one more try at some final thoughts on the "benefits"

[rebecca greene]

this better not be another one of your games-which i think is the main
reason people have stopped an honest open discussion which i truly believe
we need as a community.
i am going to assume your args are straight up and if i failed to see your
sarcasm then you can insult my intelligence as much as you like-my feelings
won't be hurt, i'm a big girl.  however, communication is a 2 way activity
and constantly blaming the listener isn't always the answer especially when
you repeatedly seem to have communication problems, perhaps a little self
reflection is in order.  this is not mean to be harsh, consider it
constructive critism.  smilies or commentary might help(others use them
often).  i however do not condone insulting anyone no matter who is doing
it.
try again-this example is not as you say fatally flawed.  making homosexuals
the other was a conscious decisions.  not all societies react to
homsexuality in the manner that we do which proves that this sort of belief
isn't inate like instinct but is instead learned.  so consciously a decision
was made.  do i pin anyone with this honor(dripping sarcasm there)?  as far
as i can tell, i would pin it on the church(i say this as someone who
considers herself a christian while having problems with this area of the
doctrine).  if you want elaboration, i could go into it at length.  point is
us was founded with that dogma as its basis and this belief was then
disseminated throughout society.  now while not literally prisoned, one has
to admit there are many limitations in our(and not necessarily other)
society placed on homosexuals-marriage, etc.

ending now,
becca


>From: "Deckler, Greg" <gdeckler at PSD.COMPUCOM.COM>

>Reply-To: "Deckler, Greg" <gdeckler at PSD.COMPUCOM.COM>

>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

>Subject: Re: one more try at some final thoughts on the "benefits"

>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:20:57 -0400

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>From owner-edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU Wed Aug 11 09:33:11 1999

>Received: from [132.198.101.121] by hotmail.com (2.1) with ESMTP id

>MHotMailB97AF060019CD82197A384C665790DDF0; Wed Aug 11 09:33:11 1999

>Received: from list.uvm.edu by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT

>v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.06331D40 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Wed, 11 Aug 1999

>11:31:16 -0500

>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d)

>with          spool id 37636 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 11 Aug 1999

>12:31:20          -0400

>Precedence: bulk

>Received: from dilbert.psd.compucom.com (dilbert.ncgroup.com

>[207.123.119.71])          by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id

>MAA18196 for          <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:31:18

>-0400

>Received: from miagi.ncgroup.com ([129.45.1.8]) by dilbert.psd.compucom.com

>          (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID#

>195-43097U100L100S0)          with ESMTP id AAA219; Wed, 11 Aug 1999

>12:28:19 -0400

>Received: by MIAGI with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <PA9A6KAH>;

>Wed,          11 Aug 1999 12:21:06 -0400

>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)

>Message-ID:  <A0E324977633D11190A500805F0D44AD019A1A60 at MIAGI>

>Sender:       Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>

>Comments: To: Matthew Kuss <mkuss at uwf.edu>

>

>There was no "hope" in pointing this out, as the original post clearly

>stated, I was merely suprised that the perspective had not entered the

>conversation to date.  In my opinion, the perspective is almost unavoidable

>when discussing societal integration.

>

>More on the Jews thing, you really like that analogy even though it is

>entirely misrepresentative.  Look at it this way, the Nazi general in your

>example is not really interested in integrating the Jews into society as

>evidenced by the CONSCIOUS choice to put them in prison.  On the other

>hand,

>no one really made  a CONSCIOUS choice to put homosexuals in a minority

>position.  The President did not decree that "Homosexuals shall forever

>more

>be imprisoned as minorities within the US."  Therefore, shifting

>perspectives as a means to arrive at a better understanding of how

>homosexuals came to be in this position and what it means makes a lot of

>sense.  However, in your example, we already know the reasons Jews on in

>the

>position, Hitler put them ther, and what society plans for them,

>extermination.  Therefore, shifting perspectives in that case really would

>be futile considering that we already know the answers.  End result, your

>Jewish analogy is fatally flawed.  Get off it.

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Matthew Kuss [mailto:mkuss at uwf.edu]

> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:15 PM

> > To: Debate Listserve; Deckler, Greg

> > Subject: RE: one more try at some final thoughts on the "benefits"

> >

> >

> > > Therefore, homophobia cannot be thought of in terms of simple

> > > good and evil,

> > > there are some practical constraints in place in the real

> > world.  This is

> > > one of the major items I objected to in the flames was in the over

> > > simplification of homophobia as "pure evil" and "absolutely

> > no benefits".

> > > That shows very shallow thinking and should be challenged.

> >

> > Look, I didnt receive the private flames obviously, and I would never

> > condone irrational responses to posts.

> >

> > I dont think it shows shallow thinking. Would the Jews be shallow for

> > calling Hitler pure evil? I dont think so.

> >

> > I think what it show is reactionary posting. Perhaps ill-advised and

> > unnecessary. Not shallow. Maybe shallow people, but not

> > necessarily shallow

> > thinking.

> >

> > > I am not saying that any benefits, cohabitation and

> > economic, outweigh the

> > > detriments of homophobia, but one should at least be able to go

> > > through the

> > > excercise.  And in going through the excercise, it is nearly

> > > impossible not

> > > to  conclude that homophobia is just not "pure evil" but

> > that there are

> > > practical and even evolutionary reasons behind it.

> >

> > Well you didnt quite go off on the practical and evolutionary

> > reasons, did

> > you? All the list saw was cohabitation and the fact that

> > anyone not thinking

> > EXACTLY like you was foolish.

> >

> > > The whole Nazi analogy thing is extremely strained.

> > Therefore I am not

> > > going to spend a lot of time on it.  You are again mixing up what

> > > was being

> > > said.  The Nazi general walks into the camp and says, well, has

> > > anyone even

> > > looked at what the benefits are of being imprisoned here are?

> > > For example,

> > > 95% of the men under my command were killed in the Battle of the

> > > Bulge.  The

> > > Nazi general is not endorsing the benefits as outweighing the

> > > detriments, he

> > > is simply asking a question and providing an illustrative

> > example to help

> > > further explain the question.  This is completely different

> > than coming in

> > > and saying "Look at all the benefits of being here, aren't

> > you lucky?"

> >

> > How do you think the Jews would react to what the general

> > says? Will they

> > agree with it? Recognize it as evolutionary? Will they be

> > grateful that the

> > general has enlightened them?

> >

> > What does he hope to do by pointing this out? Just idle talk?

> > Would this be

> > better for the Jews? Less suffering?

> >

> > Matt

> >



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com