Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 54 of 54
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The only people talking about it are people trying to mock the idea. Again, I traced the specific quote to a talk show and the claim was made by a critic who is not a student or faculty.

    It's incredibly silly, and simply not very likely real but a greatly exagerated legend banging around the echo chamber of the conservative blogosphere.
    But that isn't true. The link I gave points to it as a triumph and supports it's ends with comparisons to the noble past of feminism and the end of racism.
    Further, it is a damn good legend.

    Here is Brown.edu link speaking of the event .. in relation to their defense of their safe spaces.
    So, if you had any reservations of believing it's truth it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the event occurred as described by basically all those who point it out.
    Denying it at this point would be unfortunate.

    https://www.brown.edu/about/administ...60905-washpost
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    TIf this is what a safe space means, then, yes, Brown has them. Proudly. And even the campuses that decry these spaces have them also. I’m not talking about rooms with Play-Doh and coloring books like one set up by Brown campus organizers specifically as a resource to support survivors of sexual assault in one instance some years ago. There have been many unfortunate mischaracterizations in the media of the intent of that support space as a so-called shield from ideas.

    ---

    So that is the extent of my engagement on this particular point. It is not made up, it is not legend or exaggeration it is apparently something that occurred.
    Now you can continue the conversation you were having, with any corrections to your own position in regards to the truth of this particular claim, which now should be considered by all to be well established by multiple valid sources.

    I would note that there is a name to the story, a specific employee that can be called to verify the event. So the idea that no news paper would have done that simple task to expose this often used story as bunk... well that is just a bad reflection on the media at large either way.

    Anyway, carry on with the corrected "yea that happened and all but my point is valid for XYZ other reasons". I think you still have plenty of field left to play on.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Sorry but I see nothing in there but the same "legend" as in all the other blog posts. The story was written by the president of the university, not some employee who was at the safe space. Especially since that was set up as an alternative to an official university lecture happening at the same time. She's referencing it in an off hand way as something not typical of safe spaces and what they represent. Whether it was actually a room with play dough or not is a matter of hearsay as there is no direct report anywhere about it, only third party references.

    I was attempting to break up the argument as to whether it was satire or not by pointing out what we can learn about it from actual research, and what is just legend after the fact which seems to me to silly to be accurate given the tone of the invitation to the event and the reporting that happened contemporary to the event rather than references made more than a year later.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Puppies and Safe Spaces

    A. our source here for the puppy room is Breitbart, land of ******** and alt-right lameness so I think viewing it wiht some suspission is warranted.
    B. I went and followed their source articles and those articles source articles trying to find any original source of the claim. What I found was nothing. It seems to come from a right-wing pundits off hand description of what he saw on the brown campus. There is no actual reporting with any details about puppy videos. It seems to be just hyperbol from a talk show about polticial corectness on campuses.

    So I don;t think it was sarchasm, I don't think it ever existed. Its likely just a colorful mocking take on the idea of "safe spaces" (which are a real thing). Basically a place students can go to chill out. Kind of worth mocking IMO but to take mocking comments as an example of the reality is like a game of "telephone" where distortion becomes reality.
    That would count as a plausible alternative. silly me, thinking that the right had been caught out with nothing more than hyperbole in the first link they would try for something a little more believable in the next. But then that is only the thinking of people who actually have a real problem and not one that is pretence. And it does appear to be nothing more than exaggeration. One story that is exaggerated has now become the major complaint of the right?
    Last edited by SoylentGreen; December 10th, 2016 at 09:32 AM.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Sorry but I see nothing in there but the same "legend" as in all the other blog posts
    Except that it is a "legend" being told by the President of Brown university and someone who should or would know about the actuality of such an occurrence, and have direct access to those who set it up, or allowed it to be set up.
    To say that president of Brown is propagating a legend about their own school is not very credible and no reasonable person should take such a source and dismiss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The story was written by the president of the university, not some employee who was at the safe space.
    Yes but the NYT piece quoted directly the person who set it up, A KATHERINE BYRON.
    Further So what? Why would it have to be written by someone who was actually present?
    Why is the CEO of the company not a sufficient source for what has or has not occurred at that company?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Especially since that was set up as an alternative to an official university lecture happening at the same time. She's referencing it in an off hand way as something not typical of safe spaces and what they represent. Whether it was actually a room with play dough or not is a matter of hearsay as there is no direct report anywhere about it, only third party references.
    Only this 3rd hand reference is not like the random bloger who may or may not have been there, and who has no apparent connection with those involved.
    Here you have the President of the school. She is referencing it as though it had occurred.

