GameBanshee Forums

@Cuchulain: Good company? Yes, ad hominem + no true Scotsman + false dichotomy seems to belong to Dubbayah's favorite rhetorics.

[QUOTE=ik911]CE, could you summarize what is wrong with the middle road? [/QUOTE]

IK and Cuchulain: It was many years ago I studied philosophy, and maybe the term is different in English, but what I learned is that a middle road fallacy is when a compromise between two opposing views are interpreted as being the most correct because "all sides have a point".

A typical example would be the US creationists who argue for a "balanced view" in education, ie both evolution and creationism should be taught as science, because "both sides have a right to exist and both sides contain some things that are right and some things that are wrong".

The fallacy here is that just because several views exist, it does not mean they are equally correct. In absurdum, the middle road fallacy would mean that if I say IK is made of green cheese, and you say you are not, you are a biological specimen belonging to the homo sapiens species, the conclusion would be that you are half human, half made of green cheese.

[QUOTE=winter rose]About the rules of this thread, and the whole Civilized Discussion and Debate - I don't quite understand how it would be possible to have a debate or discussion where members "never" get offended, offensive, upset or personal...[/QUOTE]

It isn't possible not to. That's not the point. I thought it a pretty simple concept, actually - it's called self-control. The ground rules are there for those who need reminding. To post in this thread, a person is required to exercise better judgment - don't post when hot under the collar, highly offended, bent out of shape, etc. Do the equivalent of "walking away and cooling off". If personal differences exist, don't use this thread to air them out (use PMs instead). I don't think it's asking very much at all.

@Magrus, Ik, Cuch: On the health and human services issues in the US (to include education), it's my opinion that in general, it's historically last place in the priorities of lawmakers and Administrations on both the federal level and state level. It's the favorite portion of the budget to slash, reduce, or, to indulge in the more chic corporate parlance (which is invading all levels of government these days): "streamline." Streamlining generally involves cutting staffing levels, resources, rolling back salaries (or capping them; usually both), and reengineering access and delivery systems to exclude the maximum possible. This has the practical effect of drastically reducing service areas and the level of services available. What this means from a healthcare perspective:

1. Longer waiting periods in general for services;
2. Reduced or non-existent coverage for certain medications and treatments, or exemption from coverage for selected medically-diagnosed conditions;
3. Long term care facilities (such as state-run schools for persons with mental retardation or a related condition) closed, creating larger workloads and stresses on the facilities that remain open (and are forced to absorb the displaced clients);
4. Staff who, on average are paid up to 40% less than their private sector counterparts, and are faced with ever-increasing case loads and insurmountable backlogs that cannot be addressed in a timely manner; and
5. Deterioration of public approval due to the outcry over lack of services, which is directed against the governmental health and human service agencies by a public unaware of the environment that makes such a situation unavoidable and inexorable.

I have studied health and human services (henceforth HHS) budgetary figures (available to any citizen who requests such information in writing) for the state I live in, and find that overall, they reflect the environment found in Washington at the time. A situation rather unique to Texas, however, is that the previous governor is now currently the President of the United States. His last federal budgetary proposal (Magrus posted some of the details in another thread) resembles his tendencies while governor of this state: the budget for HHS is up for slashing. The public eagerly latched on (and still do) to the misleading notion that streamlining = efficiency...however, the record shows otherwise.

Take, for example, some of the recent fruits of the streamlining of HHS here in Texas...called outsourcing. Outsourcing can create an attractive shortfall on graphs and pie-charts when consulting firms play with budgetary figures to demonstrate the money saved over X amount of years. In reality, the outsourcing of HHS services has a horrid record that ends up, in the long run, costing the taxpayers more money. A certain state agency is currently up on the auditing block for an estimated $20 million in overpayments to a private contractor. Contracting services out has been a part of HHS for quite some time, made more popular under the Bush and the Perry governorships.

First of all, there's a demonstrated lack of accountability when dealing with a private contractor. Secondly, levels of service have not demonstrated a measurable improvement over time as promised. In fact, there has been a marked decline in quality and customer satisfaction. The state agencies who contract services out are in a regulatory, oversight role...and their own ability to take action is often impeded by the very codes and legislation which define the outsourcing to begin with, making legal actions a long, drawn out affair which can literally be sat on by the Attorney General's office for many years (try over 7 years just to get the courts to enforce a permanent injunction issued against a contrator...the injunction was imposed 9 years ago).

