sexuality, which in my mind is asking said homosexual to stay in the close, lest someone discriminate against him. In my view, that was not appropriate advice.

  7. “For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
    1) An abomination
    2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
    3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.”

    You are the abomination, Mr Hitchcock, for considering these words in the Bible, which has been written by men, to be some sort of a truth from god. And then you attempt to smooth over this abomination by making a list of a few homosexuals whom you tolerate. Instead of being a loving Christian, you are evil incarnate, with regard to this particular extremist attitude of yours toward homosexuality, a trait which has to do with the genetic makeup from birth. Shame on you, Mr Hitchcock!

  8. he was advising a homosexual to avoid making known his sexuality

    Way to twist facts into lies to fit your lie-filled agenda, Wagonwheel. The Editor was declaring universities should not be demanding applicants declare their sexual preference on an application form! But you have an agenda to fill, an agenda that cannot be pushed with integrity, so you have to lie about what the Editor said! And that’s very typical of your logorrhea spanning multiple websites (such as on Delaware Libertarian).

  9. Wagonwheel says:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:27 (Edit)

    “For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
    1) An abomination
    2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
    3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.”

    You are the abomination, Mr Hitchcock, for considering these words in the Bible, which has been written by men, to be some sort of a truth from god. And then you attempt to smooth over this abomination by making a list of a few homosexuals whom you tolerate. Instead of being a loving Christian, you are evil incarnate, with regard to this particular extremist attitude of yours toward homosexuality, a trait which has to do with the genetic makeup from birth. Shame on you, Mr Hitchcock!

    Thus Wagonwheel proves he has absolutely no understanding of Judaism or Christianity, and his blathering on about who fits into either faith is nonsensical and irrelevant, not to mention devoid of any facts, whatsoever. But he adds to his woes that of blasphemy against the One True God, oblivious of the resultant punishment for that blasphemy. Among men, Wagonwheel is to be one of the most pitied, as his eyes, ears, and mind have been sealed shut. And while I truly feel sorry for Wagonwheel and his current destination, that will, in no way, prevent me from “pushing back” (as he copied Obama in his terminology) against his myriad lies and distortions of the facts.

  10. “Way to twist facts into lies to fit your lie-filled agenda, Wagonwheel.”

    I made my complaint very clearly, Mr Hitchcock, that the focus needs to be on the discriminator, not on the victim, the one who has been discriminated against. You need to focus on what I criticized, not on what you determined wrongly that I meant, so you could find one other excuse to attack someone personally with your filthy mouth and pen!

    No one need feel ashamed if their genetic make-up causes them to be a homosexual, in spite of your intent, based on your personal and narrow interpretation of the Bible.

  11. WW said:
    “My point, based on his quote which I posted, was that he was advising a homosexual to avoid making known his sexuality, which in my mind is asking said homosexual to stay in the close, lest someone discriminate against him. In my view, that was not appropriate advice.”

    Well Wagonwheel, I came away with a completly different interpretation of the Editors comment. First I didn’t percieve him “advising” anyone. Second, I read it to mean it’s nobody’s business, least of all a college, what a persons sexual orientation is.

    Now you as a die-hard leftist may read into that whatever dispicable, hateful thing you want but I see very good intentions for everyone (straight or gay )in the Editors response: Keep your private life private!

  12. “Now you as a die-hard leftist may read into that whatever dispicable, hateful thing you want but I see very good intentions for everyone (straight or gay )in the Editors response: Keep your private life private!”

    Right, Hoagie, you have made it crystal clear, that your interpretation is the right one, therefore mine is “dispicable” and hate filled. This is exactly why I don’t take most of your comments seriously, because instead of making your debate point, you feel compelled to turn it into another personal attack, like this: In your weeny mind, leftists are by definition bad, and rithties are by definition good. Was it really necessary for me to say “weeney”? :)

  13. WW wrote:

    What a ridiculous and hateful thing to say! In other words, homosexuals better stay in the closet, is that it Mr Editor? Aren’t you violating your libertarian ideology by this statement? Your statement should have been aimed at the conduct of discriminators, not of the discriminated, thus yours is mighty twisted thinking, in my view!

    Why, pray tell, would any student, heterosexual or homosexual, have any particular need to communicate his sexual orientation to a professor?