    Now, if you want to forward that the President of Brown university got the event info from a blog, and not from her own first hand knowledge, then you are welcome to show that and thus cast doubt and add support to your assertion of "legend". However, given this source your point is undercut.
    You may continue to think it is just "legend" but that theory is not very reasonable at this point. Given the close source to those involved. Who speaks of it as though it happened, and we can expect that someone in her position would know about it directly either from the one setting it up, or in her capacity as president.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Whether it was actually a room with play dough or not is a matter of hearsay as there is no direct report anywhere about it, only third party references.
    Actually, there is no reason to think that the President of Brown is a hearsay reference. She speaks of it in a mater of fact way and not as one who considered it to be in question as to it's actuality.
    There is no reason to think that the president of Brown was not aware that the space was being set up Or that she did not have first hand knowledge of the person setting it up or allowing it to be set up (so as to ask her directly after the fact.. hey yo.. you had play-doe and puppies? geez what were you thinking).
    I mean, if it were not the President of Brown saying it, would you have accepted it as "first hand" if it had actually been Mr Bryon? (Because she is quoted in the NYT)
    I would like to point out that the Quote from the NYT's was in quotations and quoted people directly involved, and that is a big deal given your assertions of "hearsay".

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Ms. Byron was alarmed. “Bringing in a speaker like that could serve to invalidate people’s experiences,” she told me. It could be “damaging.”
    "she told me" is the writer of the article quoting directly what Byron said to her directly. .. apparently from some sort of interview.

    So to say that is "legend" is to say that the NYT's is making up quotes or quoting people who don't exist. Is that what your forwarding?

    That is a burden on you to support if you want to continue to claim it is "legend".
    However your position is not well supported, and all that you have asked for has been provided.
    First hand accounts(Quotes from NYT), reliable 2rd hand accounts(President who may be first hand but at worst 2nd and a quality on), quality sources of the story (NYT not a blog).

    So, as far as establishing something as having had occurred in actuality all that can be offered has been.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I was attempting to break up the argument as to whether it was satire or not by pointing out what we can learn about it from actual research, and what is just legend after the fact which seems to me to silly to be accurate given the tone of the invitation to the event and the reporting that happened contemporary to the event rather than references made more than a year later.
    Well, you have in the past done some very extensive research and done some very heavy reading on subjects that I never would have had time do myself, and we have been better for it.

    So, with that in mind you must have some information that my quick googling (which I will generously call research) does not take into account.

    So, in your research why should I not believe the President of Brown when they reference an event on their campus as though it occurred (Written September 5, 2016)?
    Why should I take the personal quotes from the NYT (written March 2015) of those at the event and involved as not actually happening? Did the writer get all her info from Blogs? If so she should be fired for malpractice. ... or something. It certainly appears that the NYT spoke to a first hand account (namely the one who set it up).



    As far as I can tell, the reason is "because a bunch of Blogs said it as well". Maybe your research turned up some kind of timeline that is relevant? As a preemptive point, unless the blogs are connected to the sources I gave.. it isn't relevant that it appeared in blogs first or after, or more often and in false contexts.

    Anyway, I currently see no reason in the face of the sources I offered from a quick search on the topic, to dismiss this as "legend" instead of accepting it as a real event.
    Maybe you can explain a little better why we should accept the idea that it is a legend, and thus the NYT invented quotes or plagiarized discredited blogs?

