Principle harrases homosexual students

[Duskofdead]

I just love how it is politically correct to blast people and not tollerate people that are considered non-politically correct because they show intollerance to others. The hypocracy makes me smile.

How is it hypocritic to call people assholes when they're being assholes?

What I meant is that Person A does not like Person B beacuse of what Person B "is". Person C does not like Person A because PA is a bigot/racist/etc (Is, that is what Person A is).

Everyone is fine with Person C not liking Person A for what he is, but
they are not fine with Person A not liking Person B for what he is.

I thried to get that to line up so the comparison was visual as well. That is where the hypocracy comes in.

This is where "bigotry being hardwired is an excuse" comes into play. Someone cannot help being black, gay or whatever else. They can go to various artificial measures to fit in and distance themselves from their identity (i.e. "oreos" or "in the closet") but that's all. Someone having an unaccountably volatile or hostile attitude towards people who happen to be black, or gay, though, is a chosen prejudice. It's either actively chosen or a prejudice they were raised with that they choose not to change. In either case, holding people to account for WHAT they are and holding them to account for what they THINK and DO are two entirely different things.

[Jim]

This is an entirely subjective reaction, admittedly, but I have a hard time believing that there is some Chomsky mechanism to incur bigotry. I don't think we are "hardwired" to react to ugliness, because we are not "hardwired" to define it; rather, that definition and subsequent bias are socialized into us.

I just do not see much difference in not liking something due to the sense of taste, and not liking something due to the sense of sight.

If you paint your walls a color you do not like... or a texture you do not like... You do not like things because of your sense of smell...

Why not dislike a group of people because they are (to you) too pale, dark, short, fat, tall, eye shape, nose size, or any other physical feature? What is the difference?

[Jim]

Someone having an unaccountably volatile or hostile attitude towards people who happen to be black, or gay, though, is a chosen prejudice. It's either actively chosen or a prejudice they were raised with that they choose not to change. In either case, holding people to account for WHAT they are and holding them to account for what they THINK and DO are two entirely different things.

I disagree. Saying that it is a "chosen prejudice" would be the same as saying that a same-sex person is a "chosen lifestyle" in my opinion. I did state that a lot of bigory/etc is due to a lack of education, but I do feel that it can be as hardwired as same-sex, etc etc.

[Duskofdead]

This is an entirely subjective reaction, admittedly, but I have a hard time believing that there is some Chomsky mechanism to incur bigotry. I don't think we are "hardwired" to react to ugliness, because we are not "hardwired" to define it; rather, that definition and subsequent bias are socialized into us.

I just do not see much difference in not liking something due to the sense of taste, and not liking something due to the sense of sight.

If you paint your walls a color you do not like... or a texture you do not like... You do not like things because of your sense of smell...

Why not dislike a group of people because they are (to you) too pale, dark, short, fat, tall, eye shape, nose size, or any other physical feature? What is the difference?

There is a big difference, and it's an insidious one. What people would "naturally" find attractive or beautiful is often inexplicable because they are socialized by their culture and society to THINK something is beautiful and something else isn't long before they are consciously making those judgments themselves. In southern India, for example, larger, heavier set women are the beauty standard. They are on magazine covers and everything. In northern India, the slender and lighter skinned build is socialized as more beautiful. So you have one country where based on where you lived and grew up, your beauty standard is quite probably very different.

You are basically saying that what an eyeball would consider beautiful by itself and what society tells your brain to tell your eyes is attractive are exactly the same thing.

[Jim]

Please note that I am not trying to start a fight or anything. I just think that sometimes pigs are what they are and it is not always a "learned" idea.

[Duskofdead]

Someone having an unaccountably volatile or hostile attitude towards people who happen to be black, or gay, though, is a chosen prejudice. It's either actively chosen or a prejudice they were raised with that they choose not to change. In either case, holding people to account for WHAT they are and holding them to account for what they THINK and DO are two entirely different things.

I disagree. Saying that it is a "chosen prejudice" would be the same as saying that a same-sex person is a "chosen lifestyle" in my opinion. I did state that a lot of bigory/etc is due to a lack of education, but I do feel that it can be as hardwired as same-sex, etc etc.

That's bull. Saying that gay people are just choosing a different lifestyle ignores what was said earlier in this thread... that sex drives are very real things. If someone is a gay person they are only choosing not to hide their natural inclinations, not the other way around.

Saying that someone can just "change their sexual orientation" in the very same way that someone can choose to stop being bigoted or educate themselves and understand the basis of their bigotry and get over it is just incorrect. Or are you saying people are incapable of learning just as much as they are incapable of changing their sexual orientation?

[Reliant121]

He what? Harrased homosexual students? You have no idea how angry i am. Most know of my sexual inclinations and as an update, i am lean far far stronger on the gay side. Being Gay is a Biological condition not a decision. They cant help it. Its whether they accept it or not.

[Jim]

This is an entirely subjective reaction, admittedly, but I have a hard time believing that there is some Chomsky mechanism to incur bigotry. I don't think we are "hardwired" to react to ugliness, because we are not "hardwired" to define it; rather, that definition and subsequent bias are socialized into us.

I just do not see much difference in not liking something due to the sense of taste, and not liking something due to the sense of sight.

If you paint your walls a color you do not like... or a texture you do not like... You do not like things because of your sense of smell...

Why not dislike a group of people because they are (to you) too pale, dark, short, fat, tall, eye shape, nose size, or any other physical feature? What is the difference?

