Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Student kicked out for telling professor there are only two genders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Just because some people demanding equal rights actually deserved them does not mean that all people demanding equal rights deserve them.
    I don't know about your phrasing of "deserve them"... does anyone "deserve" anything?

    However, in a just and equitable society that is loving towards all people, obviously everyone should have equal rights. That's just basic. If someone doesn't have equal rights that is a serious moral issue which should be addressed immediately and urgently.

    That is why I care so much about 'human rights' (which I think is somewhat poor phrasing, but I didn't invent the phrase) - not because I think anyone has an inherent 'right' to things or 'deserves' them or think that we are 'created with inalienable rights', but because I think it's a basic moral duty to love others and want the best for others. We should be loving toward all people and alter the way our society works so that it is maximally loving toward all and treats all people well and gives them the maximal opportunity to live a life in which they can experience "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as someone once put it. I read any statement of 'human rights' as putting forth a goal for society to treat all people at least as well as specified in the standard. 'Human rights' form a minimum standard of how society treats people, and these standards are shaped altruistic people whose goal is to create a loving society that treats people well.

    So, to me, if someone is rejecting human rights, they are rejecting the notion of treating others well, rejecting the idea that we should shape our society to love others, and in their heart rejecting the idea of loving others.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I don't know about your phrasing of "deserve them"... does anyone "deserve" anything?
      That's what the whole "inalienable rights" thing in our Constitution is about, among which are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      inalienable right
      noun
      a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        I don't know about your phrasing of "deserve them"... does anyone "deserve" anything?

        However, in a just and equitable society that is loving towards all people, obviously everyone should have equal rights. That's just basic. If someone doesn't have equal rights that is a serious moral issue which should be addressed immediately and urgently.

        That is why I care so much about 'human rights' (which I think is somewhat poor phrasing, but I didn't invent the phrase) - not because I think anyone has an inherent 'right' to things or 'deserves' them or think that we are 'created with inalienable rights', but because I think it's a basic moral duty to love others and want the best for others. We should be loving toward all people and alter the way our society works so that it is maximally loving toward all and treats all people well and gives them the maximal opportunity to live a life in which they can experience "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as someone once put it. I read any statement of 'human rights' as putting forth a goal for society to treat all people at least as well as specified in the standard. 'Human rights' form a minimum standard of how society treats people, and these standards are shaped altruistic people whose goal is to create a loving society that treats people well.

        So, to me, if someone is rejecting human rights, they are rejecting the notion of treating others well, rejecting the idea that we should shape our society to love others, and in their heart rejecting the idea of loving others.
        How bout child molesters?
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • FYI, this article has a copy of the actual accusation: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/edu...s/201803130095. Most of it has been quoted already.

          As a former (and future) college teacher, the only way I'd throw someone out is if they were doing something that was interfering with teaching. A single comment wouldn't do it, but refusing to shut up might. I guess a letter of apology makes sense, though I personally wouldn't do that on a first offense. The only way I'd ask for a public apology to the class is if they had attacked members of the class. Maybe the teacher was less tolerant than I am, or maybe the student actually did those things. Unfortunately we can't tell. At my institution, getting a hearing to convict a student requires significant work. I don't think it would sustain an absurd accusation. Of course I can't speak for IUP.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            How bout child molesters?
            Any criminals should be dealt with to protect others in society, and the treatment of the criminals should be done in a way motivated by love rather than by vengeance.

            The general principles I would follow are:
            1. If the criminal poses a serious and probable threat to others in society through re-offense, their ability to re-offend should be removed, e.g. through house arrest with monitored gps ankle bracelet, or jail/prison, otherwise their punishment should probably take some other form (e.g. fines, community service etc) rather than a restriction on their freedom of movement. However should their freedom of movement be curtailed through jail/prison it is important that they be treated well in these facilities and that they be treated with kindness and love and their value and status as a person be respected and affirmed (no gratuitous use of solitary confinement, good conditions in the facility etc).
            2. The punishment imposed on them must be serious enough to deter others in society from committing the same offense, but should not be unduly harsh beyond that.
            3. There should be a primary focus on rehabilitation of the offender and on successfully reintegrating them into society. Given that most criminals (unless they have a life sentence) will be spending the majority of their lives back in society, their period of detention is the main chance that the government has to ensure that they become a contributing member of society once released rather than a repeat criminal offender.

            I believe Norway's system is particularly good. They have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, and achieve this by treating criminals extremely well during their prison stay and focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration.