    Personally, I would rather see you make your point without attempting to discredit this event as a "legend", as that point is weak and unnecessary IMO.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    ----
    Back to my exchanges.

    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    And here's where you miss the exact same point entirely, again.
    Sorry, will try harder.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    But you said that "it's not even socially wrong", and you asked someone to show that "it is misbehavior". At the very least, you're asking for some sort of moral value assignment here.
    Yes, that is true.
    I think it is important to note that "socially wrong" is different than "morally wrong" and "misbehavior" is a response to someone else's claim that IMO can't be supported from their world view. (so i don't see my view as being the issue here).

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Given this, I assumed that you needed someone to support the idea that their actions could be rightly assigned the moral value of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, since your position up to the time I posted seemed to be that their actions were morally neutral.
    Yes, I think from the secular position the boys actions were morally neutral and have attempted to show the secular inconsistency of Harvard's actions and how it constitutes a war on boys.
    As this is the standard I assume Harvard was applying, then I am needing someone to support the idea that the boys actions could rightly be assigned the moral value of "wrong" according to the standard that Harvard is applying. Not the Buddist standard, not my personal standard (which in any other thread every atheist will be calling ********, but here seems to become a rock of agreement)

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Given that, would you say that what the Harvard team did was right or wrong? <--------- (Here's the ONLY piece of information I'm looking to get out of this post; one or the other will suffice for now)
    Sure from my world view there is some level of moral wrong that occurred. (I'm accepting the lusting argument).

    So one question. (of Geese and Ganders)
    Which standard was Harvard applying? Secular or Christian?

    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ya, just to be clear MT. This is not primarily about men being lustful. It's about men being highly disrespectful to their fellow college athletes.

    I won't say lust and lasciviousness isn't a factor that motivates outrage, but it's not the justification for the punishment.
    sorry it's been a while so I'm trying to regains some context for the thread.

    The "lusting" issue is the grounds that I recognize the boys actions to be a "moral wrong" according to my world view.
    As this is not Harvards world view, they remain as the ones that must establish the action as a moral wrong (if that is what they are appealing too).


    -----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you have not supported that this is so. As far as I know you have not identified the "social law" that is the basis of the punishment and therefore have no basis to claim that it is rootless and inconsistent (you have to know what it is before you can weigh in on its validity). Not knowing what the root is does not mean that there is no root. And not knowing what the social law is means one cannot accurately say whether it is consistently applied or not or if the law itself in internally consistent.
    I kinda think I have pointed it out. This being a "case in point" sort of example.
    I think the OP was fairly clear on what was going on and how I'm appealing to "war on men" and what arbitrary rules are being applied to them without justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I see no basis to conclude that any moral position is stolen from Christianity. Just because a Christian and a non-Christian hold the same moral viewpoint does not mean that the non-Christian "stole" his viewpoint from Christianity.
    IMO it is exactly the line that DIO is taking. The moral outrage can't be justified apart from God, so my world view is appealed to when it's convenient. I would say lacking a justification, it has no justification, making it arbitrary and an attack on men. You generally seem to demand that I provide their justification, which assumes they have one and that it's valid. On the other hand I don't have to point to one in order to show that On secularism there is no valid justification for the attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then one does not need to appeal to Christianity to hold that what these boys did was wrong. "Soulless liberals" likewise have moral positions (and you have never supported that secular morals are inherently inferior to religious morals) and if one is to say that their positions are immoral or invalid or inferior to non-secular (religious) values, that argument needs to be supported before it will be accepted.

    So I see no supported argument that these boys should not have been punished or that the reasoning for the punishment is invalid and/or inconsistently applied.
    Thank you, I appreciate your opinion on the matter.
    I think I did alright.

    Maybe I could clarify better going forward if I know which point is being attacked as insufficient or lacking.

