Oxford students petition for Professor to be fired on ground of homophobia

Aug 22, 2018
2,287
3,151
275
Nowhere did I say I don't think they should be allowed to post... I'm not sure what you're going for here.
You said we don't need posters defending that side of the fence. That sounds a lot like not wanting them to post, and more specifically not wanting others of a similar mindset to join and post. If you wish to correct me I'd be glad to hear it as otherwise it's a troubling view.
 
May 17, 2012
5,378
1,317
455
Canada
Not quite following the concern that this teacher would discriminate based on his terrible antiquated beliefs from 25 years ago.

How would this professor know if a student is a homosexual and then discriminate against them? I haven't been in University for decades but is it now common to announce your sexuality to your professor? Or is he just going to go after the people who act like television caricatures of gay people? Does he have any observable bias demonstrated in student interactions in his career outside of these essays? What are his thoughts on gays today?
 
Mar 10, 2015
1,308
1,365
340
Austin, TX
You said we don't need posters defending that side of the fence. That sounds a lot like not wanting them to post, and more specifically not wanting others of a similar mindset to join and post. If you wish to correct me I'd be glad to hear it as otherwise it's a troubling view.
I said we don't need more posters like that. I did not say I wish to remove anyone who thinks a specific way's ability to post.

Am I also wrong to say I don't want more people posting here who are ok with pedophilia? I am expressing a value judgement on their beliefs, specifically saying I see little value in them and that they need to be categorically rejected at every turn. I am not advocating for removing their ability to express those beliefs.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,287
3,151
275
I said we don't need more posters like that. I did not say I wish to remove anyone who thinks a specific way's ability to post.

Am I also wrong to say I don't want more people posting here who are ok with pedophilia? I am expressing a value judgement on their beliefs, specifically saying I see little value in them and that they need to be categorically rejected at every turn. I am not advocating for removing their ability to express those beliefs.
I'm not sure I'd equate these guys with paedophiles, that's not ok, and beneath you if your usual posting habits are to be believed. Further, I want to see more posters of all stripes, the more the merrier, to debate with. If they're willing to engage in debate and defend their positions then I'll take anyone, so long as they don't mind me calling out their beliefs.
 
Likes: CatLady
Mar 10, 2015
1,308
1,365
340
Austin, TX
I'm not sure I'd equate these guys with paedophiles, that's not ok, and beneath you if your usual posting habits are to be believed. Further, I want to see more posters of all stripes, the more the merrier, to debate with. If they're willing to engage in debate and defend their positions then I'll take anyone, so long as they don't mind me calling out their beliefs.
I'm taking a hard stance that authoritarian thought policing is literally evil, in the same vein that pedophilia is evil. Both have no value as ideas to be explored and debated. That doesn't mean I think no one should be able to express these beliefs. I'm saying they need to be rejected categorically. I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here, I will never take a stance that some beliefs should not be allowed to be said here. But you're never going to convince me that NeoGAF would be a lot better off with more Excelsior's and Sweet Nicole's participating in the community and I'm happy to say that I think it would be worse off quite plainly.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,287
3,151
275
@bigedole Maybe we're just missing each other somehow then because I agree that authoritarian thought policing is evil, and yes paedophilia is evil too, and that while allowing expression of those beliefs we should reject them. I do however think you're equating some individual's poor performances with the positions in which they stand, and I would contend that there are almost certainly individuals who would represent those positions better. Having them do so would sharpen the skills of those of us who disagree with them, and might teach both sides something new. I think maybe that's where we aren't agreeing, but again it may be a matter of not quite connecting.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,287
3,151
275
Guess not so is the statement "I think homosexuality is disgusting" homophobic?
A person should be free to hold that opinion, and even to express it, if that is there true belief, just as long as it isn't expressed as a threat. Similarly, you should be able to say "Hariseldon is a cunt" as much as you like, even if it offends me, so long as you don't follow it up by threatening to doxx me, rape my cats and get me fired from my job.
 
Oct 30, 2017
966
847
225
You continue to argue the merits of religion or homosexuality while dodging the continued issue of personal freedom, refusing in all cases to consider that one day you may find your own freedom similarly restricted if the political winds turn the other way.
Leftists are too myopic. Cannibalism is a feature of their ideology. Trotsky, Bera, Robespierre, etc this is nothing new. Yoshi is closet totalitarian. He’s doing his best to hide it.
 
Mar 10, 2015
1,308
1,365
340
Austin, TX
So the tweet isn't homophobic? This is some confusing shit.
Who'd have thought that a 200 character limit is not enough to provide necessary context to understanding what people mean when they say things? If only people weighed their *ists/isms accusations more carefully and actually tried to understand if they were fitting labels, maybe those words would still have some gravitas to them instead of being eye-roll gif bait.
 
Likes: hariseldon

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,294
684
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
Thinking that homosexual acts are disgusting isn't homophobia right?
Well, technically, since a phobia is a fear....and finding something to be disgusting is not a fear, so no.

