Chief Cochran
I may I agree with this result. I think. My problem is that I don’t see a natural stop on this very slippery slope.
The Atlanta Fire Rescue Department has suspended Chief Kelvin Cochran for a month without pay this week after employees complained about the content of his self-published religious book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked,” which is available in paperback on Amazon.com. The Chief’s book calls homosexuality a “sexual perversion” that is the moral equivalent of “pederasty” and “bestiality.” Elsewhere, Cochran wrote that “naked men refuse to give in, so they pursue sexual fulfillment through multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body-temple and dishonor God.”
The Chief apparently distributed his book to some of his subordinates, who found his published views offensive and complained. In handing out the suspension, the Atlanta Mayor’s office said, “The bottom line is that the [Mayor Kasim] Reed administration does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.” Cochran, said the Mayor, will be prohibited from distributing the book on city property; he will also be required to undergo sensitivity training.
Ah yes, now comes the brain-washing.
At least one local LGBT group is demanding Cochran’s permanent removal from the force. “Frankly the only course of action at this point and time is his immediate and permanent dismissal,” said Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality. “It appears that his language is so extreme, so belittling of gay and transgender people that I don’t see how he could possible [sic] lead a diverse workforce.”
What’s going on here?
I wish there was a simple answer to that. I see several options, and how we answer that threshold question in all ethical analysis will determine what conclusion we reach:
1. The City of Atlanta is imposing political correctness on a manager, suspending him for expressing in his book sentiments that it does not support.
OR
2. The City of Atlanta is punishing Cochran for proselytizing his employees in the workplace.
OR
3. The City has suspended him because his views, now public, make it difficult for gay, lesbian, transgendered and bi-sexual employees and members of the public to trust that they will receive fair and equal treatment at his hands.
OR
4. Atlanta is infringing on the Chief’s right of free speech and religion.
I think #4. is the easiest to eliminate. The Chief can say and publish what he wants, but if his employers reasonably conclude that his views being public undermine his ability to do his job, then he can be removed from the job, and should be.
# 1, by itself, is troubling, No city, indeed, no organization should insist that all of its employees and managers fit some ideological template. If I didn’t work for my own company, would it be fair for an association employing me to suspend or fire me because most employees, the management, or some employees objected to my commentary about the Ferguson mess? What’s to stop that practice, if we decide that it is ethical to punish a fire chief. not for anything he has done, but for what he believes and has written?
#2 is the easiest to endorse. A supervisor can think or say want he or she wants to, but when an effort is made to press controversial views on employees in the work place, a line has been crossed that must not be. A suspension seems reasonable for this infraction.
#3 is the most difficult call for me. In past posts, I have supported dismissals on this basis…here, for example. In that case, however, a woman’s public opposition to gay marriage was a material conflict with her position as a diversity officer in a university. Here the opinion is unrelated to Cochran’s duties—but it is more sweeping, more denigrating, and arguably is relevant to his ability to supervise. I do not understand, however, how a suspension solves the problem, unless the Chief emerges from “sensitivity training” loving Bette Midler, “Brokeback Mountain,” and Richard Simmons.
I would think he has to be fired. No manager or leader can do his job effectively once he has announced that he regards a class of employees and subordinates as “filthy.”
___________________________
Pointer: Fred
Facts and Graphic: Washington Post
Ethics Alarms 
Number One. Without political correctness being legally (?) mandated, the Leftist Agenda would find itself difficult to sustain. It’s become both a physical and mental weapon against the citizenry at large. When a top civil servant- and a black man at that- speaks up for decency and rationality- he must be suppressed. Immediately! He becomes an imminent threat to the power structure if he is not.
Lemme ask you this, which of the following two items is your hang-up with homosexuality-
1) the physical expressions of same-sex attraction
2) the attraction itself
I’ll freely admit it’s #1. Even the catechism doesn’t condemn the attraction. It’s ick factor. This chief’s views are what they are, and no one should be punished for his views. His actions here are a blunder of the first water.
He’s a public servant who is sworn to provide fire and rescue services. Not that anyone loses the right to have opinions when they put on the uniform, but once it’s on, you’re not just you, you’re the face of the authority. As such, and this goes double for fire, police, and corrections, you have to exercise tact, restraint, and good judgment. This isn’t any of the above.
Where he crossed a line was pushing this on subordinates. It doesn’t matter if the fire chief goes home and talks his day over with God. It doesn’t matter if he considers any particular group good or bad. It doesn’t matter if he throws epithets at home or when he’s having a beer with his friends. It does matter if it trickles into his leadership on the job.
There is room for religion in the emergency services, in a lot of police and fire departments the Sodality is huge, right next to the Emerald Society and the Columbian Society and all those other ethnic groups. It’s perfectly OK for them to march with the Vatican flag in parades and set up Blue Masses and brunches. It’s not OK for them to do anything that turns on their fellow public servants, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Top leadership needs to balance all these groups, not marginalize any of them, or they’ll have a fractured department, and that will compromise the mission.
I’ve seen this kind if thing go on. In all likelihood the chief will file his own suit or grievance, although he’s not a union member he probably has a contract granting him certain rights, and in all likelihood some deal will be quietly struck. No amount of sensitivity sermons will change this chief’s mind. Firing him would probably make the problem worse, not better, because it would produce a huge lawsuit and make this tension public.
The attraction is the product of an unhealthy mental obsession. The physical expression (a nice way to put it) is the result of a severe derangement that can express itself in ways that, frankly, defy description. When anyone can defy their own manifest identity as a man or women, then proceed to inflict the most vile of actions upon one’s self or others, then they are capable of virtually anything and a danger to all.
No doubt, much like a subset of sexual abusers of a heterosexual nature, I’m sure that a subset of the homosexual community derives their sexual tendencies from some mental disturbance. But do you really believe 100% of the homosexual community derives from poor parenting, terrible experiences, or other mental “defects”?
Considering that some studies seem to indicate that homosexuality arises from the hormones that unborn babies are exposed to in the womb, it would be difficult to argue post-birth experiences/choices determine orientation (although, like before mentioned, it may account for some).
It’s on! 😉
It depends on your definition of decency. I hate talking in biblical language in discussions like this, because it’s so irrelevant in reality, but I find it helpful when having discussions with people who put stock in it. One of the great failings of the bible is in the contradictory nature of the new and old testaments. Leviticus tells us to kill the gays, whores, and adulterers, and then Jesus spent a lot of time with those selfsame people and told us not to judge each other.
But Jesus also said, “Give unto god that which belongs to god, and give unto Caesar, that which belongs to Caesar”, which was the first recorded instance of the separation of church and state.
What is important is whether the people that this man has direct control over, and the people for who he provides service, trusts him to do his job and treat them fairly. Which he has an absolute duty to do. Especially in the case of an employee, this per se creates a hostile work environment, and I agree with Jack, I don’t know if there’s a way for him to keep his job in this case. Which is bloody unfortunate.
First of all, the laws of the ancient Hebrews- as expressed in Leviticus or elsewhere- is not germane to the present. Secondly; those two quotes from Jesus are the common fare of anti-Christians who attempt to quote Him out of context, counting on the ignorance of too many Christians as to the TOTALITY of the message to make a false point. And (naturally) this leads to the utterly false interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s “separation” quote along the same lines.