    If you present information to someone, that someone may, in fact, include that information among all of the other points under consideration, in his reactions to you, whether positive or negative. If our sex lives are supposed to be private, then keep them private; if someone makes them public, then he bears whatever consequences entail from making such information public. Yet when our non-traditionally sexually oriented friends were chanting, “We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used to It!” they were demanding, in effect, that they could make their sexual orientation public knowledge, to achieve some sort of political goal, but those who learned about their sexual orientation weren’t supposed to say the first (negative) thing about it. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

  14. WW wrote:

    Moreover, your response to my criticism of our Editor did not at all counter said criticism. My point, based on his quote which I posted, was that he was advising a homosexual to avoid making known his sexuality, which in my mind is asking said homosexual to stay in the close, lest someone discriminate against him. In my view, that was not appropriate advice.

    If you want people to be treated just as people, and not as members of some particular group or other, why would you want individuals to start pushing group identifications?

  15. “… because instead of making your debate point, you feel compelled to turn it into another personal attack,…”

    I’m no Shakespeare so perhaps my meaning in the phrase; ” may read into that whatever dispicable, hateful thing you want” didn’t come across right. Let me try to es’plain. I meant NOT that you were either dispicable or hateful, but rather that you attribute those attiudes to the Editor because he disagrees with your point of view. Got it? I don’t think you are dispicable nor hateful. I just think you’re wrong.

  16. Pingback: Hold To The Bible Or The Torah? You’re An Abomination! « Truth Before Dishonor

  17. WW wrote:

    You are the abomination, Mr Hitchcock, for considering these words in the Bible, which has been written by men, to be some sort of a truth from god. And then you attempt to smooth over this abomination by making a list of a few homosexuals whom you tolerate. Instead of being a loving Christian, you are evil incarnate, with regard to this particular extremist attitude of yours toward homosexuality, a trait which has to do with the genetic makeup from birth. Shame on you, Mr Hitchcock!

    Apparently, being a Christian and actually believing and holding true the Holy Bible you profess to be divinely inspired and true is now “evil incarnate” to our Liberal from Lewes.

    One could just as easily argue that pedophiles are such due to their “genetic makeup from birth,” and that statement could be just as true as the one you made concerning homosexuals, given that we just don’t know. Yet I’m certain that WW is utterly sickened by the thought of pedophilia. Perhaps such might indicate some selectivity from WW concerning his consideration of people due to their “genetic makeup from birth.”

  18. WW wrote:

    “Now you as a die-hard leftist may read into that whatever dispicable, hateful thing you want but I see very good intentions for everyone (straight or gay )in the Editors response: Keep your private life private!”

    Right, Hoagie, you have made it crystal clear, that your interpretation is the right one, therefore mine is “dispicable” and hate filled.

    Yet you had previously stated that Mr Hitchcock was “evil incarnate” and an “abomination.” Isn’t it somewhat difficult to label someone those things, yet protest when someone else says that your opinion (he didn’t say you personally) was despicable and hateful?

  19. Pingback: Hold To The Bible Or The Torah? You’re An Abomination! « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

  20. “Apparently, being a Christian and actually believing and holding true the Holy Bible you profess to be divinely inspired and true is now “evil incarnate” to our Liberal from Lewes.”

    That is not what I said, Mr Editor, and you know it. Here we have another one of your stretches, another one of your straw men, another one of your fallacies. Therefore, I suggest that you reread my comment, a comment which was very specific!

    Being a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim is anyone’s choice, a choice which is none of my business, a personal choice to be sure. But I get annoyed when someone like Mr Hitchcock decides to use his Bible against others, which he has done frequently, and here against homosexuals. Need I refresh your memory on exactly what he wrote here, Mr Editor, or are you so quick to defend your alter ego, that you will overlook even the most vile of his utterances.

    ““For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
    1) An abomination
    2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
    3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.””

    Do you agree with Mr Hitchcock here, Mr Editor?

  21. It is when people use their holy scripture as a vehicle to control, attack, and destroy others, that is when my panties get knotted up!

    This is exactly what Mr Hitchcock does, with nary a word from you or the rest of the wingnuts on this blog, Mr Editor.