Actually, the whole word "homophobia" is just a stupid misuse of the language in general. I don't think anyone is particularly afraid of homosexuals.
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Look, I'll amend my previous stance on the idea that as long as the professor isn't actively discriminating against gay people he shouldn't be fired for simply expressing an opinion but don't expect me to shed any tears over someone who thinks I'm repulsive or naturally abhorrent. I imagine a lot of religious people here wouldn't be handwringing with such enthusiasm if some anti-theistic bigot got canned for calling the Abrahamic religions as evil or incompatible with modern society.
 

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,359
5,392
475
I heard an argument from one gay person that homosexuality exists in animal kingdom, so it makes it normal. Incest, interbreeding and cannibalism also exist in animal kingdom, does that make it normal in human society?
You are construing a fallacy by leaving out the context of that particular argument. The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is not used to support homosexuality as being normal, but to counter the religious argument that homosexuality is "unnatural". Which is clearly not the case considering that homosexuality exists in natural environments.

Also, contrary to homosexuality, cannibalism and incest aren't mere ethical concerns as there are very empirical and tangible serious medical problems related to these practices. So you're really comparing apples to oranges here.

The problem is that he teaches mandatory college courses, so students who take up a particular degree in the field he covers are forced to have him as a professor even if they (rightly) view him as human garbage.
I'm not to defend his views (I consider them to be clearly erroneous), but we need to ask whether he hates homosexual people or if he hates homosexual practices? Both are not the same. For example, a lot of people have a strong dislike for certain sexual practices (I don't need to give examples, just pick one of your own dislikes or search google), but that doesn't mean they hate the people who engage in such practices.

If former is the case, I'd say this would give ground for discriminatory claims, if it's merely the latter, he should be allowed to express his criticism in a reasoned manner. Having a personal dislike for same-sex practices doesn't automatically make him a homophobe and it doesn't necessarily imply that he his treating homosexual people differently by discriminating against them. I'm sure a lot of teachers hate republican policies, that doesn't automatically mean they treat republican voters differently in the classroom.

Being critical of something should always be allowed, discriminating against people based on your personal preferences should never be tolerated. Separating your own personal views from your work is what being a proper academic and/or professional is all about.
 
Aug 29, 2018
639
724
235
33
Bartow, Florida, USA
Thinking that homosexual acts are disgusting isn't homophobia right?
You have it on the authority of this gay man that no, reacting with disgust to the thought of two dudes porking does not make a straight man hateful. Now according to REE you're the reincarnation of Hitler until you've been plowed in the ass at least once, preferably while wearing a skirt.

Like Camelot, it is a silly place.
 
Likes: hariseldon
Jun 13, 2017
913
978
210
You are construing a fallacy by leaving out the context of that particular argument. The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is not used to support homosexuality as being normal, but to counter the religious argument that homosexuality is "unnatural". Which is clearly not the case considering that homosexuality exists in natural environments.

Also, contrary to homosexuality, cannibalism and incest aren't mere ethical concerns as there are very empirical and tangible serious medical problems related to these practices. So you're really comparing apples to oranges here.
As far as I know homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom, bisexuality does as those animals still reproduce, I'm almost certain that exclusive homosexuality only happens in humans. But I might be wrong about this one.
(This is besides your point though)
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,294
684
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
Look, I'll amend my previous stance on the idea that as long as the professor isn't actively discriminating against gay people he shouldn't be fired for simply expressing an opinion but don't expect me to shed any tears over someone who thinks I'm repulsive or naturally abhorrent. I imagine a lot of religious people here wouldn't be handwringing with such enthusiasm if some anti-theistic bigot got canned for calling the Abrahamic religions as evil or incompatible with modern society.
I would. That would go against the whole idea of what we expect from universities in western culture. The free exchange of ideas, and letting them stand and fall on their merits. Sometimes I feel like all of this recent desire to "deplatform" is just based on fear, the fear that some of the ideas are actually appealing to a lot of people. Nobody worries about "deplatforming" flat earthers.
 
Dec 7, 2018
114
72
170
I'll listen to it when i get back home.

I believe a teacher should be able to express what he believes. As long as he's respectful and open to discussion which i hope the conversation was. The students don't have to agree with his views , but to be offended because he may not approve of the choice or practice doesn't mean he should lose his job. He is a person just like everyone else not a machine.

The only reason that i see for a teacher to be fired is if he physically assaults a student. Or vehemently goes out of his way to treat them unfairly rather than respectfully.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,758
1,435
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
@Yoshi - so, oh holy one, what jobs may a person convicted of wrongthink apply for?
That's a leading question, because I did not talk about convictions for wrongthink, but in principle, it is important to not be hateful towards groups of people for immutable characteristics in particular if you are working in a service environment where your opinion of people greatly influences their future. So education, jurisdication and politics would be fields where such issues are particularly sensitive.
If a person is fired today for views expressed 25 years ago, how is it unreasonable to think that in 25 years someone may be fired for what they say today, and that they may choose to limit their speech accordingly?
Well, I am not advocating for firing people for arbitrary opinions and I have set a clear limit to where it should be considered in staffing decisions.