But I’m not ignorant, Humble, nor am I stupid. We don’t kill perverts and adulterers anymore, but their criminality remains. When the basic reality of the human condition is ignored or rejected (the very thing that the Christian Creed upholds) then a society ceases to be civilized. Christ went among the sinners because that’s where the sin was. He was not one to spend his time preaching solely to the choir. His famous “judge not” quote- so widely used by pagans to justify their sins- was an admonition to others to judge their own sins FIRST. He did not, by any means, advocate toleration of sin, as His ministry proved. He simply preferred gentle persuasion and reason, born forth by his personality… being the Son of God.
Jefferson’s quote- made to the pastor of the Danbury Baptist Church of Connecticut in a private letter- should be read in its totality. He did not advocate that the church and the state should be utterly divorced from one another. Quite the contrary. He knew, from the experience of the Church of England, that when church and state are associated, the church becomes corrupted by politics. Churches must be free and independent of government control (as the press must be) to serve as a check on government power; each in its own way. That’s why the First Amendment was written as it was. Modern pagans- sitting on the federal court benches- have perverted this as well.
I think you stumbled onto something inadvertently there. “First of all, the laws of the ancient Hebrews- as expressed in Leviticus or elsewhere- is not germane to the present.”
I want to point out that you are choosing to recognize something in your faith’s written cannon as obsolete and discardable. The book is a tool, and can be used, and has been used to justify everything from genuinely good acts to slavery. I recognize now, as I should have before I started, that I really don’t have the depth of knowledge in scripture to get into a scriptural debate properly. And that’s my mistake. I don’t need to. I shouldn’t have let the book dictate the framework of the argument. The book is irrelevant. You allude to it, if unknowingly, who makes the choices as to which passages stay and which go?
But all of this is irrelevant to the situation at hand. Should someone proselytizing at work, especially in a way that will obviously alienate either coworkers or customers, really be surprised when that person gets fired? I don’t think so. I think this is similar to the Naked Teacher Principle. Call it the Public Office Bigot principle.
It isn’t irrelevant. The discussion is about allowing people to express thoughts we might not agree with, even if they hold positions of responsibility, even if we hold positions of power over them.
Proselytizing at work in a way that alienates co-workers isn’t done only by the religious. It’s a good idea to allow for a lot of diversity in every direction when it comes to belief. Beliefs that are currently popular might not be so popular tomorrow, and we don’t know what the next trend will be. Belief is currently not punishable by losing your job, if it ever becomes so we are all equally at risk. Bigots come in every stripe and gay activists are not free of it.
It’s why this situation had a little ick in it for me. I don’t like the idea of banning thoughts or speech… I’ve defended people’s right to say morally bankrupt things before. But Chief Cochrane wasn’t suspended for his thoughts or beliefs, he published what amounts to hate speech and was handing it out at work. There were definite actions taken that per se would create a hostile working place, and those action had nothing to do with providing fire service.
You have the right to believe what you want, and there is a certain amount of reasonable accommodation that everyone is at least ethically obligated to do before snapping to conclusions, but there’s a difference between say… wearing a crucifix, or saying a prayer and expecting someone to work with you after going out of your way to call him an unclean pervert similar to a pedophile. It’s a spectrum with a blurred line, but this situation isn’t anywhere close to that line.
To me, it’s simple: If he was forcing his views on others, he needs to be suspended and told not to do it again.
But herein lies the elephant in the room, Jack. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on religious views. However, the only way to fully implement the LGBT agenda is to in essence, tell the Angela McCaskills and Kelvin Cochrans in America that they need not apply for promotion or hiring.
If you want to fire or demote McCaskill, Cochran, and others like them because you feel their religious views, once public, make then ineffective, then at least have the courage to call on legislatures at the state and federal level to repeal the applicable provisions against religious discrimination.
If you’re going to turn people into second-class citizens in terms of hiring and promotion, then at least be ethical enough to do so openly.
But IM—Freedom of Religion has never meant that an employer has to ignore it if your religious beliefs impedes your ability to do your job. See the so-called conscience laws for druggists. Would you force an employer to hire a vocal anti-gay zealot (on religious grounds, say, Rick Santorum) to be the counselor to gay students on campus issues, if he was otherwise qualified?
I fail to see how Chief Cochran’s opinions prevent him from doing his job. (His conduct in distributing his book to his employees is of course another matter entirely.)
We all have the right to believe what we want, and we all have the right to be who we are, I think the difference is in action. Gay people don’t per se hate religious people, there are probably many who do, and probably some with very good reason. I don’t think religious people per se hate gay people either.
If you go through the effort though, of publishing a book outlining why an entire set of people is morally inferior, which is almost designed to alienate people, all the while collecting a public salary, you’re probably a bigot and shouldn’t be surprised when you get fired.
I hope his book sales support him.
Wrong. Gay activists despise the Christian church because the Gospels refer to their practices as “an abomination”. That’s pretty graphic!
I’m not sure what your point was here, or if you even had one. I doubt the majority of people arguing for gay rights read or heard the rhetoric before having it screamed in their face by someone like you. And then, I think it’s understandable that having someone say that the way you were born is an ‘abomination’ would put the average person off. But you know very well that isn’t where it stops.
What I don’t understand is your enthusiasm to not only spout what you believe, but to do so loudly, using the most provocative language possible. I’d love to hear a biblical justification for the kind of proselytizing you take part in, because I think I’ve learned my lesson. I don’t have a strong enough reference to scripture to argue the words with the faithful, all I ask if that you back your hate up with scripture. I would love for you to make that justification, and to make it is such a way not to include the kind of hate expressed by Westboro. Please educate me.
You do see the hypocrisy here I hope. Religious people don’t have a monopoly on shouting loudly in other people’s faces using provocative language.
Again, behaviors are not people and we can dislike or even hate a behavior without hating the person.
I think the difference is in intent. Religious people are screaming “God hates fags” and the gay people are screaming “You’re assholes for hating us”
I know it isn’t as cut and dry as that, and I know those are extreme examples, but I refuse to let you get away with that comparison. It’s like standing on a moral molehill spewing vitriol and then being outraged when something splashes back. You really can’t be surprised by this response, and this isn’t a chicken or the egg question, religious hate came first. That doesn’t make the vitriol you get back RIGHT, but I think it mitigates.
I will not be compared to Westboro. No will any decent human being. Westboro people are NOT religious people.
To be fair, this is an instance in which “No True Scotsman” actually probably isn’t a fallacy. The “Westboro Baptist Church” is much less a church and much more a semi-extended family. The whole conglomeration takes on a more cult status than anything.
Of course they are. You don’t get to dictate faith to the faithful, and I think they’re more honest adherents to the Old Testament than the average Christian, at great expense to the New. Modern Christianity picks and chooses to suit their beliefs, if you didn’t pick and choose, you wouldn’t eat pork or shellfish, and every time Aunt Floe came to visit you would camp out on the roof of your house for a week and burn your clothing afterwards.
Regardless. You need to address the issue of religious hate. You bypassed the point in your outrage. Even if the vast majority of Christianity doesn’t spout the same rhetoric word for word, and even if they don’t picket military funerals…. The parallels are there. “your sins make you a bad person, and you’re going to burn in hell for them.” is just a slightly nicer way of saying “homosexuality is a disgusting perversion destroying society” which is a nicer way of saying “God Hates Fags”. This is a hang up I find with Christians. Generally, I think that they think they can say whatever hurtful, hate filled, senseless, needless garbage, so long as they don’t use any really bad words.
