- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Was that a constitutional argument? No? I didn't think so.
There are certain areas of necessity where the government needs to step in or else they create an environment where white privilege becomes a huge problem. Things like discriminatory land sales, discriminatory sales of fodd to black people, discriminatory hiring practices, and things that deny a necessity based on prejudice are increadibly harmful to minorities. I use black people as an example but you could put hispanics, gays, women, or certain religious groups within this. I am all up for private clubs who operate on voluntary and non-necessary membership to be allowed to discriminate.
I would even be up for a small number of segregated communities to operate. I havce seen a reason for things like restricted elderly communities, and even communities where strict religious beliefs are help by it's voluntary membership. I lived in NY and there were a few orthodox jewish communities and i could see why the orthodox members might want to live in seclusion. But I think over all that those communities should be in areas where they do not restrict property ownership because it is needed for minorities. For example a jewish community in a city would put stress on the other non-jewish people because they take up finite resources of housing and land. But if you put it out in some less populated areas with tons of land resources I have no problem with it. I just used jewish and elderly communities because I have seen them do fine in places like the northeast and Florida.
In essence the US has shown that when allowed overwhelming practices of prejudice by private business cause massive disparities in diversity and wealth opportunities for minorities and harm the community. They create a power structure that becomes monopolized by the prejudiced factions and that simply cannot be allowed in a country that values opportunity for all. We had that freedom for a time and we showed that it damages peoples lives on a massive scale when allowed to operate unchecked. Don't blame the government because people cannot operate in a moral and ethical manner.
[/FONT][/COLOR]BBC News - Boy Scouts of America votes to ease ban on gay members
Good for the Scouts.
And I eagerly await the freakishly hateful statements that will inevitably come from people like the Family Research Council.[/FONT][/COLOR]
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
I'm not exactly clear how you can divorce application from interpretation, unless your point here is the use of citing facts, which isn't an argument per se. I'm not sure why you seem to think that there is consensus on the application of any given law, and without such consensus, an appeal to authority, again, begs the question.
And that is precisely why an Appeal To Authority is fallacious...because it begs the question....
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
The appeal to authority logical fallacy is a bit different than what you think it is. Here is a good description:
If the authority you are citing is the actual authority on the issue being discussed, the appeal to authority logical fallacy does not apply.
While true, such authority is generally still not above questioning. With US law, the supreme court is, on the point of current application. Naturally you can disagree with their arguments and reasons behind their rulings, but it's not going to amount to much in the realm of actual application
One can always question authority. Doesn't alter the fact of who is the authority.
Was that a constitutional argument? No? I didn't think so.
The ban on openly gay adult leaders is still disgusting though.
I don't agree with you. "Openly gay" has some connotations that could turn a boy scout troop into a joke. Unless they're asking the question on forms volunteer leaders are asked to fill out, I have no problem with it at all.
I don't agree with you. "Openly gay" has some connotations that could turn a boy scout troop into a joke. Unless they're asking the question on forms volunteer leaders are asked to fill out, I have no problem with it at all.
Openly gay does not have any connotations to it. Why should a gay person have to hide who they are?
I know some gay guys that are "just like everybody else." I also know some gay guys that are flamboyantly gay. You know what I mean. (I don't see this same flamboyance in lesbians at all. It's the flamboyance I'm thinking about. Many moms send their kids to Boy Scouts for the male role models they provide in their leadership. There are some gays who don't model that very well. That's just a fact.
I'm betting it's a don't-ask/don't-tell policy. It's a private organization....given that, I think they've taken a great first step. And the right one.
Great news.
I never understood the ban. Gay boys can certainly be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Come on, Your Star. You have met these men. Don't be blinded by your own orientation. Be honest.
And they give good head.
It's an organization that prides itself on upholding tradition. Kind of obvious why it would be initially resistant to social change*.
*the vast improvements the gay right's movement has made in just the past 10 years is rather astounding in it's pace
Can you imagine, a bunch of teenagers giving someone flack for being different?
Besides being a rather common trend in everyone's youth, you might be confusing the reaction from his peers with a ban on participation. The former is not the later, and something the scouts have little control over
kids teasing someone for being gay isn't the same as the kid actually being gay (as you even outlined in your original post). Any competent scoutmaster/person can easily recognize this
So your argument is not one of reason, but simply one of appealing to authority? Would you like to try something that isn't a fallacy? Perhaps you would like to argue against my logic with logic of your own?
Assuming an openly gay man is like the stereotype is just ridiculous.
The reality is this is the beginning of the end for the BSA. The activist that pushed for this will next push to end gender based scouting all together and put the boy scouts and girl scouts in one group called the scouts. These people hate everything the BSA stands for and their intent is to destroy or at least fundamentally change the entire organization.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?