            I reject all forms of "eye for an eye" punishment / vengeance, and absolutely reject all ideas that there "ought to be 'just punishments'" for crimes where 'just' is being understood as meaning harsh (if 'just' is simply being used as a synonym for 'appropriate', then of course there should be 'appropriate' punishment that's basically a truism). All scientific research I have ever seen on the topic suggests that harsh punishments are unhelpful: They do not deter crime substantially, and they do not reduce reoffending. They are vengeance for the sake of vengeance, and as loving people we should utterly reject that. It is, of course, possible to be too 'soft on crime', whereby the punishments are soooo low to nonexistent that there is zero deterrence factor, however the two main spheres I see this occur in are white-collar Wall St crime, and war-crimes - I think the US is absurdly soft on both categories of offending while being absurdly overly harsh on individuals who commit drug crimes.

            I think human rights laws are a useful way of imposing minimum standards with regard to how a loving society would treat criminals. e.g. "everyone has the right to a speedy and fair trial", "everyone has the right to legal representation", and various minimum standards for time spent in prison (receiving necessary healthcare, freedom to perform basic religious practices, regular food and drink of certain standards, ability to do exercise, ability to socialize, being kept in healthy conditions (e.g. not disgusting criminal Sheriff Joe Arpaio's tent-city concentration camp in the boiling/freezing desert)).
            Last edited by Starlight; 03-18-2018, 07:14 PM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              That's what the whole "inalienable rights" thing in our Constitution is about, among which are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
              You mean the Declaration of Independence.

              As I said, I reject any religious basis or philosophical basis about 'what humans deserve' with regard to 'rights'. I take them to be a useful minimum standard of conduct set forth to promote a loving society in which all members of the society are treated lovingly, as I explained in more detail in my post.

              I find it useful when thinking about them to take the language of "people have a right to X" as meaning "it is right (=loving/altruistic) to treat people in our society at least by the minimum standard of X". They are a useful construct that promotes a better society. It is unnecessary to hold to any particular religious or philosophical basis for their origin, as we can simply acknowledge that they are widely-agreed-upon minimum standards for treating others by. I view them as coming from love for others, since they do in my particular case, but a person who didn't love others and instead simply believed in the inherent value of humans due to their religious beliefs would probably be able to endorse much the same human rights as I would, because we both place value on other people in general.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Any criminals should be dealt with to protect others in society, and the treatment of the criminals should be done in a way motivated by love rather than by vengeance.

                The general principles I would follow are:
                1. If the criminal poses a serious and probable threat to others in society through re-offense, their ability to re-offend should be removed, e.g. through house arrest with monitored gps ankle bracelet, or jail/prison, otherwise their punishment should probably take some other form (e.g. fines, community service etc) rather than a restriction on their freedom of movement. However should their freedom of movement be curtailed through jail/prison it is important that they be treated well in these facilities and that they be treated with kindness and love and their value and status as a person be respected and affirmed (no gratuitous use of solitary confinement, good conditions in the facility etc).
                2. The punishment imposed on them must be serious enough to deter others in society from committing the same offense, but should not be unduly harsh beyond that.
                3. There should be a primary focus on rehabilitation of the offender and on successfully reintegrating them into society. Given that most criminals (unless they have a life sentence) will be spending the majority of their lives back in society, their period of detention is the main chance that the government has to ensure that they become a contributing member of society once released rather than a repeat criminal offender.

                I believe Norway's system is particularly good. They have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, and achieve this by treating criminals extremely well during their prison stay and focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration.

                I reject all forms of "eye for an eye" punishment / vengeance, and absolutely reject all ideas that there "ought to be 'just punishments'" for crimes where 'just' is being understood as meaning harsh (if 'just' is simply being used as a synonym for 'appropriate', then of course there should be 'appropriate' punishment that's basically a truism). All scientific research I have ever seen on the topic suggests that harsh punishments are unhelpful: They do not deter crime substantially, and they do not reduce reoffending. They are vengeance for the sake of vengeance, and as loving people we should utterly reject that. It is, of course, possible to be too 'soft on crime', whereby the punishments are soooo low to nonexistent that there is zero deterrence factor, however the two main spheres I see this occur in are white-collar Wall St crime, and war-crimes - I think the US is absurdly soft on both categories of offending while being absurdly overly harsh on individuals who commit drug crimes.