“Hate a behavior without hating the person.”
That’s probably the most acceptable way to be a bigot in this case. If such a position exists. The problem is the way that hatred of the act manifests is almost identical to just hating the person, so at the end of the day, regardless of the reasons why you think the actions you’re taking are acceptable, no one else can tell that difference, and so that moral position exists only in your head.
I’m really over this conversation, but I have to stand up for religious people here. If I (speaking as a religious person) write that God considers sexual perversions of any kind a sin that is an action. It describes my feelings about another person’s actions. I do not say that to harm or hate. I say it so that there can be understanding of why I believe the way I do.
I do not get in people’s faces and spew hate. I do not force other people to accept my view or be boycotted, or scorned, or fired or harmed in any way. I do not care what you do in your private life and it doesn’t come into my workplace related actions toward you in any way unless your actions in that direction cause me to have to deal with it. Even then as a Christian I treat each person with respect but I do not condone or excuse actions that are harmful to that person or to others.
“I do not say that to harm or hate. I say it so that there can be understanding of why I believe the way I do.”
Pure moral blindness. “I was just doing X, I didn’t meant them to feel Y, even though it’s obvious after a little thought why they might feel that way, and it seems to happen every time I say it.” Even if you think that what you say is correct, the second niggardly principle applies.
“Even then as a Christian I treat each person with respect but I do not condone or excuse actions that are harmful to that person or to others.”
And I think you’re part of a very large, quiet minority, and I can respect that. But I have to ask why you’re defending SMP then.
I see it more as a matter of trust. As long as he said things only face to face or maybe in a blog, it was easier to tolerate. But when he printed it and started giving it away at work, propagating those beliefs? How can they trust that he will be unbiased and as diligent if those coworkers or victims are filthy and animals to him? If he said the same thing about asians or baptists, there would be a strong reaction too. A suspension would have been a good warning if someone found it on Amazon, but it he was handing it out at the fire station the trust issue was introduced BY him at his job.
“If he said the same thing about asians or baptists, there would be a strong reaction too.”
A useful tool. Take the scenario, and change the groups from “Christian/Gay people” to “White guy/black people” or “Man/Women” and if the result is obviously wrong and discriminatory for any of them, it probably is for all of them.
Nope, not necessarily a useful test, one must be clear what the nature of the characteristic being compared is.
From the anti-homosexual viewpoint, homosexuality is a choice (bear with me), whereas being born black or white is not a choice. Therefore comparing the discrimination of one to the other is not equitable in their minds, it like comparing something someone can’t help with something someone can help. Quite frankly that is a dumb comparison to make.
The hang up here is getting past the anti-homosexual group’s notion that it’s a choice. Once you can convince them that it isn’t, then you can make valid comparisons to the “black/white” thing.
You’re right, if you approach the scenario from the perspective that gay people chose their lifestyle, it’s a bad exercise. And I think that’s the biggest disconnect we have. If we were talking about something that was a choice, like say… facial piercings, dress code, or party affiliation, I would be more sympathetic to the fire chief.
Jack may disagree with adding party affiliation to the list, unless I’m over generalizing his stance on when people change their market behavior towards a customer based on their politics.
I was trying to go for diversity. I think if he wrote the book “Liberals are Idiots” we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but I wonder if the ethics are much different.
The man works for a Fire and Rescue Department and has bad judgement. That is the big picture. A member of a Fire and Rescue Department or Team should be able to make appropriate split second decisions with insight as to the many varied results that any particular decision can have. And make these decisions in very stressful, life threatening situations. This guy is a Chief and didn’t have the insight to see this coming? Training helps but sometimes you either got it or you don’t. Is this one of those jobs where it is extraordinarily hard to fire someone for incompetence?
I am sympathetic to this analysis, and couldn’t refute it.
One of the key issues, to me, is the distinction of the behavior versus the person. While I may feel many things about a certain act I shouldn’t transfer those feelings to the person.
For example as a teacher I love each of my students, but I don’t love the way they behave sometimes. Conversely I may be very angered or disgusted by something a student does, but that does not mean that I now hate that student.
It’s too easy and it obscures the fine points of teaching, parenting, leading, supervising to assume that a feeling about a behavior equals the same feeling toward the person.
I know Jack does not agree with my position on gay marriage (he may even be disgusted by it), but I don’t believe he hates me or is unfair to me because of it.
I didn’t catch him saying any “class of people” were filthy. I see him calling a set of behaviors (including a lot of heterosexual behavior) as “filthy”…behavior that is generally private.
I think lots of people’s behavior is filthy. When co-workers of mine want to share with me which female peers they would “do”, I find that filthy and immoral, too. If I were punished for making my standards known, it might likely be a violation of my rights. If I were punished because I was annoying people by constantly sharing my opinions, that might be acceptable, depending on the punishment. A warning would probably suffice.
If I were fired because my opinions are out in the open, after I had ceased bothering people with them, there would be zero justification. Lots of people find lots of other people’s lifestyles abhorrent. If it can’t be proven that they have materially discriminated against anyone, then that’s nothing more than thought police.
Yes, I’d call that Clintonizing. He called gays filthy, among other things. You can’t spin it. That’s what he believes, and that’s fine. It’s just that it hard to work for some who has stated in public that he regards people like you as filthy.
Chief Cochran regards certain behaviors as filthy. That is his right. As far as we know he does not regard people as filthy. He said it’s defiling the body (as his religious beliefs confirm), not that it makes the person themselves filthy. It makes a person a certain kind of sinner. Everyone has sin. That doesn’t mean we hate them.
That is not hate, it’s recognition of the facts of being human. We are imperfect, we want to be more perfect, so we recognize it and work to correct it. Is it better to ignore it or blindly endorse behaviors we know are harmful. You work to correct ethical misbehavior because you want the world to be better. That involves mentioning behaviors you think need to be addressed. I don’t think you hate me just because you don’t like some of the things I do or even things I believe.
He compared the morality of “gay” to pedophilia and bestiality. There is a lot of room between “I think anal is gross, it’s a sin, and I don’t like it” and “Who you are and what you do makes you morally similar to a pedophile.”
I liken it to saying something like: “Well, Christianity IS an Abrahamic faith, and so is Islam, and they have suicide bombers! So being a Christian makes you morally similar to a suicide bomber.” It’s stupid logic. And normally you are better than that.
He also compared “multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate” behaviors to pedophlua and bestiality. He’s condemning all of the sins of sexual promiscuity.
Your point? Calling swingers pederasts too doesn’t make his statement more acceptable, just more unintelligent.
In fact, it makes the statement utterly relevant.
I wrote an absolute novel in response to this. And then I thought, no…. It’s inappropriate to do that on this site. It has nothing to do with the topic, and won’t accomplish a thing. I would love to have coffee with you sometime. I really would. I think it’s easy to stand on top of a moral molehill and make blanket statements to faceless entities. If you’re ever around Winnipeg, I’ll buy you a Timmies.