(EDIT - nearly a hundred different memorandums from legal services cross my desk weekly. The time periods involved in some of these cases is astromical, and quite incredulous to ponder.)

In short, it's a mess. While my particular knowledge on this subject lies with HHS, education has taken similar hits in the past 20 years. To start understanding the reasons behind our problems with the public schools, we need to take a look at the history of their program funding, appropriations, legislative activity, and the treatment of the staff compared to their counterparts in private schools. Much can be learned.

This is a very interesting discussion about the rules of engagement. However it seems to be difficult to actually start a topic. I am going to try

In the UK this week it was reported that the Cooperative Bank has asked a customer to take it's custom elsewhere. The Cooperative Bank prides itself on it's ethical stance on things like investement etc. The customer in question is an organisation called Christian Voice. Amongst other things Christian Voice is opposed to homosexuality and I gather that they see this as as a sin. There was a debate between a representative of Christian Voice and a representative of the Cooperative Bank on the radio yesterday morning. This was something of a dialogue of the deaf but I was particulalry struck by a couple of the points made. Christian Voice saw the dispute as a matter of discrimination against them and by extension against Christians as a religious group. The Cooperative Bank took the view that they were entitled to refuse to engage with an organisation which was seriously at odds with their corporate stance and the principles underpinning it. In the course of he debate Christian Voice said that they had been clear about the nature of their organisation at the time they opened their account (about 3 years ago) and they were incensed that the Bank had refused them a service now. While defending this position the representative of Christian Voice said that they had been honest when they stated they "supported family values" The implication was that their opposition to homosexuality was implicit in that statement. The Bank did not agree that this was obvious and contended that they had not been aware of this aspect of the organisation's policy until recently.
The debate I heard demonstrated many of the problems which have already been mentioned in this thread. It seemed to me that a lot of the misunderstanding arose from the fact that diametrically opposed positions can be described using the same "hurrah words" and that these are defined in different ways by different groups.
I would be interested to hear what people think about:
1. The issue of discrimination raised by Christian Voice. Should a bank refuse service to a customer on ethical grounds and if so what are the limits to this
2. Is it legitimate to suggest that open committment to "family values" implies an anti homosexual ethos. Would most people infer that from the statement and if they would not how should such matters be conveyed

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]The one thing that I think is important to remember is that most of the serious discussions here are discussions, not debates. The idea isn't to "prove" that you are right or to "show the other side" that they are wrong. The point is, IMO, to discuss, and where possible, to come to a consensus. If that isn't possible, to repsectfully disagree.[/quote]

Debate arises here on SYM when disagreements of opinion surface (as a perusal of older discussion threads will illustrate). How these are conducted is, I think, the way by which a discussion can be kept going, remain interesting, and experience a "natural death" when it is over (and not ended prematurely out of necessity by a moderator).

Naturally, most discussions here are not kicked off with debating in mind. I know in my case, I enjoy learning in general, and consider good discussion as a way in which I can expand my understanding. It can be an unsettling but ultimately rewarding experience to discover that I was misinformed on a topic. It is my desire to be as informed as I possibly can before I start forming opinions. This is a goal - like perfection. That is unattainable, but excellence is something to strive for.

I know that when I first started posting I would often find myself defending postions in a conversation that I didn't really agree with or that I had taken up casually. I love to argue, but never acquising that someone else is right causes endless bickering and leads nowhere.

I've been there. It's a sobering experience to wake up one morning, smell the coffee, and want to crawl back in bed (or under a rock, as the case may be). It's a learning curve. Many diverse topics interest me, and learning how to listen to what is said (or written), attempting to understand it to the best of your ability, and then going from there can siphon away most of the energy that is devoted to the instinctual response of feeling like you must defend yourself.

Fiona wrote:
I would be interested to hear what people think about:
1. The issue of discrimination raised by Christian Voice. Should a bank refuse service to a customer on ethical grounds and if so what are the limits to this

On the surface, my answer to this question is "no" if it deals with anything but financial issues. A corporate policy, in practice, is only ethically enforced within corporate ranks. To seek to to apply these policies as part of an agenda outside of the corporation by excluding certain clients essentially makes this bank no different from the religious group in priniciple, and is discrimination. The problem, in my eyes, is that by fighting discrimination with discrimination, the only winner is discrimination.

The bank made a mistake by suddenly deciding to refuse this group further service because of non-financial criteria. While I might personally agree with this bank's corporate policy, I also feel that dangerous territory is entered when companies, believing they are right, go out on a limb and discriminate for any reason beyond business matters.

