JWeinCom said:
Where did I say you did? I was highlighting that I was talking about my individual opinion from my experiences of being gay, and you proceeded to talk about the opinions of other gay people. That is why I emphasized how gayness does not make us one bloc.
If you brought it up, I assumed it was in reaction to something I said. If not, then my bad.
When did I say it should be? There is a difference between saying something should be legal, and endorsing the practice. I don't think people should use the n-word, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to use the n-word. I want them outed so that the majority of sensible people avoid them. This hurts them much more than secretly pretending to not fire people for being gay, and doing it anyway.
I'm fairly sure neither of us is advocating racism. You said that you thought these thoughts should be brought into the light. I get your point about wanting racism/homophobia/ etc being in the open. I don't think that's a bad idea, but I don't think it's important enough to allow discriminatory practices.
Sure it does. If somebody chooses to not associate with another person, why does the reason matter? The 14th amendment only applies to government-granted priveleges and natural rights. As for "enjoy the fruit of their hard work" when there is discrimination who is preventing that? What prevents somebody from "enjoying the fruit of their hard work" with somebody who is more respectful? Why are standards so low that people want others whom don't like them to be forced into relationships they know is destined for disaster? For example, let's talk about the people that are fired for being gay in the modern rule. Most of them worked for catholic institutions. Does not common sense tell people that catholics are not kind to endorsing our lifestyle? What in the world convinces them to work for their institutions?
It matters when it is a business association and not personal. If I get a PHD in medicine and I'm black and people won't hire black doctors, then my PHD is worth less than a white person's PHD. If nobody will hire a black doctor, then it makes my PHD worthless. That definitely inhibits or prevents me from enjoying the fruit of my hard work. I'm working more for a less valuable degree.
Jobs are limited. I've had to work with people I didn't particularly like. It's not about standards, it's about oppurtunity. Plus, if we allow this kind of discrimination, then there is nothing to stop a particular industry from completely blackballing a certain group. It's be great if we lived in a world where jobs were so abundant that we just work for people who approved us, but that's not reality.
I've had terrible jobs with bosses I loved and jobs I love with bosses I've hated. Whether my boss approves of my sexuality doesn't determine how much I want the job, nor should it.
As for the fourteenth ammendment, it has been ruled to apply in a wide array of circumstances. Whether you agree with that or not, it's the precedent. There are also other antidiscrimination laws on the books in many places.
Do you think a person should have to be concerned about whether or not their boss approves of their lifestyle? Moreover should the boss hold complete and total authority over who they want to hire? Do you think this makes for the best possible society? I don't think so. If you don't agree, we'll have to leave it at that.
I wouldn't, especially since it can change with time. Since we are talking about averages (average earnings), what is the problem with explaining the reasons for the averages? Are we talking about a specific individual case? No, if I talked about a specific case then yes that would be sexist, but we are talking about the average of all women.
Whether or not its true or not depends on if the data supports it. If you have data to back it up, it is what it is. If not, it's bias that could be harmful.
As for motivation it can change somewhat, but it's also partially inborn. It depends a lot on certain chemicals (seratonin I believe) that vary naturally between people. Not the place to discuss it, but it's a gray area with nature and nurture.
Women outnumber men in biology and medical fields -- both sciences. Were they pushed into these fields specifically? Why can't they do it in physics, mathematics, engineering and computer science? I think girls are interested in different things from boys. Whether this is purely biological or cultural, I would dispute (it is a little bit of both.) Being an STEM major (Physics/Computer science) there is strong encouragement for girls in science at the university level at least. Heck, there are entire organizations made for that purpose. I do think encouragement is part of it, but the numbers are so disproportionate can it explain all of it? I am interesting, but also skeptical of the research.
By medical, does that mean doctor, nurse, or medical assistant? That makes this difference. The reason why there are organizations at the higher level is that, at least in this country, there is not much encouragement at the lower level. They are trying now to change that, but it's a work in progress.
Like I said, if what you said is actually true, then that's data, and I can't fight it. If not, it can be a self fulfilling prophecy. I'll check out the links you gave later. Definitely interesting stuff.
I will have to disagree here. We have to protect the rights and freedoms of all people, whether they are weak or strong outwardly; because everybody has strengths and weaknesses. However, even if I took your stance as the right one, there are weak and strong people of every group. How do you justify hatred toward the weak of the "dominant" or "priveleged" group?
We're getting individuals and groups confused. I was talking mainly about groups, with individuals serving as examples.
It's important the rights of the powerful group are protected... but they're not in danger. So we don't really need to put in any special effort to protecting them. By virtue of being the strong group they are not at risk. If situations change then we might change our stances.
If the fat girl said that to the blonde girl, and meanwhile the blonde girl is forcing herself to throw up in the bathroom because of a mental disorder? Or maybe the blonde, skinny girl was trying to gain weight to be more healthy in general, but struggles to achieve that and the fat girl said that to her? Is not the blonde, skinny girl the weak and fragile one in this circumstance? Why must we assume that her position in life is great by her physical appearance? Is that not the same body-shaming, disgustingly so, that the fat girl experiences?
If the blonde girl is bulimic, then that would be because of her wanting to be thinner. This is a REAL problem that is a result of our push for thinness, and is part of the reason why we need to be more cautious about attacking overweight people, especially if they're not actually overweight. And, I didn't assume her position in life is great because she's thin. Just that she MOST LIKELY wouldn't be upset by comments about her weight in particular.
As an aside, weight is something I personally struggle with, so maybe my views are skewing this.
Fortunately I am in a position to know gay people who absolutely abhor "breeders." So much so that I have stopped knowing these people. I am also sure these gay people, given the chance, would harm the property and well-being of the "breeders" they despise.
The key word there is given a chance. You can think of individual examples I'm sure. There are some really buff gay guys. But in general heterosexuals wield much more power and are more able to impose their will. There aren't a whole lot of people who feel they have to hide their heterosexuality, or get bullied for dating the opposite gender, get kicked out of their home for it, commit suicide etc. Heterosexuals generally don't have any special problems, so they don't need any extra defending.
I will concede to this point, mostly because the overwhelming majority of guys (individuals) are more physically powerful than women, and therefore the that phrase is probably not literal. If I she said, "I am going to drug that guy and rape him" then I would be equally as concerned. Or if she was bigger and stronger than him, and she hinted that the phrase was literal, I would also be concerned. This has nothing to do with group power though, and everything to do with individual power.
Yeah, but these are just examples. The point I'm trying to make is about powerful groups vs non-powerful groups in general.
Again, individual power and not group power. A five year old can't literally beat the shit out of his mom. A gay person can beat the shit out of (or kill) a straight person. A woman can beat the shit out of (or kill) a man. A black man can beat the shit out of (or kill) a white person.
Right. In almost all circumstances, a five year old can't really beat the shit out of his mother. Just like gays, as a group, really can't do much to really hurt the heterosexual community at large.
Sure, on the individual level. But where does the group dynamic come into this? If a group of black men set out to kill white people, because they are white, how are they less capable of doing it than a group of white people set out to kill black people, because they are black?
If a black man or men wanted to kill white people (lets assume the black group is armed) then the white people are weaker in this circumstance and should be defended. As a group though, black people are weaker than white people. So, when we're talking about the group, black people typically need to be defended more strongly.
|