But on the topic of this thread. Your belief that the idea that clumping all perceived sexual deviancy into one group is EXACTLY why this was the right decision. If you are willing to treat a swinger, a gay person, or anyone else who fits into your very broad definition of sexual deviant the same way you would treat a pedophile, I don’t think you can properly manage a workforce that includes those people, or be trusted to provide good and proper service for them. I think it’s a per se case of workplace harassment and a possible conflict of interest.
There are degrees of deviancy, Humble. A swinger is an unabashed adulterer who, by his actions, proves that a vow of fidelity means nothing to him. A homosexual is one who can’t come to terms with his own manifest sexual existence and lives a terrible, sordid fantasy about being something else. This is insanity. A child predator is the worst of them all, for he breaks the ultimate natural taboo against the most helpless and innocent members of our species. All are, by their nature, unfit for human society and a danger to it, besides.
Managing a workforce that includes “those people” need not be a challenge at all. People are people, it’s not necessary to know their sexual history to manage them, and it’s completely possible to manage people even knowing that many of them are practicing behaviors that you find disgusting. You manage people not their private behaviors. People have a job to do and as long as they do the job competently whatever feelings you have about their private behavior are irrelevant.
I sometimes think it’s the people who cry bigot or hater the most loudly are the ones who might have a hard time being fair to people who hold different beliefs. They can’t imagine that you can have a strongly held belief and not be in-your-face or quietly unfair about it.
Well, you can be, and Christian people are far more likely to be kind to everyone than social ideologues.
My point is that people who are afflicted with perversity problems are inherently unstable.. Sooner or later, these tendencies will manifest themselves in ways that are disruptive- at best. Good character matters.
The world must be an awfully scary place for you, SMP.
HT, Foul.
If one has a sincere belief in a God, and believes that God has laid out an incredibly high standard of living, and sincerely believes that, in addition to governing interactions between individuals, the laid-out standard of living is partially designed for the health of the individual themselves, then it is reasonable to expect them to condemn private behavior of individuals in violation of the high standard, FROM THAT PREMISE. It doesn’t mean “the world is a scary place” is a premise from which they reach this conclusion.
Cheap shot.
Is it really though? If you believe in God, and he’s set downa high standard of living, and that standard of living by definition makes you a more miserable human being, is it really foul to call them out on it? SMP is talking like gay people are ticking time bombs laying in wait to utterly destroy society. It’s fearful. Irrationally so. And if he genuinely believes it, I pity him. Genuine belief doesn’t make it less crippling.
Continued Below
Sorry, that was poorly written: “Your point? Calling swingers morally similar pederasts as well as gay people doesn’t make his statement more acceptable, just more unintelligent.
In what way?
It takes into account the many ways that people can abuse their sexuality. It allows that all of them are problems and create problems for people themselves and others around them. It makes the point that we are all subject to behaviors that deviate from the ideal. It says that the ideal is an ideal for a reason. It prevents harm to society. Think of all the ways sexual activity outside of the Christian ideal causes harm to society. That is the point.
It’s called “perversion”, Humble. Different branches, perhaps, but off the same tree with the same roots. And no, Christianity and Islam are not related. Islam is the invention of a neurotic camel driver with delusions of grandeur. The Jewish and Christian leaders of the day saw this and thereby rejected his “prophecy”.
Jack’s analysis is right I think, but I can’t help thinking about the Naked Teacher Principle (stay with me for a moment) with regard to #3. What if he didn’t hand out the book to his co-workers, but they found out about it anyway? What if there were LGBT people on staff? What if everybody starting talking about and then doubting his judgment and not wanting to work with him? Does this constitute such a major character flaw (like posing nude while teaching third graders) that he has to be fired? If we’re going down this road, then I find this very troubling — absent a contractual clause forbidding him from writing on anything that might interfere with his job or cast a negative light on the Department. (I am subject to a similar clause.)
Again, I think Jack is right here, I just can’t help thinking about applying it to the next step.
I was wondering.
would distributing copies of Last Rites put the Department in a bad light? Or writing a book critical of Scientology?
Cast the department in a bad light? Absolutely. It would be inappropriate because it alienates people, regardless of who those people are, and has absolutely nothing to do with firefighting.
I’d like to know more about the circumstances under which he was distributing the book. Did he give a few copies to his buddies, and one of them happened to fall into less sympathetic hands? Or was he going up to his subordinates, regardless of preexisting relationship, and pressuring them into taking this book he wrote? Offering copies of his own book is a lot more heavy-handed even than distributing tracts in a pushy manner – if you say no, however politely, you’re not just professing a lack of interest in religious propaganda, you’re spurning something this very man (who happens to be your boss) put a lot of time and effort and personal feeling into. If Cochran distributed the book privately among people he knew would be interested, I don’t have a problem with that even if some of them happen to be his subordinates at work. If he didn’t take it upon himself to distribute the book, but simply mentioned that he’d written one, and some of his subordinates expressed an interest in reading it without knowing its contents, I would say he’d been unwise, but not guilty of a firable offense. If he was handing out copies of the book on his own initiative, however, that’s grossly inappropriate. I’d be interested to know, incidentally, how public he had been about his beliefs and opinions before this happened – has he been walking around spewing twisted religious nastiness all this time, or has he always managed to behave like a professional up to this point?
RE:
Steven Mark Pilling
November 27, 2014 at 9:15 pm
I’m sorry my reply was intended for
Humble Talent at:
November 27, 2014 at 12:49 pm
I do agree with your point Steven about unstablility. Good character does matter. When bad character appears in a workplace situation that is the time to address the specific behavior that impacts work performance. Knowing the sexual proclivities of those you work with is not necessary and shouldn’t come into the discussion unless that is the situation that’s causing the problem. The same goes for religious beliefs.
I’m trying to say that Chief Cochran’s beliefs about sexual sin have no bearing on his ability to lead his department.
I assumed that Granny! Sorry I’ve been out of the loop for a while. It’s getting ever harder to keep up with things online due to all these other demands on my time.
“Is it really though?”
Yes. You asserted that SMP holds these beliefs out of fear of the world. I posited that perhaps it has nothing to do with fear of the world at all, and my assertion is more likely to be the case.
“If you believe in God, and he’s set downa high standard of living, and that standard of living by definition makes you a more miserable human being, is it really foul to call them out on it?”
1) Flag on the play, moving the goal-posts…are you judging Ol’ SMP’s ideas because he’s scared of the world or because you think he’s a more miserable person?
2) If you have decided to settle on “miserable person”, who are you to decide what makes him miserable or not?
“SMP is talking like gay people are ticking time bombs laying in wait to utterly destroy society. It’s fearful. “
He’s actually talking about them based on a premise that they are not born that way, but are the result of years of childhood mental breaking. Attack that premise and prove him wrong. Because IF his premise were correct, then his conclusion is a valid one.
“Irrationally so. And if he genuinely believes it, I pity him. Genuine belief doesn’t make it less crippling.”
Irrelevant to your assessment that his conclusion is derived from fear of the world or being more miserable. Again, attack his premise, maybe you’ll convince him.
“Yes. You asserted that SMP holds these beliefs out of fear of the world. I posited that perhaps it has nothing to do with fear of the world at all, and my assertion is more likely to be the case.”
“What SMP said: “A homosexual is one who can’t come to terms with his own manifest sexual existence and lives a terrible, sordid fantasy about being something else. …. All are, by their nature, unfit for human society and a danger to it, besides.” And “My point is that people who are afflicted with perversity problems are inherently unstable.. Sooner or later, these tendencies will manifest themselves in ways that are disruptive- at best.”