    ----

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    This is an incredibly misogynistic view. I actually challenge you to prove that it was because of your claim that " lusting" was the cause or the reason for this whole event.
    I'm afraid I did not do what you are saying, nor suggested it.
    It is so far off I see no reason to respond to any of your thoughts on the matter until you are responding to something I actually forwarded.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Personally, I would rather see you make your point without attempting to discredit this event as a "legend", as that point is weak and unnecessary IMO.
    That was my point MT. One party here on ODN was arguing "That safe room was clearly satire" another was arguing "That safe room set up by the dean of the school was a great example of idiocy on campuses today."

    I was curious about it and the answer so I did some digging in the article that was referenced.
    I found that article referenced another article as its source,
    I looked at that article which in turn referenced another earlier article.
    I then looked at that article and it's source was a podcast discussion and they were getting the description from a right wing pundit critical of safe spaces. As far as I could tell, that podcast was the earliest verifiable source of the claim, and the person claiming it didn't claim to have attended the event.

    I then decided I'd try to find the earliest sources about the event and I posted them.
    One was a campus news article posted just a few days after the event, no details about the safe room itself in there.
    The other was the actual facebook invite used to advertise the original event. It mentions the safe room and that there would be counselors there to talk to, as well as some cookies.

    What we can draw as known facts are these....
    1. It was not satire.
    2. It was not done by the dean or any school administration but by a student group
    3. It at least did have cookies there.

    What we don't know for certain
    1. If arts and craft supplies were there
    2. If there was a puppy video playing

    Honestly, who the **** really cares? I'm just saying at this point that the exact contents are hearsay beyond the cookies. The main purpose seemed to be to offer counseling to people concerned about rape. I'd not call that any kind of liberal over reach. And it absolutley is not satire.

    All in all, this was a huge failure. I wanted to stop the bickering about something that seemed pretty dumb and ended up in my own bickering about something dumb. ;P
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  8. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ----


    I'm afraid I did not do what you are saying, nor suggested it.
    It is so far off I see no reason to respond to any of your thoughts on the matter until you are responding to something I actually forwarded.
    By you own words.

    So your original response is sufficient to show that according to my world view the boys actions are "immoral". Indeed any "lusting" is pretty easy to establish as immoral. I would go on to agree with you that such behavior is harmful to our society. This of course begs the question if the response by the school was caused by it, or consistent with it(punishment fitting the crime wise).

    That said, I do not see my personal world view as the "social" standard that exist in america. From a quick viewing of T.V. or any magazine cover, it would be impossible to conclude that our social value is one which holds lusting to be social misbehavior.
    I would say your opening two sentences are trying to establish that lusting is the concern for the schools actions and the perceived harm as well. Yet the greater concern and indeed by even your own argument the only legal action the school could sustain would be damage to their reputation by misrepresentation rather than any claim of lusting which as you say is impossible to conclude that our social value is one which holds lusting to be social misbehavior.

  9. #48
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think it is important to note that "socially wrong" is different than "morally wrong" and "misbehavior" is a response to someone else's claim that IMO can't be supported from their world view. (so i don't see my view as being the issue here).
    If both "socially wrong" and "morally wrong" are different forms of "wrong" (as in "misses the mark" that God has set for us), how can a thing be "socially wrong" without being "morally wrong"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, I think from the secular position...
    I'm going to stop right there, again. You REJECT the secular position. In another thread you said rather sweepingly that a person cannot be critical of what is considered right or wrong unless they "establish a separate existence of justice and it's source" because "from my position [morality] flows from God". So, according to you, no one can ever offer any kind of evaluation of right or wrong unless it's within the Christian framework.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sure from my world view there is some level of moral wrong that occurred.
    "Some level"? What level would that be? Isn't ANY level of "wrong" is enough wrong to send someone to hell?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So one question. (of Geese and Ganders)
    Which standard was Harvard applying? Secular or Christian?
    The better question is, what standard are YOU applying? In the other thread I linked, you deferred completely to your Christian standard of morality - without qualification or argument - and simply rejected any criticism of Christian morals on that basis. But in this thread you seem to be taking a secular view despite the fact that "from [your] position [morality] flows from God". So are you holding to your own standards of morality here, or are you temporarily suspending them so that you can reconcile your belief that Harvard is hypocritical and won't let boys be boys?