                I think human rights laws are a useful way of imposing minimum standards with regard to how a loving society would treat criminals. e.g. "everyone has the right to a speedy and fair trial", "everyone has the right to legal representation", and various minimum standards for time spent in prison (receiving necessary healthcare, freedom to perform basic religious practices, regular food and drink of certain standards, ability to do exercise, ability to socialize, being kept in healthy conditions (e.g. not disgusting criminal Sheriff Joe Arpaio's tent-city concentration camp in the boiling/freezing desert)).
                I think whenever somebody is incarcerated, they should be given the option...
                A) You're going to be a decent person and follow the rules and do your time, and not be a danger to guards and staff and others
                2) You're gonna be a thug and a problem and make your own life - and the lives of others - miserable

                Those who choose A) should be given the option of the kind of treatment you favor.
                Those who choose 2) should be allowed to live in the hell they create.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  You mean the Declaration of Independence.
                  I do. I usually catch others making that error.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I think whenever somebody is incarcerated, they should be given the option...
                    A) You're going to be a decent person and follow the rules and do your time, and not be a danger to guards and staff and others
                    2) You're gonna be a thug and a problem and make your own life - and the lives of others - miserable

                    Those who choose A) should be given the option of the kind of treatment you favor.
                    Those who choose 2) should be allowed to live in the hell they create.
                    If you haven't already I suggest you read this article about US prison wardens who visited Norway to tour their prisons, and how it caused them to rethink how the US system does things. It looks at how treating prisoners with more respect and putting them in kinder settings can lead to better outcomes, and looks at how the US tendency to stick people in cages for long periods of time is unhelpful.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      If you haven't already I suggest you read this article about US prison wardens who visited Norway to tour their prisons, and how it caused them to rethink how the US system does things. It looks at how treating prisoners with more respect and putting them in kinder settings can lead to better outcomes, and looks at how the US tendency to stick people in cages for long periods of time is unhelpful.
                      OR we could look at what was the most violent max security prison in the US, and discover how it drastically changed through the installation of a Bible College in the prison, and turning death row inmates into Pastors to bring peace. But that's unpossible* in your little anti-Christian world.


                      *I owe Rogue a strip of bacon every time I use that phrase.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        OR we could look at what was the most violent max security prison in the US, and discover how it drastically changed through the installation of a Bible College in the prison, and turning death row inmates into Pastors to bring peace. But that's unpossible* in your little anti-Christian world.
                        I think that reflects how giving prisoners educational opportunities to better their lives and treating them with respect as people goes a long way. Changing the perspective from "these are criminals who we imprison" to "these are students who we teach and work with" helps tons.

                        Obviously I reject your unwarranted and unevidenced assumption that "it was only because this was a Christian Seminary that this worked".
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          I think that reflects how giving prisoners educational opportunities to better their lives and treating them with respect as people goes a long way. Changing the perspective from "these are criminals who we imprison" to "these are students who we teach and work with" helps tons.

                          Obviously I reject your unwarranted and unevidenced assumption that "it was only because this was a Christian Seminary that this worked".
                          Yeah, well, you're bigoted like that, so....
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            OR we could look at what was the most violent max security prison in the US, and discover how it drastically changed through the installation of a Bible College in the prison, and turning death row inmates into Pastors to bring peace. But that's unpossible* in your little anti-Christian world.
                            It's got nothing to do with Bible Colleges being set up in prisons and everything to do with treating prisoners like human beings. E.g. in highly secular Norway, "the prisoners, some of whom are murderers and rapists, live in conditions that critics brand 'cushy' and 'luxurious'. Yet it has by far the lowest re-offending rate in Europe".

                            https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ed-like-people
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                              No non-sequitur! You claim that those demanding equal rights, e.g. LGBT's, are "confused" yet you, who believes in invisible entities, eternal life and virgin births etc is NOT confused. So funny!
                              I'm pretty that's a non sequitur, kiddo. People denying the reality of their own biology has nothing to do with people who are convinced of the truth of a historically based religious worldview.

                              And, yes, those who are confused about their gender despite the undeniable evidence of their own biology are suffering from a delusion (the denial of reality) which is a mental disorder. A man who looks in the mirror and sincerely believes that he's a woman is no different from a man who looks in the mirror and sincerely believes that he's a dog. A man who, contrary to natural impulses, finds himself sexually attracted to an adult member of the same sex is no different than a man who, contrary to natural impulses, finds himself sexually attracted to infants, or a different species. Enabling their illness is, perhaps, one of the most cruel things society could do to them.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                                Who says I was talking about college level? I was talking down lower, like high school or middle school because I seriously doubt that a college level course would spend much time establishing something that you should already know.
                                Many college courses, especially in the sciences, spend a lot of time explaining that what is taught in school is a simplification and reality is much more complex.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X