“What I said: “The world must be an awfully scary place for you, SMP.” And to explain myself further “Is it really though? If you believe in God, and he’s set [down a] high standard of living, and that standard of living by definition makes you a more miserable human being, is it really foul to call them out on it? SMP is talking like gay people are ticking time bombs [lying] in wait to utterly destroy society. It’s fearful. Irrationally so. And if he genuinely believes it, I pity him. Genuine belief doesn’t make it less crippling.”
I’m not sure I understand what you’re suggesting I said. I did not assert that SMP holds those beliefs because he fears the world, I assert that he fears the world because of those beliefs, and that fear is both irrational and damaging. That his beliefs are genuine I have no doubt, but if I believed genuinely that the Taliban was operating out of my closet, and I was afraid of bombs under my pillow, that fear is still irrational and damaging. Bigotry is irrational and damaging. Usually I say gay-bigots aren’t homophobic, they aren’t afraid, they’re just assholes, the way SMP writes conveys real fear. Regardless of what he genuinely believes, homosexuality is not a choice, and the gay community isn’t a time bomb that will destroy society. I stand by what I said.
“1) Flag on the play, moving the goal-posts…are you judging Ol’ SMP’s ideas because he’s scared of the world or because you think he’s a more miserable person?
2) If you have decided to settle on “miserable person”, who are you to decide what makes him miserable or not?”
I don’t see that the two are mutually exclusive. Both? Either? Is there a substantial difference between “Your beliefs cause you to be more miserable” “your beliefs cause you to be more fearful”? My point is that his beliefs regarding this topic in particular, make his world a worse place. Fear would make me pretty miserable. I’ll accept the flag and stick with fear. He admits his fear. “by their nature, unfit for human society and a danger to it” “Sooner or later, these tendencies will manifest themselves in ways that are disruptive- at best.” Neither of those statements are based in fact, and both predict a measure of negative consequence.
“He’s actually talking about them based on a premise that they are not born that way, but are the result of years of childhood mental breaking. Attack that premise and prove him wrong. Because IF his premise were correct, then his conclusion is a valid one.”
I think statements of fact require proof and you’re asking me to prove a negative. I also don’t see where he said what you say he said. It’s hard to argue a premise that isn’t presented. What? What behavior specifically, what kind of childhood trauma, does SMP think leads to homosexuality? Regardless, there is no evidence of causation between childhood stressors and homosexuality. You can’t say “something” happened when they were a kid made them this way. This is admittedly weak, but I’d point out that homosexuality hits all socio-economic levels and all cultures at a similar rate, the idea that poor Asian farmers and upper crust Texan oil Tycoons would subject their children to the same abuse at the same rates staggers credulity.
And in the very article you, Tex, linked to earlier, homosexuality in relatively common in the animal kingdom, the highest number was 14% same sex female pairings for birds. Are birds twice as abused as sheep? Isn’t animal behavior the definition of ‘occurring in nature’?
“Irrelevant to your assessment that his conclusion is derived from fear of the world or being more miserable. Again, attack his premise, maybe you’ll convince him.”
Again, I don’t believe that his fear causes his beliefs, I think his beliefs cause his fear. Nothing he has said is more substantial than an opinion. There aren’t statistics, proof, science, hell… he doesn’t even try for anecdote. I don’t think I can convince him with reason or logic. His argument isn’t based in either. I can’t argue from the perspective of scripture, I accept he knows it better than I do, and for all I know it completely backs him up. I realize that this is probably a completely useless discussion, but I’ll be damned if I let his garbage go unanswered.
Well, you aint gonna get anywhere if you don’t go after his premises. So you are dooming this to be a completely useless discussion.
By the way, I don’t go for “animal kingdom does it” arguments either. So that’s a moot angle. Should women kill their mates after copulation? Maybe so, some creatures do that… especially since the funny thing about those animal kingdom homosexuality arguments is the studies were mostly done on same sex pairs in isolation, once an opposite sex was introduced the same sex romance often ended with a quickness.
“Regardless of what he genuinely believes, homosexuality is not a choice, and the gay community isn’t a time bomb that will destroy society.”
“is not a choice” is the bit from which his hang up derives.
I disagree that your disagreement renders anything a moot angle. And I think that comparing a genus of insect to a mammal shows a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. There isn’t a single example of sexual cannibalism in a species with less than six legs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior has a list of the 217 species of mammals that have displayed homosexual behavior. Moot angle. I can’t believe you said that. Add to that 148 kinds of birds, 17 kinds of fish, 28 reptiles, 4 amphibians and 58 kinds of insects. But no, that’s not a trend, some insects eat their mates. There’s a lot of diversity out there, but when 472 distinct species of animals have been seen to exhibit behavior, I think we’re past the point of arguing if something is natural.
/end science rage
As for SMP, I’d go after his premise if I knew what it was. “Gay people are bad, so bad they’re a perversion, like commies and A-rabs because…” And that’s where he kinda peters off. He has no premise. No reason. He has dogma. I think you’re giving his argument legitimacy it doesn’t deserve by suggesting he might have a premise.
I think that his ‘hang up’ on homosexuality being a choice is a great example of dogmatic thinking. Here we have a group where homosexuality is vile, perverse, not only wrong but physically disgusting. If everyone was wired the same way, if homosexuality WAS a choice… Why on earth would anyone ever make that choice? “I’m going to do something repugnant and gross so I can belong to a group that is discriminated against to the point of death in some places. I woke up this morning and chose to act a way that will lead my family to disown me, I’ll be the butt of sexual jokes in the coffee room and if my boss finds out, in about half of the United States, I’ll have no recourse when he fires me.”
Because that makes sense.
It’s dogma. Of course it is. I didn’t even think that was in dispute. Is it?
Nope.
What you don’t get is I don’t care how taxonomically close a species is to us. You see, Jack has a basic rule that goes roughly like this- “I don’t care if the Norweigans have managed to get socialized medicine to work, they aren’t us and they have a whole separate value system that is upside down”. It’s a good rule of thumb and I agree with it. Now, if we don’t see “well they do it also” as a valid rationalization when the difference is merely an international border, why would the same rationalization work if you say “well, the Yellowbilled Addlepated Blithertweet does it also”?
You don’t strike me as a quixotic type who prefers walking through walls instead of doors, but maybe in this instance chasing the wind is your preference. But, feel free to double down on not going after SMP’s premise. By all means.
Again. Fundamental misunderstanding of biology. I’m trying to decide if you’re trolling. “I’m going to disregard general scientific knowledge because Norway does healthcare differently, and some insects eat their mates.”
There is a difference between an artificial human construct and something found throughout nature. Sex is natural, the vast majority of the animal kingdom, of which we are a part of, does it, artificial insemination is not, we are the only species that does that. Breastfeeding is natural, it is one of the requirements to be considered a mammal, bottle-feeding is not, we are the only species that does that. Homosexuality is natural, there are actually 1500 species that have been observed to have homosexual behavior, even if only 500 of those are common. It’s not a blip. I wouldn’t use a single type of bird or mantis to make my point, especially if the behavior was never observed in a mammal, and in particular a simian.
I’m trying to decide if you’re trolling. “I’m going to disregard general scientific knowledge, the entire work of Darwin, and what is obvious because Norway does healthcare differently, and some insects eat their mates.”