Do you not consider that this scenario would have a chilling effect or is this accusation a means of escaping from a quandary of your own making, to which you lack an adequate answer?
I am not sure I understand this question correctly. It might have the effect of people limiting their speech, but it is important to make clear that the limits for free speech without job consequences are pretty far still, just not including hateful behaviour towards people for immutable properties.

Btw if being hateful towards people for immutable qualities is a bad position (and I would agree that it is) do you then also support firing people from their jobs for tweeting "fuck white guys", "kill white people", etc as is common among your allies?
Yes, and I have always been clear about this. Fuck white guys is no better than fuck black guys. Also, I am in no alliance, I have no idea which allies you mean.

I'm wondering where you get the idea that I would propose that black people are worse people. I hold no such view, but get the feeling that you're trying to frame me as a racist, and I consider that exceptionally rude.
There was a misunderstanding. It was purely hypotehtical (I am unaware of your views on ethnicity and similarly, of your intentions of pursuing a carreer in academia), to illustrate that it is not very controversial that hateful behaviour can lead to consequences in terms of job choice. I assumed that the example of racism against black people is an example that is understandable to a very broad spectrum of people.

Further, the question here is what is hateful? Some would argue that treating a trans-woman as a man is hateful, and yet for doctors to provide the correct treatment it may be necessary that they do so. What if the position on what is hateful shifts to a point where a reasonable description of a person becomes hate speech? Consider how much of language has gone from being acceptable to becoming hate speech, especially in a framework in which the social justice movement chooses to redefine words.
I am very restrictive in that, you must devalue the human explicitly. Discussions on whether something is an illness (including homosexuality!) or whether it is adequate to use gender-sensitvie language are not matching the criteria. I know that others are more liberal in their definition of hateful speech, but I am solely advocating for these pretty strong notions of hateful behaviour.

So you have your catch-all of hatefulness, which allows you to dodge the issue entirely as you are prone to doingd, but you have failed to consider that society may move in a direction that compels you to express that view or be fired. How would you respond in that environment? Would you push back? Would you accept your fate and be fired?
I would push back against such a climate and I am pushing back against similar witch hunts that happen on Twitter or Resetera often. As I said repeatedly, the criterion oin what constitutes hate speech are strict and I would not support a more liberal interpretation of that. Independent of whether it is concerning me or not.
As I said, if you insist on burning people at the stake for heresy, you run the risk of someone lighting a fire for you. Or to put it another way, those who live by the sword die by the sword.
I am aware that people may do that, but this is not what I am supporting here. This is the overextension I am talking about.

You're a lot like NI, in that you seem incapable of defending your position from a view of reason and logic, and that saddens me. We really do need a higher calibre of poster on that particular side of the fence as it would be far better exercise.
I think it is pretty unfair of you to talk shit about @Nobody_Important wihtout giving him the opportunity to respond to that. I am pretty sure I am capable of arguing from a standpoint of logic, in fact, that is the major basis for my job. But, please, try to get higher calibres in here. I am sorry I do not adhere to your standards.

By the way I forgot to address this:
you really have me questioning whether the left is something I wish to remain a part of.
Just because we share similar views on fiscal politics, you are in no way responsible for my views on other issues.
 
Jan 9, 2018
541
797
240
You are construing a fallacy by leaving out the context of that particular argument. The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is not used to support homosexuality as being normal, but to counter the religious argument that homosexuality is "unnatural". Which is clearly not the case considering that homosexuality exists in natural environments.

Also, contrary to homosexuality, cannibalism and incest aren't mere ethical concerns as there are very empirical and tangible serious medical problems related to these practices. So you're really comparing apples to oranges here.
"Natural law" based reasoning in Christian theology / ethics is often misconstrued as simply being a matter of naively stamping certain things with a status of natural, and others as unnatural, solely upon weak attention to the realities of nature.

While there are many poor versions of the reasoning bouncing around out there, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural in Christian ethics wasn't originally grounded in an assertion that it doesn't occur at all in nature. Natural Law looks at human nature as a distinct unity, rather than treating humans as merely another animal. In a somewhat Aristotelean way, the idea is that mankind's unique status within nature is to be a "rational animal", and so this rationality both augments our animal side and also radically alters the consequences of our animal desires.

It may, for instance, be perfectly natural for an animal to focus its efforts solely or primarily upon survival, yet for a human to do *exactly the same thing* would be considered unnatural and an enormous diminishment of their personhood--because one can be solely focused on bare survival only when the basic conditions of human community, pursuit of ideals, care for generational continuity, and so forth have been damaged or removed.

So the theological history behind calling homosexuality "unnatural" isn't half as simplistic as it seems. It proceeds from a particular reading of what constitutes mankind as a distinct unity of biology and rationality, and attends to the fact that the emergence of new persons through reproduction does not ethically compare to animal reproduction--for animals are interchangeable in the sense that they don't have a claim to name and identity transcending their immediate life, whereas persons enter into a direct, named relationship with a place and a family that grants them their very language and selfhood itself. Therefore sex, as the act which creates humans, is considered to naturally (meaning, with reference to the distinctly rational nature of humans) have a radically different meaning for humans than for animals. It then needs a different set of ethical limitations around it, to ensure that our distinct human nature isn't degraded to a mere animal nature in a way that makes our communal rationality impossible to maintain. To publicly turn the commerce around sex and family into a mere pursuit of pleasure is then understood as a deeply immoral destruction of the conditions of full personhood for everyone.
 
