On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:32:32 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
<snips>
>>
>> Well, now we're getting somewhere! The answer is no, I don't
>> know the answers to these questions, I haven't yet had cause to
>> look. That hardly indicates that I've been giving the solution
>> "knee jerk" approval as you so derisively phrase it (poor choice
>> of words perhaps? I won't dwell on it, it's not important to me,
>> but merely hoping for you to note the "flavor" of word choices so
>> as to perhaps get a better handle on it. After all, the task is
>> to debate a subject, not to impugn each other.)
>>
>
>i agree. but imo, coming out in support of radical and arguably
>unconstitutional (and inarguably divisive and balkanizing) legislation
>without reams of statistical data in support of the 'need' is (imo) classic
>knee jerk.
Only if you feel that the action was taken without it! I
assume that they did do it already, considering the kind of
"flack" they'd have to reasonably expect to run into on any gay
issue, let alone a special treatment for gays. See?
To call my reaction "knee jerk", you have to believe that they
did this precipitously without good, substantial reasons and
proof positive to support such an action. I do believe that
making such an assumption would itself be "knee jerk".
Obwon
>> But, I think that if the problem is worthy of being addressed
>> in this way, we should be able to trust that it has been found to
>> be a problem worthy of this solution.
>
>no, we don't. that's ludicrous. knee-jerk legislation is extremely common,
>and often not supported by statistical need. i would never support
>legislation like this without research of the highest order.
>
>as opposed to emotion and sentimen t.
Well then, since you know that they have much more riding on
this decision than I do. And since you fear that such needed
research isn't often done (which btw. does not mean that is the
situation in every case, as you well know), doesn't it behoove
you to have taken a look see?
Or, am I not entitled to assume that our elected officials are
responsible people? I mean, sure, I can and sometimes do assume
that they are a bunch of incompetents fools, but the issues have
to bear out some sort of suspicion for me to reach such
conclusions, even then I would research the matter before
posting.
In this case I didn't, because I had two reasons to believe
that such "justifying" research was already done. 1. The level
of interest in the controversy surrounding gay issues, leads me
to believe that they'd realize they had better be on firm ground
to favor gays in any way. And 2. General knowledge that gays
have been discriminated against in hurtful ways and that such is
still going on.
So, you might see that my opinion was rather considered, rather
than knee jerk. While having an opinion that research would be
necessary to justify this plan, and that it wasn't done, without
having looked for it, to see if it was or wasn't, is rhally
rhather knee jerk itself.
Obwon
>your faith in the powers that be, that they have done the research sounds
>crazy to me. there has been a lot of terrible kneejerk legislation when
>there are little or no facts. tryptophan would be a good example.
Like I said, politicians rarely step onto a "bed of hot coals",
by choice when they don't have to. They certainly would not be
predisposed to favor gays out-of-hand. They'd have moved into an
area where there was no issue and have created one for
themselves. Would you believe they'd do that without something
to back themselves up with?
I'll tell you what, why don't you have a look see? We can argue
about it 'till were blue in the face and that won't change a
single fact... It's either there or it isn't and we won't know
until someone looks. I have good reason to believe it's there,
good sense and general knowledge of gay discrimination as found
in the news over many years convinces me that the problem being
addressed is as real as those African American face.
So... Hey... Why don't you do what Bush asked Saddam to do?
Go do the research and prove to me that it isn't there! :_DDD
Obwon
> Now that you've admitted
>> that: If the problem is really significant enough, this solution
>> might just pass muster with you. Fine. That's all I was hoping
>> for. If I come across the stats you're seeking I'll be certain
>> to post them, or perhaps one of our other readers will. Then we
>> can take another look at the matter. Who knows, maybe, just
>> maybe I will then have to say that the solution isn't as
>> justifiable as I thought it was. I have no problem with that, we
>> took a long enough time to get to the consensus that if
>> remediation of this type is necessary, would it be justified.
>> Now that we agree that it could be, we will see if it actually
>> is.
>>
>
>the stats would have to be incredibly overwhelming. kids have picked on
>other kids for time immemorial. no other 'victim group' has ever
>demonstrated a compelling need for segregated and seperate but equal. i
>find it telling that many in this ng would support THIS legislation without
>looking at the facts.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So, if the state finds that certain prevalent social mores are
>> >> interfering with it's mission, it has a duty to use it's powers
>> >> to remediate that problem.
>> >>
>> >
>> >it first must establish a compelling case sufficient to justify "seperate
>> >butequal". that is an immense burden of evidence. so where is it?
>> >do you know, or do you just agree with this proposal based on a
>sentiment?
>>
>> I agree that a compelling case sufficient to justify "separate
>> but equal" must be made. But that wasn't the issue before now.
>> Before we got to this point the issue was the judgement that it
>> wasn't right-out-of-hand.
>>
>
>i am saying that when such a thing is proposed (or implemented) the burden
>is on the proponents to justify it. they haven't. not in this ng
>certainly. it's all sentiment and anecdotal support e.g. 'gay kids are
>picked on. they need this!'
>
>> >> Obwon
>> >
>> >fwiw, i have no doubt that most proponents of these schools are well
>> >intentioned. of course they are.
>> >
>> >imo, they have not presented a compelling case, nor have you.
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> Well, as far as the "compelling case", we'll just have to look
>> into the matter and see what kind of case they have actually
>> made. I'm almost certain that we're not the only ones who saw
>> that there were two sides to the issue, and potent ones they are.
>> I would find it hard to believe that they somehow missed these
>> issues and the needed justifications and just took this decision
>> to go ahead without looking.
>>
>
>i would not find it hard to believe at all.
>
>> Do you really think that they did? I mean, I do know that they
>> sometimes goof up, but given the stakes here, I don't think so.
>>
>
>i would most definitely think so. when it comes to ideology and identity
>politics, and especially when teacher's unions are involved, etc. kneejerk
>legislation and programs w/o scientific or statistical support are the rule,
>rather than the exception.
>
>it's all about 'feeling good', not being effective
>
>whit
>
>> Obwon
>>
>> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
>> make you commit atrocities."
>> - Voltaire
>> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