But if you weren’t willing to accept science, I’ll present from a Sociological standpoint and bring up prevalence. I was going to use the word ‘nothing’, but that’s absolute, and there might be some odd exception I can’t think of, but in an overwhelming majority of the time things that aren’t naturally decided don’t effect the rich and poor, the different races, and different cultures in equal measure. The entire world doesn’t abuse 8% of it’s children in a special gay-making way. And again, I think it’s a statement of fact to say that they do, and I shouldn’t need to prove a negative.
I fail at editing.
“I’m trying to decide if you’re trolling.”
You can save your stock response you always pull on people when they hold the line against you for those who have been here for a week or less. Sorry, yet another cheap shot by you, and it doesn’t stick. My record here is solid.
“I’m going to disregard general scientific knowledge because Norway does healthcare differently, and some insects eat their mates.”
I know you are not juvenile, nor are you not unintelligent, even you are trying to damnedest to pretend to be. You know full well no logical system of human ethics can derive from the behavior of the other animals. Hell, how many species engage in ritualized rape for procreation – or even actual rape? There’s some…and by your logic that can validate the behavior in humans. No, see, what you don’t realize, because you’ve got some hefty tunnel vision right now, is I call out faulty logic on my own side of any argument as much as the other side. That’s what I’m doing here, for you. No, we don’t validate human conduct because other animals do it, and yes, it is completely fair to use the same test we apply to other cultures if we feel their value system is grossly inappropriate to ours. Homosexuality OR homosexual behavior either IS or IS NOT valid on HUMAN terms only. So advancing the argument “well the animals do it also” is not valid. Now, moving on, hopefully your blinders are removed. This is alot like in the drug legalization argument, back in the day when I was hard-core libertarian about it and used every logical argument to push the legalization side of the argument, one of my fellows thought he could bolster the defense by saying “may as well legalize it, people are doing it anyway”. Our “side” was shocked when I immediately tore into his statement based on its lack of reason.
“There is a difference between an artificial human construct and something found throughout nature.”
Nonsense. Everything we do is quite natural, just because the complexity of what we do far surpasses the other animals (attributed to some really awesome advancements like opposable thumbs, frontal lobes, speech and a few other select advancements) doesn’t mean it isn’t natural. I’d see humans coming together and deciding on a system of handling medical issues to be quite natural. The comparison holds.
Sex is natural, the vast majority of the animal kingdom, of which we are a part of, does it, artificial insemination is not, we are the only species that does that. Breastfeeding is natural, it is one of the requirements to be considered a mammal, bottle-feeding is not, we are the only species that does that. Homosexuality is natural, there are actually 1500 species that have been observed to have homosexual behavior, even if only 500 of those are common. It’s not a blip. I wouldn’t use a single type of bird or mantis to make my point, especially if the behavior was never observed in a mammal, and in particular a simian.”
No need to re-debunk this, it’s already been handled. We don’t derive our ethics from the animals.
“But if you weren’t willing to accept science, I’ll present from a Sociological standpoint and bring up prevalence.”
translation…“hey dummy, if you don’t want to think along my enlightened methodology of science, let me present you a position from science.”
Wow… that was good.
“The entire world doesn’t abuse 8% of it’s children in a special gay-making way.”
Good, present that to SMP, because that undermines his premise. Which leads to:
“And I’ll fully admit that I’ve been here less time than you have, but I have been here over a year now, and I’ve seen his views. What I haven’t seen is a statement of fact with attached logic or reasoning, or the premise you are alluding to. And I think it’s up to him to present that”
Which he did. You even linked to it, here. So, I’d assume you do know what premise he derives his argument from.
“and not up to you to do it for him, unless you want to own that train of thought as well.”
False test and I assume a joke, because it’s illogical as well. No where have I defended his argument and in no way does my attack on your unwillingness to actual engage his argument imply I’m defending his argument. Come now. Let’s be serious, please.
(If you were serious, then I don’t think I need to inform you that you are subtly trying to set up a well-poisoning or some other odd ad hominem. It won’t fly.)
“Arguing like this is like sword fighting a fart, nothing sticks because the other guy isn’t actually there.”
Yeah…ok…
mark up fail.
“The entire world doesn’t abuse 8% of it’s children in a special gay-making way.”
Which to be clear needs considerable exposition on your part, because the counter to this is:
“Of course the entire world doesn’t, only 8% of the world has managed to fuddle things up enough to seriously “break” those kids into deviancy and perversion.”
You see, growing up, my friends who were gay almost consistently came from broken households or homes where strong father figures were completely absent or where fathers were unpleasantly overbearing (possibly abusive). So, my young mind naturally made the connection – gee, these gay guys just lack good fathers and naturally gravitate towards the behavior of their mothers.
You can see that that is an easy connection to make until one gets a much larger exposure or actually does some reading on the topic.
All the way down.
Does this reply have multiple links awaiting approval or are you merely directing my eyes to your linking to SMP’s comment?
Just populated.
And by the way, he has yet to say “because Gawd sez so”, and his verbiage continues to support the notion that homosexuals have either chosen the orientation or it was thrust upon them through some negative psychological conditioning. That’s why I know there is more premise to his argument than just religion. (Plus I’ve had the benefit of seeing his arguments on this topic here for about 2 or 3 years now).
I challenge you to quote where I said that he had.
And I’ll fully admit that I’ve been here less time than you have, but I have been here over a year now, and I’ve seen his views. What I haven’t seen is a statement of fact with attached logic or reasoning, or the premise you are alluding to. And I think it’s up to him to present that, and not up to you to do it for him, unless you want to own that train of thought as well. Arguing like this is like sword fighting a fart, nothing sticks because the other guy isn’t actually there.
Consolidated here
And by the way… Talking about moving the goalposts. I’m just saying.
Demonstrate or it didn’t happen.
You`re right…. Goalposts weren`t moved, they were ignored and driven around. It felt like moving goalposts, but what it actually was was just a massive redirection.
Safe to assume you won’t demonstrate this stab in the dark claim, either.
You took an 800 word comment I made, on the topics that we had been commenting on, did not comment on the actual content of those issues, and instead focused in on 40 words that were almost throwaway. You called me out on SMP’s fear, on moving goalposts, I called you out on asking me to prove a negative, and pointed out that the ridiculousness of the child abuse angle, I used the article you linked to, and I pointed out that SMP’s arguments aren’t rooted in facts. The only thing you actually answered at the time was that you didn’t put much stock in the information that was in the article that you yourself provided. You pointed out that SMP thinks homosexuality is a choice, and asked me to attack his premise. Which I had actually done. His premise requires homosexuality to be a choice. I wrote two paragraphs on why I think that’s logically retarded. Did you even read it?
I’m just saying. Sure, you didn’t move the goalposts… But you didn’t answer a single thing from earlier either.
This is nonsense.
Definitively not an 800 word comment.
It looked to me like you moved goalposts, but that was a side topic anyway. The rest of the discussion grew from other bits. Maybe you weren’t moving the goalposts.
I don’t recall asking you to prove a negative at any point.
Pointing out ridiculousness of child-abuse isn’t enough, because child abuse or other extremely negative nurturing conditions in some instances DO lead to unhealthy adults with anti-social tendencies. One must disabuse SMP of the belief that all homosexuals are in that group. That’s the burden.