Jun 12, 2018
423
670
210
@bigedole - You don't want to see people punished for thoughts and beliefs, but don't want people like Yoshi/NI/AK here to defend that viewpoint. Sorry but that's every bit as bad as anything those guys have posted, equally authoritarian, and going against your first paragraph. You are right that we should argue the opposition case when they post, but to say that we should not have them here is a terrible idea. I strongly disagree with @Yoshi's posts but I will defend his right to make them, I just wish there was someone doing a better job of it.
I was going to post exactly this only far less eloquently I would imagine. If we try to banish opinions we don't like how are we any different than the most extreme far left regressives? Although I would add @Yoshi, @Nobody_Important and others here are infinitely more reasonable, articulate and much better posters than say their similarly opinioned brethren over at the asylum
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,287
3,151
275
I was going to post exactly this only far less eloquently I would imagine. If we try to banish opinions we don't like how are we any different than the most extreme far left regressives? Although I would add @Yoshi, @Nobody_Important and others here are infinitely more reasonable, articulate and much better posters than say their similarly opinioned brethren over at the asylum
That's fair, possibly I'm a bit spoilt by the quality I've become rather used to here.
 
Likes: CatLady
Aug 3, 2011
1,028
40
480
You have it on the authority of this gay man that no, reacting with disgust to the thought of two dudes porking does not make a straight man hateful. Now according to REE you're the reincarnation of Hitler until you've been plowed in the ass at least once, preferably while wearing a skirt.

Like Camelot, it is a silly place.
The question is: why do so many people see two dudes who are together in public and get disgusted by the idea of them fucking? Why are they thinking that in the first place?

I don't see straight couples and imagine them fucking.
 
Aug 29, 2018
639
724
235
33
Bartow, Florida, USA
The question is: why do so many people see two dudes who are together in public and get disgusted by the idea of them fucking? Why are they thinking that in the first place?

I don't see straight couples and imagine them fucking.
It's odd and outside the norm, therefore the mind immediately wanders to the aspects that deviate from said norm. What if the straight couple in your example wore t-shirts that said 'pegger' and 'pegged'? There is nothing wrong with the nature of the sexual relationship, but it's undeniably outside of typical heterosexual behavior. Upon seeing those shirts you can't picture anything else other than "That dude's getting fucked in the ass by his girlfriend," and the thought automatically flows to imagining such a thing happening to yourself. That is where the visceral reaction comes from, and it's not really a conscious thought.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,259
943
540
You are construing a fallacy by leaving out the context of that particular argument. The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is not used to support homosexuality as being normal, but to counter the religious argument that homosexuality is "unnatural". Which is clearly not the case considering that homosexuality exists in natural environments.

Also, contrary to homosexuality, cannibalism and incest aren't mere ethical concerns as there are very empirical and tangible serious medical problems related to these practices. So you're really comparing apples to oranges here.



I'm not to defend his views (I consider them to be clearly erroneous), but we need to ask whether he hates homosexual people or if he hates homosexual practices? Both are not the same. For example, a lot of people have a strong dislike for certain sexual practices (I don't need to give examples, just pick one of your own dislikes or search google), but that doesn't mean they hate the people who engage in such practices.

If former is the case, I'd say this would give ground for discriminatory claims, if it's merely the latter, he should be allowed to express his criticism in a reasoned manner. Having a personal dislike for same-sex practices doesn't automatically make him a homophobe and it doesn't necessarily imply that he his treating homosexual people differently by discriminating against them. I'm sure a lot of teachers hate republican policies, that doesn't automatically mean they treat republican voters differently in the classroom.

Being critical of something should always be allowed, discriminating against people based on your personal preferences should never be tolerated. Separating your own personal views from your work is what being a proper academic and/or professional is all about.
I'm not sure how one could claim homosexuality leads to mental breakdowns and is "very hostile" to heterosexuals while simultaneously saying I'm ok with homosexuals. If his beliefs have actual conviction there's no reason to assume he would seperate his beliefs from his actions other than his deeper desire to maintain employment, in which case why make the statements publically in the first place. In his world view discrimination against homosexuality is fair and just and ethical.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
913
978
210
I'm not sure how one could claim homosexuality leads to mental breakdowns and is "very hostile" to heterosexuals while simultaneously saying I'm ok with homosexuals. If his beliefs have actual conviction there's no reason to assume he would seperate his beliefs from his actions other than his desire to maintain employment over all else, in which case why make the statements publically in the first place.
He wrote this 25 years ago so we have no idea what his beliefs are today.
He hasn't acted in any homophobic way, whatever his belief are, if he treats every student the same, what exactly is the issue here?
Seems people just want to police what people think.
 