    He also professes to be a devout, fundamentalist Christian, a lover of Christ, yet some of the language and behavior which has emanated from his keyboard is way over the top, certainly not according to the Christ model which all professing Christians are supposed to honor. Yet again, never a word from his political colleagues about this on here.

    Therefore, I cannot help but conclude that it must be a cardinal sin for one wingnut to criticize another wingnut; instead, personally attack the lefties. That’s the mantra on here, instead of the civil discourse you claim to want on your blog, Mr Editor, so its eventual deterioration as a medium for honest debate, as is occurring as we speak, comes right back on to you.

  22. Wagonwheel says:
    March 31, 2012 at 11:41

    “Way to twist facts into lies to fit your lie-filled agenda, Wagonwheel.”

    I made my complaint very clearly, Mr Hitchcock, that the focus needs to be on the discriminator, not on the victim, the one who has been discriminated against. You need to focus on what I criticized, not on what you determined wrongly that I meant, so you could find one other excuse to attack someone personally with your filthy mouth and pen!

    No one need feel ashamed if their genetic make-up causes them to be a homosexual, in spite of your intent, based on your personal and narrow interpretation of the Bible.”

    I suppose by causing them to be a homosexual, you mean causes them to engage in homosexual activity.

    And I suppose you then mean that their genetic make-up in some causally determinable fashion impells the mature behavior in a determinate way. You figure then, that some particular set of genetic characteristics are correlated in such a way that a causal efficacy can also be established.

    Now I know that you say that you are personally opposed to abortion.

    I also know that you have repeatedly stated that it is a woman’s body when it comes to abortion decisions, and that the fetus is her’s, and part of her body, and even that its a parasite, and that only she has the moral right to determine the reasons for doing with her body what she wishes to do in the way of an abortion.

    So, I am sure that you see where this is now leading.

    Since she has according to you a right to terminate a fetus for say having an extra X chromosome, or some other genetic aberration, I suppose that logical consistency would lead you to conclude that if a particular genetic factor or set of factors could be identified as leading to homosexual dysfunctions in the mature organism, then you would have no problem – as a matter of law not your personal preferences – in allowing women to abort these kinds of fetuses (or foeti if you prefer) on the basis that the fetus has that particular genetic make-up.

    So if we set up voluntary screening so that a couple could be ensured that their life’s reproductive and rearing efforts would not be wasted – from their point of view – on genetic makeups of the kind you postulate, you would acknowledge that you would have no legal or moral grounds for objecting to the screening for a fetus with a homosexual genetic make-up, and a therapeutic abortion decision following?

  23. It is when people use their holy scripture as a vehicle to control, attack, and destroy others, that is when my panties get knotted up!

    This is exactly what Mr Hitchcock does, with nary a word from you or the rest of the wingnuts on this blog, Mr Editor.

    He also professes to be a devout, fundamentalist Christian, a lover of Christ, yet some of the language and behavior which has emanated from his keyboard is way over the top, certainly not according to the Christ model which all professing Christians are supposed to honor.

    What a contortionist bag of hooey Wagonwheel presents! Holy crap! What insane inanity!

    Someone who professes a faith in a specific religion holds to that religion’s Holy Book as the most sacred text on Earth! And that is something to hate on that person for? That is proof that that person does not, indeed, hold to the faith of that person’s Sacred Book? That he actually believes that Sacred Book?

    Are you insane???? Holy cow, what a hate-filled idiot you are, to accuse a Christian who holds to the Bible of not being a Christian — BECAUSE HE HOLDS TO THE BIBLE!!!!!

    What an absolutely insane nutter you are, to make that sort of absolutely laughably ridiculous and dishonest claim as that!

  24. WW wrote:

    Being a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim is anyone’s choice, a choice which is none of my business, a personal choice to be sure. But I get annoyed when someone like Mr Hitchcock decides to use his Bible against others, which he has done frequently, and here against homosexuals. Need I refresh your memory on exactly what he wrote here, Mr Editor, or are you so quick to defend your alter ego, that you will overlook even the most vile of his utterances.

    ““For the record, and in repetition, I hold to the Bible, which declares homosexuality to be:
    1) An abomination
    2) A sin against Providence, others, and your own self
    3) A decision to cast out that which is natural and to replace it with that which is unnatural.””

    Do you agree with Mr Hitchcock here, Mr Editor?