Spiffy about using the article I linked to, in which the animal bit is irrelevant, but the gestational hormones are key.
And yes, I did advise you to attack his premise, which no, you hadn’t at all, you even claimed he never asserted such as a premise while linking in a different subthread a bit that he did clearly state the premise. I think you are really confused here.
Please direct me to the 2 paragraphs where you did attack the premise…and no, not the ones after you were called out on it and responded with a subsequently debunked “hey the animals do it” rationalization.
“Sure, you didn’t move the goalposts… But you didn’t answer a single thing from earlier either.”
Drivel.
Well…. First off, the 852 word comment was the one made on December 1, 2014 at 5:59 pm, I don’t know the codes to link comments, but it’s both the comment immediately before the comment you made that I said you’d moved the goalposts on. I get that this thread is messy…. But come on, the comment you linked to didn’t include ANYTHING I was talking about.
Please direct me to the 2 paragraphs where you did attack the premise…and no, not the ones after you were called out on it and responded with a subsequently debunked “hey the animals do it” rationalization.
This wasn’t a linear conversation, so you need to look at timestamps. The comment I referred to happened before you ‘debunked’ anything. And I still think that you didn’t ‘debunk’ anything. Started with “I think statements of fact require proof and you’re asking me to prove a negative” and ended with “Occurring in nature” we’ve since rediscused the points.
I don’t recall asking you to prove a negative at any point…… One must disabuse SMP of the belief that all homosexuals are in that group. That’s the burden.
That’s asking me to prove a negative. SMP is saying homosexuals as a whole are in that group. I’m saying there isn’t any evidence of that, or if there is, he hasn’t presented it. He needs to prove his premise. It’s like saying Jesus is camped out on the moon. You need to prove it first, and asking me to prove Jesus is not camped out on the moon, while technically possible, is an exceedingly difficult burden to place on someone, especially when your premise is unproven.
Yep, definitely convoluted, but you were called out BEFORE the 5:59 post. The comment I linked was your comment, so it naturally included something you talked about. And no, I’m not asking you to prove that 8% of the world doesn’t abuse their kids in psychologically debilitating manner. I have, clearly, advised that you should direct SMP and those like him to the studies that indicate homosexuality is more likely the result of gestational hormones, which places it out of control of the individual who is homosexual. The reason I haven’t asked you to disprove his abuse claim, is because, wait for it, as mature thinking adults, I think we can accept that yes, perhaps SOME homosexuals ARE the result of mental breaking as children…just like some heterosexual adults are the result of mental breaking as children…just like some criminals are the result of mental breaking as children…just like some OF EVERYTHING is the result of being broken.
The burden is showing that the vast majority ARE NOT the result of that, but merely were born with that orientation…
“The burden is showing that the vast majority ARE NOT the result of that, but merely were born with that orientation”
Still no. Your clue that this is asking me to prove a negative is asking me to show something that IS NOT. The burden on proof for statements of fact is on the person making that statement, until you or SMP proves that ANY homosexuality is the product of abuse, I don’t need to disprove it, I just need to point out that opinions are not fact.
Again, I haven’t asked you disprove that. Keep beating that dead horse though, it’s only embarrassing you. I’ve only advised you to point him in the direction that shows most homosexuality is the result of in-the-womb development, and therefore not a personal choice or result of upbringing. That isn’t “proving a negative”.
But I’m sure you’ll say it again.
It seems that your own fear and “garbage” were on full display when you wrote this. I made the plain, self-evident statement that a sexual deviant is inherently of unstable mentality. You’d think I had called down a legion of angels on you! When your closely held ideology compels you to react with such violence (yours, not mine) in such a manner, maybe it’s time you took a long hard look at yourself. I’m sorry I had to let all this go by and am just now rediscovering it. You must live in an awful scary world, Humble!
“Gay people are bad, so bad they’re a perversion, like commies and A-rabs because…”
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
It was in a previous thread, he said that homosexuals, liberals and Muslims were natural allies in their efforts against…. actually I’m not sure, it was either Christianity, or America or Everything Good. I can find the post if you really don’t believe me.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2014/11/09/stop-labeling-the-sixth-circuits-approval-of-gay-marriage-bans-as-right-wing/
Steven Mark Pilling
November 10, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“And how have I described “gays”, Jack, except in terms of hard realism? It was their ultimate choice to become what they are and to make of themselves a burden and danger to decent people everywhere. I could say exactly the same for communists (and their ilk) and Islamists. In fact, I often do. And I’ve pointed out WHY. My outlook and attitudes towards these perversions of the human spirit (and all three are… which is why the remain de facto political allies) are not based on the oft referenced “biases”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, etc., but on plain, self-evident truth. If that offends, then offend it must. BTW: I had nothing against Humble Talent until he started throwing the “f” word at me from right out of the blue. Again; his choice.”
I’m going to leave out a whole lot, I think some of it was getting more personal than it needed to be, if you want me to address anything I didn’t I will.
I know you are not juvenile, nor are you not unintelligent, even you are trying to damnedest to pretend to be. You know full well no logical system of human ethics can derive from the behavior of the other animals. Hell, how many species engage in ritualized rape for procreation – or even actual rape? There’s some…and by your logic that can validate the behavior in humans. No, see, what you don’t realize, because you’ve got some hefty tunnel vision right now, is I call out faulty logic on my own side of any argument as much as the other side. That’s what I’m doing here, for you. No, we don’t validate human conduct because other animals do it, and yes, it is completely fair to use the same test we apply to other cultures if we feel their value system is grossly inappropriate to ours. Homosexuality OR homosexual behavior either IS or IS NOT valid on HUMAN terms only. So advancing the argument “well the animals do it also” is not valid.
I did not say that a logical system of ethics can be found from studying animal behavior. What I said was that homosexuality is a natural behavior from the point of occurring in nature. Whether a natural behavior is good or bad, ethical or unethical, it is hardwired, and not a choice. The logical train after that is that there are many things that we are instinctively driven to that we should overcome, obviously, but in order for that to apply, you need to demonstrate that behavior is damaging. SMP has not done that.
Nonsense. Everything we do is quite natural, just because the complexity of what we do far surpasses the other animals (attributed to some really awesome advancements like opposable thumbs, frontal lobes, speech and a few other select advancements) doesn’t mean it isn’t natural. I’d see humans coming together and deciding on a system of handling medical issues to be quite natural. The comparison holds.
I think “Everything we do is natural, because we are a part of nature.” Is perhaps literally true, but not the way the term is used, and impractical. Labels are only useful as long as they convey meaning. If you include all the by-products of humanity into the “natural” label, nature loses all meaning. What ISN’T natural? It’s like organic… What meat isn’t organic? At the end of the day, if we disagree on that point, it’s a disagreement of definition, and not of substance.
No need to re-debunk this, it’s already been handled. We don’t derive our ethics from the animals.