Jan 9, 2018
541
797
240
I'm not sure how one could claim homosexuality will lead to societal collapse while simultaneously saying I'm ok with homosexuals. If his beliefs have actual conviction there's no reason to assume he would seperate his beliefs from his actions other than his desire to maintain employment over all else, in which case why make the statements publically in the first place.
Plenty of prominent professors and major leaders with positions of power openly express beliefs that various common actions in our lives are responsible for great societal damage, from market capitalism, to traditional masculinity, to genetically modified or other new forms of farming, to orthodox religious beliefs, and so on. All of these categories are sure to regularly land students or employees under their authority who have devoted their future lives to capitalist finance, who identify as traditionally masculine, who perhaps belong to a family business engaged in new farming practices, who belong to a religious faith, and so on. It's absolutely normal that any strong belief you hold will conclude that people in your immediate and professional life are part of a problem on this or that axis, and yet it's also perfectly normal to treat everyone with respect and separate the person from the critique of their life.

What we find today is simply that one particular niche, sexuality, is for ideological reasons fiercely protected from any criticism or moral discussion whatsoever--yet does not deserve that protection.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,259
943
540
Plenty of prominent professors and major leaders with positions of power openly express beliefs that various common actions in our lives are responsible for great societal damage, from market capitalism, to traditional masculinity, to genetically modified or other new forms of farming, to orthodox religious beliefs, and so on. All of these categories are sure to regularly land students or employees under their authority who have devoted their future lives to capitalist finance, who identify as traditionally masculine, who perhaps belong to a family business engaged in new farming practices, who belong to a religious faith, and so on. It's absolutely normal that any strong belief you hold will conclude that people in your immediate and professional life are part of a problem on this or that axis, and yet it's also perfectly normal to treat everyone with respect and separate the person from the critique of their life.

What we find today is simply that one particular niche, sexuality, is for ideological reasons fiercely protected from any criticism or moral discussion whatsoever--yet does not deserve that protection.
And those belief aren't apparent to nearly the degree that homosexuality is in a classroom setting. And those beliefs aren't something you're born into, which is a whole other category of discrimination, which is why discriminating based upon those kinds of differences are protected under federal guidelines. Sexuality is fiercely protected because it is an innate state of being, just like race and gender. You are purposefully blurring lines and lumping concepts together in order to make this terrible argument.


He wrote this 25 years ago so we have no idea what his beliefs are today.
He hasn't acted in any homophobic way, whatever his belief are, if he treats every student the same, what exactly is the issue here?
Seems people just want to police what people think.
Has he retracted his claims? No.
Has he acted in a homophobic way? Undetermined.
Might we assume he does based on his beliefs, if they are true beliefs with full conviction? Yes.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2018
541
797
240
And those belief aren't apparent to nearly the degree that homosexuality is in a classroom setting.
Peculiar thing to say... being a marketing or finance major is listed on the roster when a student arrives for a core-required Women's Studies class which will spend a portion of semester dissecting capitalism as power. Being traditionally masculine as, say, a football player taking the same required class, will be more identifiable than what kinds of relationships you have outside the classroom--and that class has a good chance of teaching that sports like football are wholly built upon a model glorifying male aggression. Many aspects of students that tie directly into areas of harsh critique by faculty are more explicitly known when the person arrives than sexual choices ever will be.

And those beliefs aren't something you're born into, which is a whole other category of discrimination, which is why discriminating based upon those kinds of beliefs aren't protected under federal guidelines. Sexuality is fiercely protected because it is an innate state of being, just like race and gender.
One is often born into a religious community as well, with it more deeply interwoven into the student's total identity than their likely less than 4 years of sexual dating exploration ever could be, yet faculty in philosophy departments I've known personally--who often still teach broad, requirement-filling 101 classes--have published scathing critiques of those beliefs and even those communities of origin.

Calling all of sexuality "innate" is also highly misleading, and blurs distinctions beyond usefulness; what is clear is that most people have accrued a large and idiomatic set of varying, often conflicting sexual desires and fetishes before the college years, with many drawn from early experiences and others interwoven with personal image or other factors. "Orientation" as a sole leading concept in classification isn't even all that useful systematically, hence the longstanding theoretical drift towards more nebulous words like "queer" which attempt to capture the reality of partial desires leading in many directions against the norms of the day. In any case, protecting sexual choices is indeed a dominant ideology today, but just as amenable to serious critique as capitalism, etc.
 
Jun 13, 2017
913
978
210
And those belief aren't apparent to nearly the degree that homosexuality is in a classroom setting. And those beliefs aren't something you're born into, which is a whole other category of discrimination, which is why discriminating based upon those kinds of differences are protected under federal guidelines. Sexuality is fiercely protected because it is an innate state of being, just like race and gender. You are purposefully blurring lines and lumping concepts together in order to make this terrible argument.




Has he retracted his claims? No.
Has he acted in a homophobic way? Undetermined.
Might we assume he does based on his beliefs, if they are true beliefs with full conviction? Yes.
Being masculine isn't "apparent"?