There is a big difference, and it's an insidious one. What people would "naturally" find attractive or beautiful is often inexplicable because they are socialized by their culture and society to THINK something is beautiful and something else isn't long before they are consciously making those judgments themselves. In southern India, for example, larger, heavier set women are the beauty standard. They are on magazine covers and everything. In northern India, the slender and lighter skinned build is socialized as more beautiful. So you have one country where based on where you lived and grew up, your beauty standard is quite probably very different.

You are basically saying that what an eyeball would consider beautiful by itself and what society tells your brain to tell your eyes is attractive are exactly the same thing.

I totally understand your point about society driving ideals, and I am not saying that it is not true. However, I am just saying that that is not the end all. Mych like I do not listen to film critics, I actually find most models to be relatively unattractive compared to the normal woman you would see at the local shopping center.

I do not care how many onions my mother tried to feed me as a child, or how many restaurants put them in salads, or how many friends cook with them. I do not like onions. Period. None of my friends watch sci-fi. I do not drink alcohol, even though every one of my friends do. Everyone hates muslims right now, I dated a muslim. Now, it could be the programming that you are refering to, but I can not think of one major thing that I do "because" it is "socially imposed". (save for following laws obviously, and stuff like not farting in the elevator etc) Now, I realize that that is just me... and I realize that I am a bit... off... but maybe that is why I look at things so differently too.

[sunnyside]

I think there is an "ick" response. But it's very very basic. By the time you're discussing a lifestyle you've moved outside of its realm. Actually by the time you've moved to most astheics you've moved outside of its realm.

However in humans I would think that regardless you can alter those base reactions. For example I think a lot of stinky cheeses illicits an "ew" reaction from nearly all children on the planet. However adults can come to like the stuff.

Same with a lot of things. Now I think the Greeks are evidence that sexual orientation can similarly be overriden or selected to a point. But I think some people are just pure gay or pure straight.

[Jim]

Someone having an unaccountably volatile or hostile attitude towards people who happen to be black, or gay, though, is a chosen prejudice. It's either actively chosen or a prejudice they were raised with that they choose not to change. In either case, holding people to account for WHAT they are and holding them to account for what they THINK and DO are two entirely different things.

I disagree. Saying that it is a "chosen prejudice" would be the same as saying that a same-sex person is a "chosen lifestyle" in my opinion. I did state that a lot of bigory/etc is due to a lack of education, but I do feel that it can be as hardwired as same-sex, etc etc.

That's bull. Saying that gay people are just choosing a different lifestyle ignores what was said earlier in this thread... that sex drives are very real things. If someone is a gay person they are only choosing not to hide their natural inclinations, not the other way around.

Saying that someone can just "change their sexual orientation" in the very same way that someone can choose to stop being bigoted or educate themselves and understand the basis of their bigotry and get over it is just incorrect. Or are you saying people are incapable of learning just as much as they are incapable of changing their sexual orientation?

You missed my point... I am saying that sexual orientation is NOT a choice and neither is being a bigot/etc in cases. You said being a bigot is a choice 9flat broad statement covering all bigots/etc) and I countered with the comparison to saying that would be like saying orientation is a choice which is obviously wrong, therefore showing that chosing to be a bigot is wrong as well (in cases).

[Jim]

He what? Harrased homosexual students? You have no idea how angry i am. Most know of my sexual inclinations and as an update, i am lean far far stronger on the gay side. Being Gay is a Biological condition not a decision. They cant help it. Its whether they accept it or not.

Exactly. And in my opinion not liking a group due to a trait can be a biological condition as well.

Would biological "fact' be a better choice of words... is being straight or gay or white or asian a "condition"?

[Duskofdead]

I disagree. Saying that it is a "chosen prejudice" would be the same as saying that a same-sex person is a "chosen lifestyle" in my opinion. I did state that a lot of bigory/etc is due to a lack of education, but I do feel that it can be as hardwired as same-sex, etc etc.

That's bull. Saying that gay people are just choosing a different lifestyle ignores what was said earlier in this thread... that sex drives are very real things. If someone is a gay person they are only choosing not to hide their natural inclinations, not the other way around.

Saying that someone can just "change their sexual orientation" in the very same way that someone can choose to stop being bigoted or educate themselves and understand the basis of their bigotry and get over it is just incorrect. Or are you saying people are incapable of learning just as much as they are incapable of changing their sexual orientation?

You missed my point... I am saying that sexual orientation is NOT a choice and neither is being a bigot/etc in cases. You said being a bigot is a choice 9flat broad statement covering all bigots/etc) and I countered with the comparison to saying that would be like saying orientation is a choice which is obviously wrong, therefore showing that chosing to be a bigot is wrong as well (in cases).

I think holding ANY strong opinion is a choice. To imply anything otherwise is to say people can't change their minds, or can't learn.

[Jim]

But I think some people are just pure gay or pure straight.

Don't leave out the Bi's... would want to be accused of leaving out a group would you?

[Jim]

I think holding ANY strong opinion is a choice. To imply anything otherwise is to say people can't change their minds, or can't learn.

So then YOU are saying that a gay guy can either wake up one day and say, "Hey, I'm straight now" ot he can learn to like women and not like men... that is what YOUR statement is saying...

However, this would open up where the line is drawn between an indiviudual's brain's biological working being fact and opinion (internally to that person).

I am NOT saying that same-sex is a "choice", quite the opposite.

[Reliant121]

He what? Harrased homosexual students? You have no idea how angry i am. Most know of my sexual inclinations and as an update, i am lean far far stronger on the gay side. Being Gay is a Biological condition not a decision. They cant help it. Its whether they accept it or not.

Exactly. And in my opinion not liking a group due to a trait can be a biological condition as well.

Would biological "fact' be a better choice of words... is being straight or gay or white or asian a "condition"?

perhaps that would be better phrasing. or A Biological trait?