    Mr Hitchcock has accurately noted what the Bible says about homosexual activity. The Catholic Church points out the difference between homosexuality, a condition, and homosexual activity, a sin, and I agree with the distinction.¹ But, yes, I agree with what scripture states about homosexual activity. That’s part of being Catholic.

    And when you say that you “get annoyed when someone like Mr Hitchcock decides to use his Bible against others, which he has done frequently,” do I really have to go back to all of those times you attempted to use Bible passages against Mr Hitchcock?
    _________________________________________
    ¹ – Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357, 2358 and 2359. This footnote added at 2151 EDT.

  25. Wagonwheel must’ve given himself a wedgie!

    It is when people use their holy scripture as a vehicle to control, attack, and destroy others, that is when my panties get knotted up!

    You mean like this? Or this?

  26. “You mean like this? Or this?”

    Mr Editor, I’ve never seen Wagonwheel lie about and sexually s1ander a young woman while loudly proclaiming himself to be a Christian. Have you?

  27. PIATOR asks the Editor a leading question, which leads to PIATOR’s lies about me, as if PIATOR’s false premise would ever be bought by people with actual, you know, brains.

    This piece of an excellent movie script is for you, PIATOR:

    INT. GRAND CENTRAL PUBLIC PHONES.

    The hackers are now setting up laptops at a bank of pay
    phones. Dade is wearing a “Pirate Eye” eyepiece.

    KATE
    Now listen up, use your best viruses to buy us
    time, we have to get into Plague’s file and
    copy the worm.

    Cereal screams.

    CEREAL
    Ai! Boom boom aiaiaiaiaee! Alright, that was
    a little tension breaker, that had to be done,
    alright?

    KATE
    Cereal.

    CEREAL
    Yeah?

    KATE
    Go fix the phones.

    CEREAL
    Roger.

    Cereal takes off to fix the phones.

    KATE
    Joey, take his place.

    JOEY
    What, me?

    KATE
    Take his place, man, do it. You can do it.

    Joey takes Cereal’s place.

    KATE
    Ready?

    DADE
    Yeah.

    KATE
    Alright, let’s boot up.

    The four boot up their machines. Various vanity screens
    come up on the laptops. They begin to hack. We see the
    inside of the Gibson. Viruses of all kinds begin to pour
    in. In the offices and data processing rooms, the
    Ellingson staff are in pandemonium. Happy faces with eye
    patches appear on their screens. “Sit on my interface.”
    “Shit for Brains.” “Arf Arf Arf!” Cookie monsters.

  28. Editor, I was busily placing PIATOR’s comments into moderation right after you put PIATOR into moderation. He uses multiple handles, multiple ipnums, multiple email addresses (including mine) to bypass moderation filters. And your moderation filter was very easily bypassed. Mine, however, is not so easily bypassed, as it requires a commenter to first get his or her comment accepted by someone on that site with enough authority to do so. Yours, on the other hand, allows just any ol’ rat to chew on your power cords.

  29. The way I read Mr Albright’s statement, he was referring to the whole student body at the college (the class of 2013), rather than the number of “non-traditional” students in a specific classroom course.

    As for sexual orientation not being visible like race or ethnicity (and thus it being better, from a non-discrimination point of view, not to know, so as to prevent discrimination–how can one discriminate against you if they don’t know you’re homosexual?), I would urge our fair editor to imagine he’s talking not about sexual orientation, but about religion (also not a visible marker), and see how much of his theory as stated above still holds the same amount of water.

    “College students wind up with plenty of opportunities to reveal their sexual orientations religion, though…”

    Being aware of the number of gay folks in society–and especially the recognition that most of us are not too far removed personally from someone who is homosexual, now that more people are coming out–more’n'likely has ushered in more tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle, so I can see why those opposed to that lifestyle might be opposed to more folks “coming out,” even if it’s only on what amounts to a college census form. But, as long as one’s disclosure is voluntary (like pretty much all of the other demographic info on such forms), I’m good with it. (I’d also support adding religious affiliation to the forms too, if it’s not already on there, in case that helps…) This isn’t MAKING people disclose anything… …it’s just allowing them to do so. Their privacy is still up to them.