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    I would say your opening two sentences are trying to establish that lusting is the concern for the schools actions and the perceived harm as well. Yet the greater concern and indeed by even your own argument the only legal action the school could sustain would be damage to their reputation by misrepresentation rather than any claim of lusting which as you say is impossible to conclude that our social value is one which holds lusting to be social misbehavior.
    No, that is not the context of that response.
    -------------

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I'm going to stop right there, again. You REJECT the secular position. In another thread you said rather sweepingly that a person cannot be critical of what is considered right or wrong unless they "establish a separate existence of justice and it's source" because "from my position [morality] flows from God". So, according to you, no one can ever offer any kind of evaluation of right or wrong unless it's within the Christian framework.
    I understand the possible confusion.
    Theoretically, one could criticize Christianity, if first they were able to establish an alternative and logically valid/consistent standard according to their own world view.
    I don't believe one exists, but it is the burden of one who wishes to criticize from the outside to first establish what they are appealing to. (Yes?)


    The point of both threads (here and my response there) is that you have to have something to stand on. What I generally see is atheists standing on pieces of Christianity in order to attack it, and that is not a valid position to attack from.
    Here specifically, I point out the many inconsistencies and the total inability to address problems in a consistent way. Because after all, "right and wrong" are personal opinion and a majority/might makes right POV.
    There is nothing inherently wrong with boys lusting (from secularism) it is just here arbitrarily attacked all the while the whole society preys those same internal mechanisms of boys to sell every product created by man. That is why their is a woman shaking her boobs on T.V. in order to sell you a hamburger, or a beer or a car, or whatever.

    My case is that is inconsistent, and the whole thing is predatory to men. (I think that point is true on my position, or on atheism).


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    "Some level"? What level would that be? Isn't ANY level of "wrong" is enough wrong to send someone to hell?
    This is a continuation of the above confusion. I hope I have helped clear it up and it is understood why this is not the issue here for harvard.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    The better question is, what standard are YOU applying?
    Here I was apply the secular standard and noting it's inconsistancy, it's hypocarcy, and it's war on boys.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    In the other thread I linked, you deferred completely to your Christian standard of morality - without qualification or argument - and simply rejected any criticism of Christian morals on that basis.
    Yes, and I am being completely consistent with my criticism here.
    The other thread was appealing to something that wasn't established and a standard I don't agree with in order to crisis Christianity.
    Here, I do not appeal to the standard that Harvard and society have rejected (Christianity) rather I appeal to the evidenced standard Society has chosen and that Harvard is appealing to.
    I may have it wrong, and that is open to be shown, but i am trying to apply it's own standard to itself. (something not done in the other thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So are you holding to your own standards of morality here, or are you temporarily suspending them so that you can reconcile your belief that Harvard is hypocritical and won't let boys be boys?
    This is an instance where I am taking up the approach as an atheist world view and attacking the atheistic secular standard being applied to the boys and indefensible.

    It is not in general the POV of my world view.

    Just as a note, this is not the same thing I criticize atheist for stealing from Christianity. (let me know if I need to explain further)


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If both "socially wrong" and "morally wrong" are different forms of "wrong" (as in "misses the mark" that God has set for us), how can a thing be "socially wrong" without being "morally wrong"?
    Morally wrong is a rock of objective standards.
    Socially wrong, is really about social norms and is a misnomer. It is however the language of secularist. It is about social norms, not really. It may or may not reflect actual moral wrongs.

    In general, atheist confuse social norms with moral right and wrong. This is why Hitler's Germany is so often brought up.

    So, while we may observe that it is morally wrong for people to lust. That is by no means the standard of our society or a reflection of it. That fact is clearly apparent with any amount of time watching T.V. or viewing magazines.

    Am I in error? Does our society actually love modesty and protect men from their own sinful nature? In accordance to a christian world view?

    Or does it do exactly what I have observed? Preying upon men's base desires and then punishing them for (in this case) private expression of it?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Morally wrong is a rock of objective standards.
    Socially wrong, is really about social norms and is a misnomer. It is however the language of secularist. It is about social norms, not really. It may or may not reflect actual moral wrongs.