On the other hand, I certainly feel a bank may ethically refuse service if they feel a potential (or current) client's business practices or financial practices are questionable, or perhaps illegal. In this case, though, this doesn't appear to be the issue.

2. Is it legitimate to suggest that open committment to "family values" implies an anti homosexual ethos. Would most people infer that from the statement and if they would not how should such matters be conveyed

"Family values" has become a catch phrase that is used extensively by various christian fundamentalist organizations and groups to sum up their entire package of beliefs concerning sexuality. However, as usual, this is a classic case of the self-righteous effrontery that is typical of these groups. "Why, what else would this mean, but a man and a woman together in marriage?" is a common response seen in the media from their spokespeople.

I don't believe that this is legitimate at all, and I do applaud the bank for not taking the bait. Some dictionaries have at least 10 entries for the word "family", so one may to prove that this word in concept is not as narrow as christian fundamentalist groups would like for everyone else to believe. "Values" is another word with multiple entires in most dictionaries. From a legal standpoint (in the US, anyway), the term "family values" can be interpreted very loosely.

@Chanak

I got into one argument here when I first started posting that left me wishing the whole thing had never happened. I decided that I wouldn't let that happen again. Learning curve is the right phrase for it.

@Homo-hating christians

I actually love stories like the above, where corporations say "Thanks but no thanks" to business that is at odds with the corporate ethics. Making money is important, but making decisions about what your company stands for it more important. Usually companies that are visionary in this regard end up more successful than competitors, and so it is a win-win.

In this case I think that the Bank had every right refuse business. As chanak said, "Family Values" is a political phrase that has been coopted by politicians to garner votes and support. My understanding is that "Family Values" equates to "only heterosexual couples can marry". This, imho, is a violation of a human right (ie- people are people, so if some can get married, all should have the option to marry), and so I applaud the Bank for politely agreeing to disagree.

[QUOTE=Fiona]1. The issue of discrimination raised by Christian Voice. Should a bank refuse service to a customer on ethical grounds and if so what are the limits to this
2. Is it legitimate to suggest that open committment to "family values" implies an anti homosexual ethos. Would most people infer that from the statement and if they would not how should such matters be conveyed[/QUOTE]
#1, I don't think a bank should be able to refuse service to any person. and
#2, Yes it is legit to say open committment to "family values" implies an anti homosexual ethos. Besides, I was raised by Italians in a Roman Catholic family. Therefore i feel it is my duty to say that the Pope does not want any child to have a mother and a mother, or a father and a father. It's just not right. I mean, could it really be what God had in mind? Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a way of survival and reproduction, or evolution.

Off topic, I would like to point out that the ancient Greeks used to throw deformed infants off of cliffs.

@Athena

It is not the Pope's business to "allow" anyone anything in their personal lives. That is the domain of the state, and should be left as such.

The bank is a business. Just as homosequality is a lifestyle, so too is participating in anti-homosexual groups or societies. People make choices about their lifestyles, as is their right. Business don't have to indulge those people whose choices or views are at odds with the business itself, or what the business stands for.

Just for arguemnt's sake, consider exchanging the references to anti-homosexual to anti-black person. If the bank had denied business to a group that was xenophobic they would be commended.

@Cuch, I agree with your last statement there. If I work with a company and do business with them, I want to know they have morals and won't do things that disgust me. That's just how I am and I'll take my business elsewhere if they do things I don't like. I don't want to do anything with racists or people who have problems with gay people, or anything of the sort. It promotes their behavior to find acceptance among the people they see as "good".

[QUOTE=Athena]Off topic, I would like to point out that the ancient Greeks used to throw deformed infants off of cliffs.[/QUOTE]

Their "wise men" used to touch young boys as well.

@Chanak, I apologize for the delayed response. Too much time gaming.

I like all the information you can come up with on the subject. Good to know I can find it myself if I need to one day by digging through records I request.

The things that are passed in votes and in congress on health care and education astonish me with the goverment. Then again, the rich run the government and can simply lay down cash straight up and not worry about insurance policies if need be. They can hire tutors for their kids as well, so why worry about education and health care, right?

Not to mention, a dumb education accepts the stick for being led around better than the carrot.....

@Athena: In what way do you belive homosexuality is not natural? Homosexuality is not choosed, and it can be observed in quite a lot of different species. It is nothing that man has developed.