  30. (And Dana… I hate to toss cold water, but as someone who obviously hasn’t been visiting as often as he should–but whose perspective may thus be different from those of the regulars–I’m sorry to say that, in this thread at least, the ad hominem and personal animus in the comment stream looks almost identical in quantity and quality to that at other dear departed blog, CSPT… …and I feel kinda bad, because I’m pretty sure you were hoping for better, here…)

  31. Casper, re your parenthetical, I can assure you the ad homs and other personal attacks have dropped off. Perry and PIATOR both know if they push the envelope too far, their comments will be deleted. And if they complain about their deleted comments being deleted, their complaints about deleted comments being deleted could likewise be deleted. Thus the two most prolific users of the ad hom have been served notice that they have to clean up their acts, else see their comments vanish and their privilege to comment vanish (as Perry found out after he verbally threatened multiple people on this site).

  32. Casper wrote:

    As for sexual orientation not being visible like race or ethnicity (and thus it being better, from a non-discrimination point of view, not to know, so as to prevent discrimination–how can one discriminate against you if they don’t know you’re homosexual?), I would urge our fair editor to imagine he’s talking not about sexual orientation, but about religion (also not a visible marker), and see how much of his theory as stated above still holds the same amount of water.

    Actually, it more than holds water: can you imagine a public university asking an applicant’s religion these days?

    Some — certainly not all — Muslims were dress which leads to the conclusion that they are Islamic, but even there, the conclusion could be wrong; it could just as easily be cultural. Many, though certainly not a majority, of Christians wear small crucifixes, but even that is more often a generalized Christian symbol than a more specifically Catholic one. (Most Protestants would wear the bare cross rather than the crucifix, but I’m not certain just how seriously that distinction is taken these days.)

    But, even so, the wearing of the crucifix is a form of communicating that the wearer is Christian; communication need not be verbal.

  33. Casper wrote:

    Being aware of the number of gay folks in society–and especially the recognition that most of us are not too far removed personally from someone who is homosexual, now that more people are coming out–more’n’likely has ushered in more tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle, so I can see why those opposed to that lifestyle might be opposed to more folks “coming out,” even if it’s only on what amounts to a college census form. But, as long as one’s disclosure is voluntary (like pretty much all of the other demographic info on such forms), I’m good with it. (I’d also support adding religious affiliation to the forms too, if it’s not already on there, in case that helps…) This isn’t MAKING people disclose anything… …it’s just allowing them to do so. Their privacy is still up to them.

    Were we talking about a private college, I’d be less annoyed; they can ask anything they wish as far as I am concerned. But public schools are not allowed to discriminate on most things, and ought not to be compiling information which could be used discriminatorily.

  34. I can see those “voluntary” public university questionaires now!

    1) are you
    a) Male
    b) Female
    c) Transgender
    d) Amorphous

    2)
    a)If male, select what best represents you.
    i) I bat for the pink team.
    ii) I’m a non-discriminatory switch-hitter.
    iii) I’m one of those nasty straight guys.

    3) What best describes you?
    a) I’m an atheist.
    b) I’m a true Christian because I reject the Bible.
    c) I’m a fake Christian, believing in the God-breathed sacredness of the Bible.

  35. Just a housekeeping note: your Editor failed to reset the blog clock at the beginning of Daylight Savings Time; he has just done so. The time stamps on comments prior to this one are on Eastern Standard Time.

  36. “Actually, it more than holds water: can you imagine a public university asking an applicant’s religion these days?”

    Not only can I imagine it, I believe they should do it, particularly given the number of religious folks–including Christians–claiming they’re being discriminated against.

    But to be fair, I must not’ve been as clear as I thought I was.
    That wasn’t your argument in the initial piece, and doesn’t respond to the comment I made.

    This is the argument you made about homosexuals, that I’m asking you to consider for Christians, Jews, and all of the other religions we Americans practice:

    More, we have been told, by our friends on the left right, that it is simply wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of his sexual religious orientation. However, unlike race or ethnicity, a person’s sexual religious orientation is not a visible marker; it can only be determined if that person chooses to somehow communicate his sexual religious orientation to others, chooses to make his sexualreligious preferences public information. To discriminate against someone based on his sexual religious orientation requires that someone’s sexual religious orientation be known; the surest way to prevent such discrimination is to not make it public information.

    The surest way to prevent discrimination is to avoid disclosing your religious beliefs in the public square. Keep it hidden (in the closet, perhaps). Deny being who you are, so as not to offend anyone, or open yourself up to discrimination.