    In general, atheist confuse social norms with moral right and wrong. This is why Hitler's Germany is so often brought up.

    So, while we may observe that it is morally wrong for people to lust. That is by no means the standard of our society or a reflection of it. That fact is clearly apparent with any amount of time watching T.V. or viewing magazines.

    Am I in error? Does our society actually love modesty and protect men from their own sinful nature? In accordance to a christian world view?

    Or does it do exactly what I have observed? Preying upon men's base desires and then punishing them for (in this case) private expression of it?
    First off, your premise that these men were being punished for a private expression of lust is not supported. As far as I can tell, their punishment was based on their treatment of fellow students, not on being lustful. If we remove lust from the incident (such as they made a book degrading their fellow students but there was no sexual component to the book), they very well could have been punished for that as well.

    And while I recognize the difference between moral and social wrong, they are not separate. A social wrong is a moral wrong that is recognized on a societal level.

    And it's never been supported that morals are objective so you can't say as a statement of fact that morals are objective standards. There are objective morals and there are subjective morals and they both qualify as morals. And of course it's possible that objective morals don't even exist (since it's not proven that an objective source of morality exists).
    Last edited by mican333; December 11th, 2016 at 10:22 AM.

  12. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  13. #51
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I understand the possible confusion.
    Theoretically, one could criticize Christianity…
    Woah, woah, woah. I’m not criticising Christianity. I’m criticising your statements in the other thread as it relates to your position here. In the other thread, you attempted to wholesale shut down the proposed criticism of Christianity by saying you view the world exclusively through your Christian lens. But in this thread, you’ve applied a secular lens and said that what the Harvard boys themselves did was morally neutral (!!!) where what the school did in response is morally wrong (or perhaps “socially wrong”; you’ll have to explain the difference a little better than you have so far).

    Mican already spoke to most of the rest, but I’ll add that the frontier of moral right and wrong is the MINIMUM standard for what it means for a thing to BE right wrong. You’re making a strange and obscure distinction between “moral wrong” and “social wrong” - as if they're mutually exclusive - that you’ll have to explain better. As it stands right now, your position seems to be that boys reducing women to exclusively sexual objects is as morally neutral as clearing your throat or checking your watch, which simply doesn’t make much sense from either a Christian or a secular, moral perspective.

    EDIT:

    Here’s the deal:

    I think there’s some major clarification in order.

    For the sake of focusing on your positions, let’s put aside the political aspect of it and accept that, hey, sometimes horny young men say horny young sh!t. Let’s also accept that Harvard has a reputation to uphold so, once news of this got out, they HAD to do something.

    Ok, so you’re asking people to assess two events:

    1. The Harvard soccer team – amongst themselves – reducing women to sexual objects
    2. The University suspending them for the entire season in response to this

    Your position seems to be that 1 is morally neutral, which doesn’t make sense from any sort of moral perspective (Christian, secular, or otherwise), and your position on 2 seems to be that it is hypocritical, which is – at a minimum – morally wrong from most moral perspectives (hypocrisy tends to be viewed as a moral wrong from Christian, secular, and other moral views).

    Let’s examine #1 (objectifying women) from a moral perspective.

    Is #1 (reducing women to sexual objects) a behaviour that should be:

    • encouraged (morally right)
    • discouraged (morally wrong)
    • ignored (morally neutral)?

    From my willy-nilly, wackadoodle, anything-goes secular perspective, (where – in this case – the central tenet is “do not harm, and do not fail to help”), it could be fairly argued that viewing women in such a context doesn’t help either the women being objectified, nor does it help the men indulging in the thoughts. Furthermore I think it could also be fairly argued that, had the school not responded at all, it would have sent the message that this sort of objectification is acceptable, which would encourage repeats of the same behaviours going forward. So, to the extent that 1) objectifying women and 2) doing nothing in response could encourage future objectification of women, number 1 is morally wrong. It is a behaviour that should be discouraged.