What exactly do you mean by natural?

That's true Athena... if you observe animals, a good number of species will commit homosexual acts on their own. In the wild, or captivity. Even "man's best friend". If "god's creatures" are doing such things in nature, that'd make it natural and the pope WRONG.

I agree with Cuculain here. A bank that is a private business has every right to choose its own policy as long as it is within the law in the society the business exist in. A stately bank on the other hand must deliver service to all citizens.

[quote="Cuchulain]Just as homosequality is a lifestyle"]

Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality. A homosexual person can of cause choose to live in a relationship with somebody they do not love, or alone. So can a heterosexual person. However, homosexuality is a sexual orientation and there is massive scientific evidence that sexual orientation is decided already before we are born.

[quote="Athena]
Off topic"]

How is this related to the topic?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I agree with Cuculain here. A bank that is a private business has every right to choose its own policy as long as it is within the law in the society the business exist in. A stately bank on the other hand must deliver service to all citizens.[/quote]

I have to agree with this as well. While I feel it is bad business practice to drop an already existing client like a hot potato (unless said client has been engaged in criminal activities), nonetheless I concur with this position. I myself don't do business at Wal-Mart for a variety of reasons, most of which are probably already well-known by everyone here.

I do feel that I need to be vigilant in regards to how I conduct myself. Personally, I abhor a narrow mindset that makes assumptions (the entire bias towards heterosexuality being the "standard" and "normal" being a good illustration). If I'm not careful, though, I can become that which I abhor, only with a diametrically opposed viewpoint.

@Chanak: Don't you think there is a difference between discrimination towards a sex or ethinc group and discrimination against a political or religious stance witch the person in question can drop whenever he wants and witch have serious ill effects on others?

I agree that one must be vigilant in regards to ones conduct, and be careful only to discriminate against behaviour that is infact proved harmful though.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.
There has been some further discussion about the bank's action here. In one programme a politician (I think) took the view that the bank had acted wrongly. To illustrate this he asked us to think about what would happen if all banks took the same stance and the organisation could not find a service at all. He then extended that to suggest that a person could face a difficult situation,if, for example he or she lived in a small village and the only local shop or pub decided to refuse service on ethical grounds. I think that touches on Chanak's earlier comment, where he/she said that the only reasonable reason to act this way was if the matter were either financial or illegal. I think Chanak's later post moved away from this, however.
It is unlikely that all businesses would take the same view but I believe it illustrates the problem to imagine that they did. In that case I think the state would have to become the "bank of last resort" and that chimes with what C Elegans said. However my understanding is that this kind of Christian group is usually opposed to state intervention, so that could not be a good solution for them, I presume. Which seems to make them rather stuck in the logic of their own position. As has already been said this is fighting discrimination with discrimination. Christian Voice are obviously angry but I have a feeling that this is the biter bit. Fundamentalist Christian groups do not seek to discriminate solely in matters of religion and they do not seem to be satisfied by excluding homosexuals from their churches and leaving it at that.
It would be nice to think that the members of this organisation would reflect on what has happened. It is likely that they seldom experience the kind of disapproval which they tend to mete out and they may not have realised how hurtful and dangerous it is. It is possible this will bring that home. Sadly their spokesman does not seem to see any parallels with their own actions and perhaps it is optimistic to hope they will get past the anger.

Fundamentalist Christian groups do not seek to discriminate solely in matters of religion and they do not seem to be satisfied by excluding homosexuals from their churches and leaving it at that.
It would be nice to think that the members of this organisation would reflect on what has happened. It is likely that they seldom experience the kind of disapproval which they tend to mete out and they may not have realised how hurtful and dangerous it is. It is possible this will bring that home. Sadly their spokesman does not seem to see any parallels with their own actions and perhaps it is optimistic to hope they will get past the anger.

*snorts* So true. If all of the groups which did such hurtful, discrimonatory actions were slapped down..HARD, by the public they hoped to bring into their group there might be less of them in the first place. I see nothing wrong with the bank shutting that organization out.

If I ran a restaurant or something, and someone started making racist comments or discriminating against someone else on my property, they'd be removed from my establishment, bodily if they refused to leave. If it hurt my business, so be it. I'd rather have those in my establishment feel safe and comfortable they can be there in peace and without discrimination than allow it into there.