    I had thought, silly me!, that our friends on the left believed that people’s sexual orientations and activities were supposed to be private matters, and nobody’s business — certainly not the government’s business! — but their own and those with whom they chose to copulate.

    I think you’re misstating the argument, a little… Most of the liberals I know think that one’s sexual orientation–be it straight or gay, and the private and public behaviors that go along with either, ought not be regulated by the state, not that there is no aspect of sexual orientation that we, the people need concern ourselves with. (Folks having sex in public–straight or gay–should be a legal matter, for instance.) And discrimination, even against gay folks, does fall under the government’s purview.

    But public schools are not allowed to discriminate on most things, and ought not to be compiling information which could be used discriminatorily.

    What we’re talking about here is information that is voluntarily shared. The key here is that it’s just information, and isn’t inherently good or evil. Yes, I suppose the information could be used to discriminate against folks (or for some other evil purpose). The same is true of all kinds of information, given willingly and “less so,” to all manner of organizations and individuals. But the schools believe that the information can and will be used to PREVENT (or at least, LESSEN) discrimination, by allowing them to meet the students’ needs, gearing on-campus life toward the students actually attending… The question really is whether the good schools believe they can do with having census information on their students is outweighed by the potential harm you suggest may be in the wings as a result of collecting it.

  37. If our sex lives are supposed to be private, then keep them private

    Private, or secret? I think that’s the point here. People don’t want to hide who they are. If you’re gay and have a boyfriend or girlfriend, it’s going to be fairly obvious to people.

  38. Eric wrote:

    Private, or secret? I think that’s the point here. People don’t want to hide who they are. If you’re gay and have a boyfriend or girlfriend, it’s going to be fairly obvious to people.

    To their friends, yes, and the same holds true with heterosexuals. But I see no reason why the government needs to know.

  39. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  40. “(And Dana… I hate to toss cold water, but as someone who obviously hasn’t been visiting as often as he should–but whose perspective may thus be different from those of the regulars–I’m sorry to say that, in this thread at least, the ad hominem and personal animus in the comment stream looks almost identical in quantity and quality to that at other dear departed blog, CSPT… …and I feel kinda bad, because I’m pretty sure you were hoping for better, here…)”

    Mr Editor, you failed to respond to repsac3′s point of criticism here, and worse, to Mr Hitchcock totally inaccurate response.

    In spite of your so-called “Comments and Content Policy”, you have given license to the likes of Mr Hitchcock, koolo, and Hoagie to consistently violate it. You have also given license to Mr Hitchcock to delete comments from myself and Anna Nova that he does not like.

    There are a number of words which describe this kind of behavior, but I choose just one: conspiracy; and Mr Editor, you should be ashamed to be promoting such behavior.

    A comment made the other day by Mr Hitchcock about the rash of emails he has been sending lately, presumably to coordinate such a conspiracy, triggered me on this, and the pieces fit a conspiracy. This is what you people do, going up to and including the leadership of your party and to the wingnut sycophants on Fox News and on Rush Limbaugh and his talk radio acolytes.

    But I am more concerned about FSJ, because I am a participant on here. Why have you promoted, or at least tolerated such a conspiracy, Mr Editor? This behavior on your new blog is no different on the old one, CSPT, which you abandoned in order to start with a clean slate and an intent to keep it as clean as possible with an enforceable “Comment and Content Policy”.

    I’m sorry to say, Mr Editor, that you are failing, and losing respect in the process, from my point of view!

  41. E

    ditor says:
    April 1, 2012 at 08:32

    To their friends, yes, and the same holds true with heterosexuals. But I see no reason why the government needs to know.

    You and others “forget” that what the left demands is not indifference, not disapproving or neutral tolerance, not a lack of meddling, but affirmation and solidarity.

    Otherwise you can expect the typical modern-liberal chimp-attack response.

    Actually, the chimp attacks (Chimp Wars) filmed in the African forest, (as the old band sought out and attacked the band or individuals that moved away into new territories) is the perfect paradigm for a modern liberalism which above all resents anyone or anything distancing itself from the autogenic pathologies or the liberal members of the “community”.

    In the words of John Rawls, the liberal view of society constitutes a “commitment to share each others fate”.