He doesn't need to apoligize for something he said before his students were even born.
He has had no homophobic complaints for 25 years, you're just assuming he is acting in an homophobic way.
Might we assume everyone who practices islam is going to act homophobic and sexist?
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,259
943
540
Peculiar thing to say... being a marketing or finance major is listed on the roster when a student arrives for a core-required Women's Studies class which will spend a portion of semester dissecting capitalism as power. Being traditionally masculine as, say, a football player taking the same required class, will be more identifiable than what kinds of relationships you have outside the classroom--and that class has a good chance of teaching that sports like football are wholly built upon a model glorifying male aggression. Many aspects of students that tie directly into areas of harsh critique by faculty are more explicitly known when the person arrives than sexual choices ever will be.
Being a market or finance major says nothing about your actual opinions on the ethical merits of capitalism, and indeed most in the major likely bypasses ethical questions altogether that lie outside of "is this legal or not". Being a football player says nothing about your views on traditional masculinity and we've in fact seen it turn away pretty drastically from the typical masculine norms in the past decade or so (i.e. concussion rules, bans for domestic abuse). In fact if these individuals enrolled in those classes it would be more likely that they're feminist advocates wanting to learn more about how to influence their own fields, rather than trolls hoping they can still get a good grade while intending to argue everything the professor says from their armchair understanding of a field they are not majoring in. Also, how any of this is related to a gay person taking a class that has nothing to do with being gay, yet knowing the professor explicitly thinks it's ethical to discriminate against gays, is beyond me. Yet another non sequitur.

One is often born into a religious community as well, with it more deeply interwoven into the student's total identity than their likely less than 4 years of sexual dating exploration ever could be, yet faculty in philosophy departments I've known personally--who often still teach broad, requirement-filling 101 classes--have published scathing critiques of those beliefs and even those communities of origin.

Calling all of sexuality "innate" is also highly misleading, and blurs distinctions beyond usefulness; what is clear is that most people have accrued a large and idiomatic set of varying, often conflicting sexual desires and fetishes before the college years, with many drawn from early experiences and others interwoven with personal image or other factors. "Orientation" as a sole leading concept in classification isn't even all that useful systematically, hence the longstanding theoretical drift towards more nebulous words like "queer" which attempt to capture the reality of partial desires leading in many directions against the norms of the day. In any case, protecting sexual choices is indeed a dominant ideology today, but just as amenable to serious critique as capitalism, etc.
You think religion is more ingrained as an identity then sexuality? What in the world, dude. 1) It shouldn't be unless indoctrination levels have achieved maximum effect and 2) Sexuality has significant genetic factors involved, religion does not. Brain scans demonstrate strong biological evidence for orientation. Religion is simply a tribalistic concept, and the strength of its bond to a person is caused directly by the person's views on the value of those tribalistic bonds.

Secondly, publishing scathing critiques of a Religion is largely a part of Religious studies at this point, as pro-Religious arguments have been the norm for thousands of years. And in fact would often result in your murder if you argued against Religion. There is a millennia+ old framework for pro-Religious apologetics. The fact that things have flipped in recent times is a product of the compete lack of direct evidence of any of these Religions claims being true, and thus their claims of authority over mankind weakens dramatically. This is especially absurd in contrast to things like that Catholic church increasing it's exorcism training due to an apparently higher number of demons on the loose. To equate criticism of a sexual identity, something that is intensely personal and backed up by biological evidence, to the criticism as something as fucking idiotic as exorcisms or structural pedophilia coverups that actually negatively effect mentally impaired people or children or society at large, is incredibly dogmatic.

And man, do you use a lot of word vomit to make your claims seem more sophisticated than they are. You literally could've just said "I think sexuality is a choice and/or determined by environmental factors" but that doesn't look like such a nice intellectual proclamation from on high. Most people don't accrue a large set of varying and conflicting sexual desires. The vast majority of people fall into the heterosexual bin, period. In fact it sounds like you think sexuality is some sort of distributed spectrum, which is largely only an argument heard by extreme leftists. Truly bizarre. Fetishes aren't an orientation, so conflating it with orientation is again, bizarre. You seem to be saying "the most extreme sexual identity labels are not useful." Good job in pointing out the obvious. Saying that gay people should not be discriminated against is not that. And how "queer" extrapolates into a "partial desire" also seems like more fanciful word salad with no actual meaning or data behind it. Queer means "not heterosexual." You're shifting an argument into other words you're upset over to mush your claims together. While Queer is a broad category, homosexuality is not. There is an exponentially small number people who would identify as some type of "non-gay queer" so to make that the face of your objection against homosexuality is absurd.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,259
943
540
Beware of elevating the value of your assumptions, especially when you are using them to justify actions targeted at others.

I assume you'd be perfectly happy if this type of justification was used against you.
Sorry but who is paying this guys salary again? The very same students who are complaining. Yet they should have no say in what their money is supporting because "free speech."