If other's see it as discrimination in and of itself, it is. I'd say there's a difference however. There is discrimination against people to be hurtful and cruel, and then there is discrimination to keep hurtful and cruel people out of your life. I have no wish to associate with racists, they discriminate to hurt people, I avoid them to show them what they believe isn't right. If you take part in them, in any form, you allow them to believe they've gained acceptance with one more person.

I've seen someone tossed, yes TOSSED out of a restuarant. He threw a fit in there when the owner asked him to leave after making a horrible comment to someone at another table about being Jewish. Now, there's a difference between off-color joke and deliberate cruel verbal abuse. This man crossed the line and he was banned from the premises. I had far, far more respect for that restuarant afterwards. He'd give up the custom of that man, his family and anyone else who thought like him in order to prevent another situation where is customer's felt they couldn't eat there and feel safe.

C Elegans wrote:Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality. A homosexual person can of cause choose to live in a relationship with somebody they do not love, or alone. So can a heterosexual person. However, homosexuality is a sexual orientation and there is massive scientific evidence that sexual orientation is decided already before we are born.

For argument's sake, how can it be proven that sexuality/gender gender are not a choice? Even if they are not choices, how could that be proven? I do not disagree, but I want to know more.

IMO, we are in a Social Contract society. We all sacrifice some rights so that we can all be safer. One of those rights happens to be the right to marry. We, in the US at least, all agree about the right to marry, and that means that you can't choose who that is extended to. Here is the text from a synopsis of the court case in Massassachusetts that legalized Gay marriage (boldface mine):

The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."

The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated. The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

(The text is from this page. Be careful, it is a PDF and will take a while to open)

C Elegans wrote:How is this related to the topic?

Yeah, I want to know too. What exactly did you mean by the baby thing?

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]For argument's sake, how can it be proven that sexuality/gender gender are not a choice? Even if they are not choices, how could that be proven? I do not disagree, but I want to know more.

Interesting question.

If you start from the position that sexuality is bipolar, then I suppose any innate predictor which unfailingly distinguished homosexuals from herterosexuals would serve as proof. I take it this is what the tedious search for the Gay Gene is all about. However I see no evidence that sexuality is that kind of phenomenon. For whatever reason people do seem to lie along some sort of spectrum and if that is so that kind of approach is a waste of research time and money, imho.

Failing that kind of approach what are we left with ? While it is not proof in the sense of hard evidence I believe it is useful to listen to what people say and to watch what they do. For example my own sexuality came fully armed. I have no idea if it was built in or learned, but by the time I was aware of it I certainly did not feel as if I had a choice. Most people I have spoken to had the same experience. Surely that counts for something ?

In many places and at different times various societies have put a lot of energy into suppressing/ changing sexual behaviour they disapprove of. I am not aware of any such attempt which has been successful. Promiscuous women have often paid very heavy social penalties, for example, but there have always been "illegitimate" children. so far as I know. If there is a choice involved there must be a lot of reckless people about and a lot self destructive behaviour.

We know that there are people who accept the teachings of their society and especially their religion, yet cannot deny or change a sexuality they consider sinful or wrong. I believe many of these people have sincerely tried to exercise the choice they are told that they have. They frequently fail and this suggests that the element of choice is very limited

Gore Vidal once said that there are no homosexual people only homosexual acts. I find that quite a useful thought. I do not think it implies that sexual orientation is a choice but I do think it focusses on the fact that a person's sexuality is not all that they are. In fact it doesn't matter much unless you are interested in having a sexual relationship with the individual. I do wonder why there is the relentless interest in this topic.

Choosing homosexuality

@CE, Fiona, et al

Isn't ancient Greece (Athens inspecific) an example of a homosexual society? While I'm not an expert, it seems to me that men in the upper class were encouraged to be homosexual, and maybe this social factor shaped their sexuality more than a genetic factor.

(c'mon CE... how much more of this can you take without responding? )

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]@CE, Fiona, et al

Isn't ancient Greece (Athens inspecific) an example of a homosexual society? While I'm not an expert, it seems to me that men in the upper class were encouraged to be homosexual, and maybe this social factor shaped their sexuality more than a genetic factor.

(c'mon CE... how much more of this can you take without responding? )[/QUOTE]
Not as I understand it. I gather that there was tolerance for an older man having a homosexual relationship with a younger one in the context of a sort of mentoring. But I also think that an exclusively homosexual orientation was seen as risible and there are certainly jokes about much older men leching at the baths. In short there was a cultural acceptance but there is evidence of strict societal limits which were, once again, broken.