    I’ve already answered from my coo-coo land of secular morality why it should be discouraged, and I also provided ample scriptural evidence that should cause any objective reader to conclude that, yes, number #1 was indeed a moral wrong from a Christian perspective. But your position is that reducing women to sexual objects is a morally neutral act that should be ignored. Can you support this, from any sort of moral perspective?

  14. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    as far as I can tell, their punishment was based on their treatment of fellow students, not on being lustful.
    Right, but that is not what they did. They wrote things about other students in private statements. They didn't "treat" them any way.
    How you treat someone is how you interact with them in public or directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we remove lust from the incident (such as they made a book degrading their fellow students but there was no sexual component to the book), they very well could have been punished for that as well.
    It's not shown that what they did was "degrading".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And while I recognize the difference between moral and social wrong, they are not separate. A social wrong is a moral wrong that is recognized on a societal level.
    So, your saying that farting in a socially unacceptable manner.. is immoral?
    Nice.. I doubt you would want to support that. Probably going to say that farting is actually socially acceptable in all events.
    But maybe not... lets see.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And it's never been supported that morals are objective so you can't say as a statement of fact that morals are objective standards.
    I haven't argued that here.

    --------------
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Woah, woah, woah. I’m not criticising Christianity
    You missed the context of that statement. I was referring to the other thread. Pointing out that I wasn't shutting it down as a possibility there, only requiring the basis be established not simply assumed.
    I'll leave any further discussion of that thread, to occur within it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    In the other thread, you attempted to wholesale shut down the proposed criticism of Christianity by saying you view the world exclusively through your Christian lens. But in this thread, you’ve applied a secular lens and said that what the Harvard boys themselves did was morally neutral (!!!) where what the school did in response is morally wrong (or perhaps “socially wrong”; you’ll have to explain the difference a little better than you have so far).
    Right.. do you understand why I responded the way I did in that thread?
    In this thread I'm responding different, what is the problem?
    Do you feel I'm being inconsistent? because I thought I explained that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Mican already spoke to most of the rest, but I’ll add that the frontier of moral right and wrong is the MINIMUM standard for what it means for a thing to BE right wrong. You’re making a strange and obscure distinction between “moral wrong” and “social wrong” - as if they're mutually exclusive - that you’ll have to explain better. As it stands right now, your position seems to be that boys reducing women to exclusively sexual objects is as morally neutral as clearing your throat or checking your watch, which simply doesn’t make much sense from either a Christian or a secular, moral perspective.
    I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "frontier of moral right and wrong". What is that?

    As to moral wrong vs social wrong. Where the line is may be obscure, but you agree the line exists right?
    So that it is a social wrong to fart in some instances, but it is never an "immoral" act.
    Or am I wrong and there is some instance when farting is actually Immoral?

    -Exclusive sexual objects-
    I don't think it has been established that the boys did this. Certainly the paper was directed at that, but that just shows that is all they were considering at the moment, not at all.

    -as morally neutral-
    In the context that it occurred, in a private group. Yes. it is exactly that morally neutral from the secular perspective.
    As I pointed out. Those participating didn't care(supported in thread), those it was ultimately about, didn't care(supported in thread).
    The university cared, but their position is arbitrary.. re the subject of the OP




    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ok, so you’re asking people to assess two events:

    The Harvard soccer team – amongst themselves – reducing women to sexual objects
    The University suspending them for the entire season in response to this
    No they considered the sexual aspects of the women. They did not "reduce" the women in any way. That is simply the language of spin seeking to poison the well against the boys.
    You also left out "in private" and "among themselves". Without that you make it equal to if they had gone on national T.V. or put it on the radio.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    From my willy-nilly, wackadoodle, anything-goes secular perspective, (where – in this case – the central tenet is “do not harm, and do not fail to help”), it could be fairly argued that viewing women in such a context doesn’t help either the women being objectified, nor does it help the men indulging in the thoughts. Furthermore I think it could also be fairly argued that, had the school not responded at all, it would have sent the message that this sort of objectification is acceptable, which would encourage repeats of the same behaviours going forward. So, to the extent that 1) objectifying women and 2) doing nothing in response could encourage future objectification of women, number 1 is morally wrong. It is a behaviour that should be discouraged.
    Who says objectifying women is wrong? Again.. not our society as a whole. I listed examples, shall we just assume that stuff doesn't occur and isn't acceptable.