This is a continuation of the definition problem, and your idea that I said that natural = ethical. I’m going to expand a little, even though you’re right, we’ve covered some of this. My train of thought is that nature basically excludes man made constructs. You can disagree with that, but for the sake of argument, it’s a reference. My point isn’t that we derive ethics from animals. In fact, I think that animals are ethics free. There isn’t evidence that they reason, and very few are self-aware, never mind aware of the greater implications of their actions on a large scale. That said, they are also free from man-made societal pressures and social constructs, they act on instinct. If an animal displays homosexual behavior, it isn’t because it is a communist, Islamic, sexual deviant; there is a biological imperative in play. That isn’t to say that all biological imperatives are per se “good”, just that they are in fact biological imperatives. Once we get over that, we decide on whether biological imperatives are ethical or not. Rape? Obviously not. Dominance fighting? No. Theft? Also no. Breastfeeding? Yes! Homosexuality? Well, SMP thinks not. I think that he needs to prove damage. Even if we approached this as being a choice, the burden of proof that this is going to put a burden on society is on him. I will attempt to debunk any point of fact he makes, but I am done proving negatives.
Which he did. You even linked to it, here. So, I’d assume you do know what premise he derives his argument from.
Broken link, but the only link I made was to the September 11th post, do I assume it’s from there. If that’s right, and if he made a statement of fact with attached logic and reasoning, you’re going to have to point it out to me, because I don’t see it. What SMP does, in my experience is make statements of fact that end in faith. “Gay people put a burden on society” How? “Homosexuality is a perversion” Why? Every single claim I have ever seen him write on this subject requires citation, and part of the reason I feel like you’re defending him is because you’re letting his comments go unmolested, especially in comparison to mine. I’m going to choose to feel honored that you’re holding me to a higher level of scrutiny, because you feel I can take the challenge.
Since you still subscribe to the “they do it too” rationalization, let’s hit it from a different angle, especially since you clearly indicate that identifying behavior as natural is a first step to determining ethics but not a defining step. This too is faulty. There is simply no reason to use that step:
1) As I’ve mentioned, plenty of “natural” conduct when applied to human communities IS Unethical.
2) Plenty of ethical conduct/attitudes that we have determined fit our human values, would NOT pass the “natural” test – homosexuality which should be viewed as ethically neutral, it is neither ethical or unethical, and homosexual behaviors, which are either unethical (as SMP would posit) or ethically neutral (as you or I would posit) may pass the “natural” test, but conduct such as skydiving (ethically neutral) or rushing to the aid of some stranger fallen on a railroad track (definitively ethical) BOTH fail the “natural” test.
If we can find conduct that not only fails later ethics tests after passing the “is it natural” test AND we can find conduct that fails the “is it natural” test WHILE subsequently going on to pass later ethics tests, then your “is it natural” test is irrelevant. This is the root problem of the “well they do it too” rationalization.
As for letting his comments go unmolested, that is a distinct error. He’s yet to respond to my comments where I did decisively cut at his premise. And I’m haven’t held your comments to a higher level of scrutiny, but I’m not going to let my side make fallacious arguments, the “higher level of scrutiny” is merely because you keep pretending that “they do it too” is a logical justification for conduct. It still isn’t.
Must have missed the reply button…. Below.
I’m frustrated with this. I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying. If we’re going to continue on this, I’m going to bold things I need you to address.
“Since you still subscribe to the “they do it too” rationalization, let’s hit it from a different angle, especially since you clearly indicate that identifying behavior as natural is a first step to determining ethics but not a defining step. This too is faulty. There is simply no reason to use that step:”
I did not say that the natural test is the first step in deciding ethics. I said it was to determine whether something was a natural biological imperative, and therefore not a choice. This wasn’t to determine ethics, it was to determine causation.
Once causation is determined, which is only relevant to this situation because it refutes SMP’s assertion that homosexuality is a choice, and not deserving of protections we as society offer other innate traitsYou have to look at behaviors, all behaviors, natural or otherwise and determine if those behaviors are ethical or not. And in order to label something unethical, you need to prove that the behavior causes damage.
These are two distinct issues, stop lumping them together.
“1) As I’ve mentioned, plenty of “natural” conduct when applied to human communities IS Unethical.”
We both pointed this out. Several times.
“2) Plenty of ethical conduct/attitudes that we have determined fit our human values, would NOT pass the “natural” test – homosexuality which should be viewed as ethically neutral, it is neither ethical or unethical, and homosexual behaviors, which are either unethical (as SMP would posit) or ethically neutral (as you or I would posit) may pass the “natural” test, but conduct such as skydiving (ethically neutral) or rushing to the aid of some stranger fallen on a railroad track (definitively ethical) BOTH fail the “natural” test.”
Yes! Which is why you have to look at the points on causation separately from the points on ethics. Skydiving and stranger aid are outside of what I defined as natural, that is, a product of societal pressures, and are choices.
“If we can find conduct that not only fails later ethics tests after passing the “is it natural” test AND we can find conduct that fails the “is it natural” test WHILE subsequently going on to pass later ethics tests, then your “is it natural” test is irrelevant. This is the root problem of the “well they do it too” rationalization.”
That was not my test. the last time I commented on this was This is a continuation of the definition problem, and your idea that I said that natural = ethical. I’m going to expand a little, even though you’re right, we’ve covered some of this. My train of thought is that nature basically excludes man made constructs. You can disagree with that, but for the sake of argument, it’s a reference. My point isn’t that we derive ethics from animals. In fact, I think that animals are ethics free. There isn’t evidence that they reason, and very few are self-aware, never mind aware of the greater implications of their actions on a large scale. That said, they are also free from man-made societal pressures and social constructs, they act on instinct. If an animal displays homosexual behavior, it isn’t because it is a communist, Islamic, sexual deviant; there is a biological imperative in play.
I think I was pretty clear.
“because you keep pretending that “they do it too” is a logical justification for conduct. It still isn’t.”
Straw Man. I have never said that natural is ethical. I’ve said the opposite, several times.
I also said:
“That isn’t to say that all biological imperatives are per se “good”, just that they are in fact biological imperatives. Once we get over that, we decide on whether biological imperatives are ethical or not. Rape? Obviously not. Dominance fighting? No. Theft? Also no. Breastfeeding? Yes! Homosexuality? Well, SMP thinks not. I think that he needs to prove damage.”
Which would have fir in nicely before “I think I was pretty clear.”
“I did not say that the natural test is the first step in deciding ethics. I said it was to determine whether something was a natural biological imperative, and therefore not a choice. This wasn’t to determine ethics, it was to determine causation. “
Wait. You aren’t discussing ethics? Then it’s a moot point anyway and bears no relation to deciding whether or not homosexuality is or is not ethical or is simply non-ethical.
However, if it is part of the ultimate ethics formula, as your later verbiage alludes to, then “These are two distinct issues, stop lumping them together” is not accurate, they need to be lumped together.
But, you’ve said you don’t even consider it part of the ethics discussion (which is what we’re here for, so I extended that assumption to your now out of place commentary). Simple. We can drop the whole animal-homosexuality topic altogether…thankfully, it isn’t helpful to our side one bit.
“Straw Man. I have never said that natural is ethical. I’ve said the opposite, several times.”
Double straw man. I never said you said that. Try again. I did say, when I thought you were utilizing “the animals do it” as a first step in ultimately determining ethicality. But since you said you consider it completely unrelated to ethics, I understand the confusion.
” think that he needs to prove damage.””
A test which can be conducted entirely independently of whether or not the conduct in question derives from “biological imperative”. (which ultimately pressed, is an “I couldn’t help myself” rationalization)
Article:
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-agrees-to-12m-settlement-with-former-fire-chief