    You are material for their brave new world. How dare you decline to participate?

  42. “I’m sorry to say, Mr Editor, that you are failing, and losing respect in the process, from my point of view!”

    Deleting the perseverating provocations of a mentally ill, and self-described Internet troll from New Zealand, is nothing more than good grounds-keeping.

    You might do better for yourself and your progressive cause by engaging on point when challenged rather than complaining about it, and justifying your contorted deflections as a form of meta-debate push-back to which you are morally entitled to engage.

  43. SINP writes

    I’m sorry to say, Mr Editor, that you are failing, and losing respect in the process, from my point of view!

    Gee, he’s losing the respect of SINP and Anna?? Oh, NO!!!

    LOL … if there’s anything to learn from this, it’s for Editor to keep doing what he’s doing as is. You wanna make the rules, SINP? You have your own blog on which to do so. All three of your daily visitors will be grateful.

  44. More of the same from DNW:

    “Deleting the perseverating provocations of a mentally ill, and self-described Internet troll from New Zealand, is nothing more than good grounds-keeping.”

    And your example for that outrageously insulting statement is what, DNW? If you permit yourself to stoop to this sort of rhetoric, then I must question your own mental status!

    “You might do better for yourself and your progressive cause by engaging on point when challenged rather than complaining about it, and justifying your contorted deflections as a form of meta-debate push-back to which you are morally entitled to engage.”

    I do both, DNW, as you know well. One cannot let pass either an opposition debating point or a rash of personal insults and attacks, both of which, if you would be honest and forthright about it, you know well to be par for the course on this blog, especially considering that mine is a minority voice against what I consider to be extremist ideological expressions all too often, which must be countered.

    That said, I commend you for being above the fray quite often, with the first quote an example of where you have slipped.

    PS: I have not gotten back yet on your latest Trayvon/Zimmerman time line, as I am seeking more information first. I’ll just say that I do not think that you have used the koolo posted map accurately, in that Zimmerman did embark from the position of his last cell phone call to the 911 dispatcher, onto the sidewalk between the back yards as if he were in pursuit of Trayvon.

  45. “LOL … if there’s anything to learn from this, it’s for Editor to keep doing what he’s doing as is. You wanna make the rules, SINP? You have your own blog on which to do so. All three of your daily visitors will be grateful.”

    Shorter koolo: Never complain, just accept whatever.

    What was your father like, koolo?

  46. SINP is type of “man” who complains about a gift he receives immediately upon getting it … all in the name of “free speech.”

  47. “A helluva lot better of man than yours, that’s for sure!”

    Koolo took the bait. Now it is my father who koolo has decided to insult! There are no limits, are there koolo?

    So again, what was your father like? I am guessing that he was a dominant individual, which is why you have the impulse to strike back, no matter how foolishly, no matter how childishly.

  48. Wagonwheel says:
    April 2, 2012 at 12:31

    More of the same from DNW:

    “Deleting the perseverating provocations of a mentally ill, and self-described Internet troll from New Zealand, is nothing more than good grounds-keeping.”

    And your example for that outrageously insulting statement is what, DNW? If you permit yourself to stoop to this sort of rhetoric, then I must question your own mental status!”

    1. Do you deny that the Walking With Ghosts blogger from New Zealand, Phoenician in a time of Romans, delighted in what he himself described on line, as intentionally trollish behavior?

    2. Did you ever read “T”s references to his mental condition, or his neurotic rantings before he began pulling web pages down in response to their being pointed out?

    Here’s your problem Perry. You are mostly about some ridiculous notion of push-back, not actual argument.

    In your view this tit-for-tat occupation is a kind of game you are entitled to play according to a delusional interpretation you hold of the 1st Amendment.

    You do not feel obligated to argue factually, or even on point. And to do so would probably involve you in much more labor that you are willing to expend on the task.

    Want to get serious?

    What would you say to a comment box rule that caused all comments that were in any way insulting or critically directed in any at another commenter to be deleted?

    What would you say to a rule that allowed links without commentary, but only if there really was no commentary at all.

    What would you think of a rule that allowed a link with commentary, but only if the commentator made an actual argument in his or her own words: laying out the premise of the article linked to, and showing his commitment to the proposition that the conclusion must supposedly follow. In other words: “No critically directed links without a defense framed in your own words of the premisses of the argument, and the conclusion said to be following from, those premises.”