If I wrote public essays against homosexuals I would fully expect to be reprimanded or fired from my teaching position as it would undeniably compromise trust that is foundational to successful educator-student relationships.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2018
541
797
240
Also, how any of this is related to a gay person taking a class that has nothing to do with being gay, yet knowing the professor explicitly thinks it's ethical to discriminate against gays, is beyond me. Yet another non sequitur.
He never said it was ethical to "discriminate against gays," and even that old essay says directly that one should not be subject to personal repercussions or exclusions in other areas of life on account of any knowledge of one's sexual life. He did say that prohibition of expression of homosexual activities in specified public spaces and forums could be fully justified under the same system that today still justifies barring certain forms of nudity, sadomasochism, or increasingly bars from advertising etc specific forms of expression deemed toxic by present standards. No society, even ours, abandons the concept of public indecency, they just move it around ideologically... and evidently you are deeply incensed by the revelation that he doesn't draw the same line in exactly the same place as the people of roughly the last 1-2 decades who live in a few privileged nations.

You think religion is more ingrained as an identity then sexuality? What in the world, dude. 1) It shouldn't be unless indoctrination levels have achieved maximum effect and 2) Sexuality has significant genetic factors involved, religion does not. Brain scans demonstrate strong biological evidence for orientation. Religion is simply a tribalistic concept, and the strength of its bond to a person is caused directly by the person's views on the value of those tribalistic bonds.
I can just as easily say that "orientation" as a personal identity cannot be deeply ingrained unless indoctrination levels have achieved maximum effect. Read even just Foucault on the rather recent invention of homosexuality as a type of person by way of the same medicalization of deviancy that its advocates oppose. Hence there has long been a considerable move away from homosexuality-as-type as the organizing theme in queer studies in recognition that the early embrace of that category by advocates was mainly due to the easier case arguing for rights when it was presented as a distinct and inborn type of person--a "reoriented" version of some "heterosexual" type of person who is the norm--even though all research tends away from any binary characterization.

More to the point, we all recognize that all people have strong inborn sexual desires that go directly against the public good. Adultery and pornographic consumption are deeply desired by many men, yet it is still a normal part of ethics debate to ask whether these are moral evils that each person must struggle to overcome. There are many, many other sexual desires that we permit in private but generally forbid advertising in public; eg. we don't intrude into bedrooms where sadomasochism is practiced, but we all are a little uncomfortable with a man taking his wife on a leash into public and family spaces, even though that may be 100% consensual and no actual sex act shown, just suggested.

This is especially absurd in contrast to things like that Catholic church increasing it's exorcism training due to an apparently higher number of demons on the loose. To equate criticism of a sexual identity, something that is intensely personal and backed up by biological evidence, to the criticism as something as fucking idiotic as exorcisms or structural pedophilia coverups that actually negatively effect mentally impaired people or children or society at large, is incredibly dogmatic.
"Exorcisms, structural pedophilia, ..." - this is interesting insofar as one could pluck just the tiniest slice of genuine scandals from various gay communities (often still-minor teenage boys in different types of power relationships; sadomasochism and casual sex hotspots; etc) and say precisely the same thing. But that's not even what the professor was doing; he's not as small minded and reductive, as it turns out, so you would have done well to study under someone like him--perhaps then you wouldn't express open religious bigotry on this forum.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,259
943
540
He never said it was ethical to "discriminate against gays," and even that old essay says directly that one should not be subject to personal repercussions or exclusions in other areas of life on account of any knowledge of one's sexual life. He did say that prohibition of expression of homosexual activities in specified public spaces and forums could be fully justified under the same system that today still justifies barring certain forms of nudity, sadomasochism, or increasingly bars from advertising etc specific forms of expression deemed toxic by present standards. No society, even ours, abandons the concept of public indecency, they just move it around ideologically... and evidently you are deeply incensed by the revelation that he doesn't draw the same line in exactly the same place as the people of roughly the last 1-2 decades who live in a few privileged nations.
If being gay makes you "very hostile" toward heterosexuals and in fact damages your brain, then yes you should discriminate against them and stop people from damaging their brains. Send your kid to Christian gay camp or else they will have brain damage. This is about as honest a messaging as a Nazi saying Jews control all powerful institutions and want to take your money and are leading to the destruction of society, but hey, don't discriminate against them. :messenger_ok:

Also, saying he calls for the prohibition of "homosexual activities" in particular while referencing already established rules against certain PDAs is nonsensical. Gays follow the PDA norms already established for heterosexual couples. Either you're lying about the extent of the gay prohibitions (and I don't care enough about him to research this), or the discrimination he makes is toothless despite the apparent drastic consequences.

I can just as easily say that "orientation" as a personal identity cannot be deeply ingrained unless indoctrination levels have achieved maximum effect. Read even just Foucault on the rather recent invention of homosexuality as a type of person by way of the same medicalization of deviancy that its advocates oppose. Hence there has long been a considerable move away from homosexuality-as-type as the organizing theme in queer studies in recognition that the early embrace of that category by advocates was mainly due to the easier case arguing for rights when it was presented as a distinct and inborn type of person--a "reoriented" version of some "heterosexual" type of person who is the norm--even though all research tends away from any binary characterization.