    Further, this act has been going on for a long, long time. Only now brought to light. So exactly what was the horrible consequences (name one) from before it came out? (IE what "harm" did it do)
    As for the boys it seemed to help them some how, maybe become a team or whatever.. IE they were doing it for some reason right.. and they considered it to be helpful. Who are you in your willie nilly anything goes world view to tell them that it wasn't helpful all those years? and on what basis?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I’ve already answered from my coo-coo land of secular morality why it should be discouraged, and I also provided ample scriptural evidence that should cause any objective reader to conclude that, yes, number #1 was indeed a moral wrong from a Christian perspective. But your position is that reducing women to sexual objects is a morally neutral act that should be ignored. Can you support this, from any sort of moral perspective?
    In this thread I have shown how our secular society as a whole does not have a problem with reducing women into sexual objects. This act is generally legal and protected speech by the laws.
    So your idea that it is immoral (secular) is hardly established. Then you have to deal with the laws that we have established socially that actually protect this act. (see pornography, or any t.v. ad).

    Do you honestly think I haven't addressed this aspect at all in this thread? Because I feel I have spent a good deal of time on it for you to say I haven't supported it. I have given examples, I have offered several levels of justification (IE acceptance by those involved, those it was about etc). I mean.. I you may not agree with it, but I don't feel that your taking any of it into account in this response.

    ---
    And what about the fact that your standard isn't the social one as we observe it? Can you support that your personal standard is the same as all of society? Such that our laws that protect self damaging behavior (assuming it is) of objectifying females in private is actually protected? (this goes back to that question you refused to answer. Namely. What standard was harvard applying Secular or Christian.. It's relevant. And honestly as I answerd your question directly I expected the same.)

    Am I simply to assume that your represent all of society? Though I think I have pointed out that even within your own standard this is acceptable behavior as it 1) does no harm and 2) Did help
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. #53
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Meh, nevermind. You win.

  16. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The war on men - Harvard Soccer team

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, but that is not what they did. They wrote things about other students in private statements. They didn't "treat" them any way.
    How you treat someone is how you interact with them in public or directly.
    So basically your rebuttal is to finagle over the definition of "treat" instead of dealing with the actual issue. I disagree with your semantic position and therefore repeat my argument.

    As far as I can tell, their punishment was based on their treatment of fellow students, not on being lustful.

    The issue is their behavior in relation to other students, not the fact that their behavior was lustful. As I said, and you did not rebut, the notion that these men were punished because their behavior was lustful is not supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It's not shown that what they did was "degrading".
    If you mean that you personally aren't convinced that what the soccer team did to their fellow students was not degrading, your opinion is noted. However, it was considered degrading by those who issued the punishment so the punishment was based on degrading. And again, you seem to be dodging my point which is if these men misbehaved towards their fellow students in a manner that was not sexual, they could be punished for that as well.

    My overall point is that the punishment was not based on them being lustful but based on how they behaved in regards to their fellow students.

    And if you bog this down in another semantic argument instead of address the content of my argument, I will assume you have no response to my content.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, your saying that farting in a socially unacceptable manner.. is immoral?
    No. I didn't say Socially unacceptable. I was using the term that you were using which is "socially wrong" which indicate immorality so farting does not count unless one does hold that it is immoral.

    Since I see no valid rebuttal to my argument, I assume it is not challenged so I will repeat it.

    And while I recognize the difference between moral and social wrong, they are not separate. A social wrong is a moral wrong that is recognized on a societal level.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Sports: Soccer (football, futbol) is the most pure team sport.
    By thegreenape in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 4th, 2009, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •