🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3528FC76.B065E81E@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:

> Norman Gall wrote:

> > So do women, Muslims, and blacks.  They need their rights pointed out
> > *explicitly* because of freaks like you.
> 
> Women and black (whatever that refers to) are not behavioural.  Muslim
> may be, but as a religion it is a definition of thoughts.  After all,
> Mormons believe(d) that a man can have more than one wife. The thought
> is fine, but the country has apparently decided it's against the law to
> actually carry out the behaviour. So discriminating against a religion
> is ok, but not against the thoughts (my point is subtle).

Way too subtle actually.  First, you have a very poor account of Mormon
History.  There was no law passed the outlawed the Mormon practice of
polygamym, but the Mormon Church renoucing the practice was a condition
for the entry of Utah to the Union. Second, ex hypothesi, we aren't
talking about what people believe but what they do, so this is irrelevant.
Third, your view that discriminating against a religion is ok must be a
moral judgement on your part because it is strictly not permitted under
the Charter - which is what we're talking about here.

> Homosexuals engage in homosexual behaviour. 

This is not a definition.  Some homosexuals do not engage in homosexual
sexual practices.  Some are celibate, some haven't found partners, etc.

> It's apparently the
> behaviour that many don't want their children subjected to (for whatever
> reason). 

I'm not sure what this means: a) they don't want their children to
participate in non-consensual homosexual sex, b) they don't want their
kids to see acts of homosexual sex (be it consensual or not), or c) they
dn't want their kids to know that there are people participating in
homosexual sex somewhere out of their field of vision? A and B are already
illegal, so there's no worries here.  But C is highly troublesome. They
may have reasons for having this wish (I don't think I want my daughter to
know how to torture plitical prisoners), but keeping this knowledge away
from her seems rather odd to me.  Nevertheless, I don't see what onus that
places on anyone else to help me keep this knowledge away from her.

> This is no different than they don't waht their children to be
> taught that stealing is an acceptable lifestyle choice. They don't want
> their children to be taught that engaging in homosexual activity is an
> acceptable lifestyle choice. Many believe it should be their choice as a
> parent.

Then, by parity of reasoning, I should be able to keep my children from
being taught that being {in the Army | a lawyer | a physician | a teacher
| a heterosexual | a Christian | an elected official | a law-abiding
citizen | a caring person | a parent} is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

Are you *really* saying this?

> > have you even met the children of homosexual couples? No? Shaddap.
 
> I didn't know that enganing in homosexual activity could create
> offspring.

What an ignorant person you are then. See the world - read a book.

> > > > Based on irrelevant and incosequential ground, yes.  Do you think
a parent
> > > > ahs the right to have a black or male or female or asian or native or
> > > > white teacher on the grounds that they they don't want one of 'them'
> > > > teaching their children?
> > 
> > > None of those are behaviours.
> > 
> > Ok, how about people who drink beer? People who drive cars rather than
> > bikes? People who read novels? People who watch TV? People who wear
> > sweaters?
> 
> Well this is an intersting point, because here people can't win.  After
> the Exxon Valdez incident, Imperial Oil (owned 70% by Exxon) invoked
> rules around the consumption of alcohol. Either some employees took such
> action to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, or some entity took them,
> I am not sure.  The point here is that the company was attempting to be
> vigilant in protecting the public due to the concern over alcohol
> consumption, which the government lauded, and then they were told you
> can't, by the government.  WHICH IS IT? You can't have it both ways.

Now, you see, here is the rub: you simply don't understand a complicated
system of tules that require *relevance*. The reason the board said that
making it such that no employee could ever use an otherwise legal
substance in such a way that it did not affect job performance was
unjustifiable because it is irrelevant what persons do in their off
hours.  If I'm drunk on Sunday, and it doesn't affect my performance on
Monday, the drinking is an irrelevant issue.

It just seems to me that you guys get all wierd about what people do when
you can't see them - as if it matters.

> > > And the average homosexual pedophiles has 150 victims compared to 20 for
> > > heterosexual pedophiles.  35% of all pedophiles are homosexuals, who
> > > make up 3% of the population.
> > 
> > Drivel.
> 
> Now this is an intersting response. Does this mean that you agree with
> him, but it's irrelevant? Or that he is correct and you have no comment?

Actually, neither.  His stats for pedophiles are wrong but even if they
were they don't bear out any particular conclusion.  Sure 35% of all
pedophiles are homosexual - I'll buy it.  But then 65% of all pedophiles
are heterosexual who make up about 97% of the population - so what?  If we
conclude that homosexuality is wrong on these grounds, or we have further
grounds to now not allow them to have anything to do with children *just*
on these grounds, then we'd better seriously consider the fact that > 99%
of all pedophiles are male, making up 48% of the population.

Norm Gall

I could have a small class on the interpretation of statistics, but I'm
afraid I don't have the inordinate amount of time it would take to make it
worthwhile.

Norm Gall

-- 
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge 
 without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.    Samuel Johnson