More to the point, we all recognize that all people have strong inborn sexual desires that go directly against the public good. Adultery and pornographic consumption are deeply desired by many men, yet it is still a normal part of ethics debate to ask whether these are moral evils that each person must struggle to overcome. There are many, many other sexual desires that we permit in private but generally forbid advertising in public; eg. we don't intrude into bedrooms where sadomasochism is practiced, but we all are a little uncomfortable with a man taking his wife on a leash into public and family spaces, even though that may be 100% consensual and no actual sex act shown, just suggested.
OK - so now you're at least admitting that you believe being gay is culturally determined in some bizarre way (which is much more specific than an environmental claim). Let's be clear on indoctrination. Being "gay" was never viewed as a positive, life-affirming, heaven-seeking belief system. Vast numbers of people who were gay tried to force themselves into hetero marriages and lived miserably, or kept their homosexual relationships secret for decades of American history. Exactly what culture was "indoctrinating" them to be gay? Religious indoctrination has been, for literally millennia, associated with positive cultural social norms while homosexuality has subject to the opposite. You don't seem to understand the the mechanism behind successful indoctrination. I.E successful indoctrination demands substantial perceived benefits. Being arrested or beaten or killed for being gay, as was the cultural norm for much of American history, was not a benefit. The fact that you apparently deny such elementary concepts as this is mind boggling. It is especially so in relation to the clear social benefits that Religion historical brought to someone.

Also it's equally bizarre that you agree homosexuality is displayed in nature, which clearly demonstrates biological causes, but then use a fancy nearly nonsensical phrase like "medicalization of deviancy" to say.... what exactly? The gayness isn't actually biological, that it's a forced culture of indoctrination? So therefore animals, like rams, that demonstrate substantial gayness are indoctrinated by some animal subculture? :messenger_ok: Again: brain structures, pheromone studies, prenatal development, inheritance, birth order, etc.

Going by statistics of how many people are hetero, homo, bi, vs all others, the populations become exponentially smaller. Homo/bi is the second largest group (evenly split by most measures floating around 5% each), with literally "everything else" under 1%. There is a clear distributional curve, and to pretend there isn't in order to discard their protections is one of the most indirect, nonsensical reasons for why civil rights should be taken away. The focus upon that group in particular was clearly warranted in the beginning regardless if there was an exponentially smaller group of non-gay queers, as they still constituted the largest group and "bi" would in effect fall under the same protections.

Adultery and pornography are ethically debated in relation to deceiving and destroying your already existing relationship with someone. Watching pornography while single is hardly a contested ethical dilemma worth anyone's time. I mean, you probably think the opposite, but then it's already been made clear that you are on the conservative sexual fringe of ideologies. Your examples have no associated relationship to the concept of having a gay identity as you once again mash concepts together in order to make a shit stew. And regardless, the fact that these other topics are debated implies nothing about the merits of debating the ethics of homosexuality. You can't just say "Well this is also a topic that is under the same broad categorical umbrella of "sex topics", therefore it should also be debated!" Let's be clear: the debate already happened, and you lost governmentally and are rapidly become a smaller and smaller minority in public polling.

"Exorcisms, structural pedophilia, ..." - this is interesting insofar as one could pluck just the tiniest slice of genuine scandals from various gay communities (often still-minor teenage boys in different types of power relationships; sadomasochism and casual sex hotspots; etc) and say precisely the same thing. But that's not even what the professor was doing; he's not as small minded and reductive, as it turns out, so you would have done well to study under someone like him--perhaps then you wouldn't express open religious bigotry on this forum.
Casual sex hotspots, sadomasochism, and relationships with minors are in no way restricted to the homosexual community. In fact the only one of these things you could argue for is that gay men in particular have more casual sex, which in the end is meaningless ethically since they can't reproduce to begin with and your framework doesn't care whether they have casual sex or get married in the first place. Again, mashing shit together for a shit stew. My point was about your complaints over religion being criticized too much. Considering there has never been a rampant global pedophile circle with thousands of victims and hundreds of protections and cover ups found within the gay community (nor in any other community for that matter), and that religion regularly practices things that are clearly absurd, criticism is entirely warranted.

Finally, this is my last response on this topic. Previous to this thread I had already debated someone else on this exact topic at length, and I'm burnt out and/or bored of it at this point. And I really don't come to GAF to debate topics that are this fundamentally ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
2,178
3,521
535
Sorry but who is paying this guys salary again? The very same students who are complaining. Yet they should have no say in what their money is supporting because "free speech."

If I wrote public essays against homosexuals I would fully expect to be reprimanded or fired from my teaching position as it would undeniably compromise trust that is foundational to successful educator-student relationships.
Absolutely none of what you posted shows that you grasped the point about using assumptions.
 
Last edited:

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
9,753
193
440
Sorry but who is paying this guys salary again? The very same students who are complaining. Yet they should have no say in what their money is supporting because "free speech."
I don't think students should have any say in what professors are hired, no, any more than walmart's customers should decide who works there. I hate outrage culture, individuals shouldn't have to fear angry mobs of people.

Maybe this guy should be let go, but not because some students petitioned for it.