"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ps27jv0o88ucdefaq9dmmvr0oab7pffs4p@no-spam
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:25:22 -0700, "whit" <whit@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Obwon" <ob110ob@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:uuj4jvg1tmv0gsd7pu6lcb49a8ia7lavo6@no-spam
> >>
> >> No, what is amazing however, is the way you try to flip flop
> >> away from the issues you raise in the attempt to bolster your
> >> failing positions. Try this: After saying that you needed the
> >> statistical evidence that would justify this measure, agreeing
> >> that if it exists then taking remedial measures is sound. You
> >> then attempt to define my "ignoring the middle" by constructing
> >> an argument that is even less sound.
> >>
> >> You would want us to believe that there is a possibility that
> >> abuse against gays might be moderate and/or restrained, and that
> >> might make "separate but equal" an overkill solution. Haw Haw
> >> Haw! Perhaps women can get "partially pregnant" too, huh?
> >>
> >> Obwon
> >
> >yes, that is EXACTLY my point. of course there is some abuse against gays
in
> >public schools.
> >
> >whether that justifies segregation is another issue entirely.
> >
> >and the fact that you would support such a program without even a cursory
> >knowledge of exactly how bad the problem is, is very telling in regards
to
> >your knee jerk acceptance of segregation on mere sentiment.
> >
> >whit
>
> Oh come off it... You admitted that the data would make action
> justifiable which is all I argued.
i argued that there is theoretically some level that might make segregation
a consideration.
frankly, i am not even close to convinced that even IF we were justified in
segregating gay kids to 'protect' them, that this would in fact be a benefit
to them, or society at large. i see it entirely possible that it would
cause more resentment, fear, and lack of understanding between gay and
straights by segregation and could result in MORE violence, not less.
understanding is the key, not balkanization. my point is that i have seen
nobody present any case, let alone a compelling one, that would justify
something as radical as segregation. see, there's this little precedent we
set many years ago in brown v. board of education, etc. segregation is
WRONG.
and you speak of "the data". and i repeat: WHAT DATA?
You, however, are the one who
> is knee jerk in assuming that no such data exists, refusing to
> look for it and therefore are jumping to the conclusion that the
> special schools are not justified, not justifiable and aren't
> needed. Where is your data? After all, the school is a reality,
> created by the cities elders whom you are claiming didn't do
> their homework... Prove it!
>
no, when a radical new proposal is implemented, one that you support, the
burden is on YOU to justify it, not me to 'unjustify' . that is basic
logical protocol, and usenet protocol as well.
the status quo is no segregation in schools. if YOU are proposing that
segregation would be justified, the burden is onYOU to demonstrate why.
and you were the knee jerk. it is not knee jerk to say the status quo (vis
a vis integration) should remain.
whit
> Obwon
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
> make you commit atrocities."
> - Voltaire
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