    Thus the rule in practice: If you pose a link as a critique of another commentator, you must unequivocally own the link and the conclusion as your own; and argue it in your own words too, rather than merely drop it off with the wave of a hankie, and a lisping sneer.

    What would you think of that rule as a blogging comment rule, Perry?

    Or would you object again because you like things to be a little, what was you called it, “spicy”?

  49. Wagonwheel says:
    April 2, 2012 at 12:49

    “A helluva lot better of man than yours, that’s for sure!”

    Koolo took the bait. Now it is my father who koolo has decided to insult! There are no limits, are there koolo?

    So again, what was your father like? I am guessing that he was a dominant individual, which is why you have the impulse to strike back, no matter how foolishly, no matter how childishly.”

    Stop that Perry. Why do you taunt others only to cry out as if you have won a moral victory when they scoff at you?

    Is this your view as to how morals are proved? That others are moral or mature to the extent that they do not reciprocate your attacks in kind?

    Stop behaving like this or you are going to be sent home.

  50. SINP writes

    Koolo took the bait. Now it is my father who koolo has decided to insult! There are no limits, are there koolo?

    You set the tone and the limits, SINP. And then you whine and cry when others play them.

    Go have a good cry, baby.

  51. “I do both, DNW, as you know well. One cannot let pass either an opposition debating point or a rash of personal insults and attacks, both of which, if you would be honest and forthright about it, you know well to be par for the course on this blog, especially considering that mine is a minority voice against what I consider to be extremist ideological expressions all too often, which must be countered.

    That said, I commend you for being above the fray quite often, with the first quote an example of where you have slipped.”

    Perry, your interest in defending a mentally ill provocation specialist from New Zealand who seems fixated on Dana beyond all reason, is beyond my own understanding.

    The fact that he engages in all kind of deceptions and frauds seems to mean absolutely nothing to you.

    Instead of worrying about the feelings of a troll, why don’t you take it upon yourself to fill the role you hold up as an ideal for others? Seriously, why not?

    That way you can quit worrying about whether the troll gets treated like a human or not, or whether others should make allowances for it or not.

    You will be so busy polishing your own syllogisms that you won’t have time to notice whether someone who has been indicted for stealing the use of e-mail addresses gets punished for it or not.

  52. It is SINP’s defining pathology, DNW — he demands even-handedness and “fairness” from all … except himself and all who believe as he does. The rules are for … everyone else. This same outrageous hypocrisy DEFINES the modern left: demands for civility do not apply to them, stopping misogyny doesn’t apply to them, tax fairness doesn’t apply to them, legal/civil protests don’t apply to them …

    The list is virtually interminable.

  53. “The list is virtually interminable.”

    Right, koolo, just like your incessant whining, and your partisan targets.

    And your example for your criticism is exactly what, koolo, or is this nothing more than your typically meaningless and boring rantings?

    And the next time you feel in a critical mood, you are going to criticize the Conservatives on here who do not meet your arbitrary standards as well, correct koolo?

  54. If I may amend my earlier statement, I was wrong. In my humble, anyway, the conduct of all concerned at CSPT was a whole lot better. I sincerely hope you folks–and especially Pico, who I’ve always respected as a worthy and fair “adversary,” and always seemed to care about the tenor and tone of the CSPT blog–are happy with what you have here, but count me out. The noise all but drowns out the signal.

    I’d advise those who feel they’re being mistreated here to just bail… Speaking from experience, I can tell you that there’s nothing to be gained by bothering to engage folks who would clearly rather just pat each other on the head and make “excellent post!!” comments amongst themselves. There are some great conservative bloggers who’re worth your time, even if you’re not a conservative yourself–including our fair “editor,” should he ever decide to go it alone, or at least make himself the one and only moderator–but in my humble opinion, yer just banging your head against some mad bugger’s wall, given the circumstances as they are.

    Do as you will, but I just can’t be bothered… (Because I like Pico, though, I’ll check back every now and again, on the off chance that he exerts his authority and things improve…)

    Those who wish to insult me and all I stand for and love are cordially invited to have at it. (If you’re the kind who would, I probably don’t value your opinion enough to care that you have.)

Comments are closed.