Human rights, gay sex, and a straw up the nose...

#1
turambar85

turambar85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,810
#1
NYU Professor of Human Rights: Not a Fan of Gay Rights?Also: Is anal sex like 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink'? - Above the Law - A Legal Tabloid - News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession

NYU brought in professor Thio from Singapore, who can be seen in videos contained in the link vehemently denigrating homosexuality.

The problem, after having seen the video, isn't even her opinion on the matter (which, after all, isn't even that they shouldn't be able to get married, but that sodomy should be a crime), but the disgust with which she spews her views.
 
#2
#2
turambar85 said:
NYU Professor of Human Rights: Not a Fan of Gay Rights?Also: Is anal sex like 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink'? - Above the Law - A Legal Tabloid - News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession

NYU brought in professor Thio from Singapore, who can be seen in videos contained in the link vehemently denigrating homosexuality.

The problem, after having seen the video, isn't even her opinion on the matter (which, after all, isn't even that they shouldn't be able to get married, but that sodomy should be a crime), but the disgust with which she spews her views.
Click to expand...

How is this in any way different from the radical lefts views and attitudes toward so many issues? And why does this bother you enough to start a thread on it while so many other professors hateful views haven't offended you enough to comment on them?
 
#3
#3
KB5252 said:
How is this in any way different from the radical lefts views and attitudes toward so many issues? And why does this bother you enough to start a thread on it while so many other professors hateful views haven't offended you enough to comment on them?
Click to expand...


First, this disgust is directed towards people doing things in their own homes amongst themselves - things that aren't the result of volitionally chosen preferences.

Second, because I am (maybe was!) applying to NYU's law school this fall.

Third, I haven't stumbled across any other examples of this lately, and have never come across any so blatantly bigoted.

And finally, NYU is a very respected law school. Human rights law attracts certain type thinkers. Thio doesn't fit into either category, and it is stunning that they invited her to teach, let alone HUMAN RIGHTS LAW!

If you haven't done so yet, watch her speech or read the transcript.
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
turambar85 said:
First, this disgust is directed towards people doing things in their own homes amongst themselves - things that aren't the result of volitionally chosen preferences.

Second, because I am (maybe was!) applying to NYU's law school this fall.

Third, I haven't stumbled across any other examples of this lately, and have never come across any so blatantly bigoted.

And finally, NYU is a very respected law school. Human rights law attracts certain type thinkers. Thio doesn't fit into either category, and it is stunning that they invited her to teach, let alone HUMAN RIGHTS LAW!

If you haven't done so yet, watch her speech or read the transcript.
Click to expand...

That is a very broad statement, and the way it was used is completely false! Had you added "things that aren't the result of volitionally chosen preferences in some, perhaps most cases" it would have merit.
 
#5
#5
turambar85 said:
First, this disgust is directed towards people doing things in their own homes amongst themselves - things that aren't the result of volitionally chosen preferences.

Second, because I am (maybe was!) applying to NYU's law school this fall.

Third, I haven't stumbled across any other examples of this lately, and have never come across any so blatantly bigoted.

And finally, NYU is a very respected law school. Human rights law attracts certain type thinkers. Thio doesn't fit into either category, and it is stunning that they invited her to teach, let alone HUMAN RIGHTS LAW!

If you haven't done so yet, watch her speech or read the transcript.
Click to expand...

I have not and do not care to. Many universities like this one have made horrible decisions with regards to their employees for years. It has become an issue for you, in this case, because it obviously goes against your beliefs, welcome to the world.
 
#6
#6
When I saw the thread title, I thought this might be an invitation to a crazy party.
 
#8
#8
vader said:
When I saw the thread title, I thought this might be an invitation to a crazy party.
Click to expand...

just cause it makes me laugh

PARTY.jpg
 
#9
#9
KB5252 said:
That is a very broad statement, and the way it was used is completely false! Had you added "things that aren't the result of volitionally chosen preferences in some, perhaps most cases" it would have merit.
Click to expand...

You're not sure what completely false means, are you? At best you could say partially false, as her denouncement of homosexual sex was a blanket argument, directed at all homosexual activity. Now, you may claim that there are some who chose to be gay, fine. Even if we grant that, it still leaves the majority of homosexuals genetically or environmentally (depending on your theory - though most evidence seems to favor genetic) disposed to that lifestyle. Now, even ignoring the fact that I was basing my claim on how her statements are disgusting in relation to the majority of the intended group, I was at worst partially (though mostly) right. Not, however, completely wrong!

That would be like claiming that I was completely wrong in saying that steak is good. Just because some steaks are bad does not mean that I wasn't even partially correct.
 
#10
#10
KB5252 said:
I have not and do not care to. Many universities like this one have made horrible decisions with regards to their employees for years. It has become an issue for you, in this case, because it obviously goes against your beliefs, welcome to the world.
Click to expand...

No, it became an issue to me mainly because it is connected to a major university, and because of her profession. She is a bloody human rights lawyer. That field attracts a certain type of thinker with certain ideals. And, as before, her opinion was bad enough, but the problem was the disgust and hatred in her inflection. The two seem incompatible. I don't know how she is in the field she is in. Her arguments were sophomoric at best, and were flooded with gut reactions and reflexive emotions. To get an invite to one of the top 5 law schools to teach human rights is unbelievable.
 
#11
#11
why go to a second rate law school like NYU? The University of Florida has the primo law school in the USA, Lawgator is proof of that.
 
#12
#12
turambar85 said:
You're not sure what completely false means, are you? At best you could say partially false, as her denouncement of homosexual sex was a blanket argument, directed at all homosexual activity. Now, you may claim that there are some who chose to be gay, fine. Even if we grant that, it still leaves the majority of homosexuals genetically or environmentally (depending on your theory - though most evidence seems to favor genetic) disposed to that lifestyle. Now, even ignoring the fact that I was basing my claim on how her statements are disgusting in relation to the majority of the intended group, I was at worst partially (though mostly) right. Not, however, completely wrong!

That would be like claiming that I was completely wrong in saying that steak is good. Just because some steaks are bad does not mean that I wasn't even partially correct.
Click to expand...

When you make a blanket statement, and part of that statement can be demonstrated as false it makes the statement false. I did overreach with the qualifier "completely", that I admit.

The only way your analogy would be the same is if you stated: all steaks are good, we can all agree this just isn't the case, much the same as all homosexuals are not so because of genetics. If you know any homosexual men or women and talk with them openly you will find there is a very significant number who will tell you they made a decision or choice at some point to like men or women as it were. I tend to agree that it probably isn't most but a significant number nonetheless.
 
#13
#13
turambar85 said:
No, it became an issue to me mainly because it is connected to a major university, and because of her profession. She is a bloody human rights lawyer. That field attracts a certain type of thinker with certain ideals. And, as before, her opinion was bad enough, but the problem was the disgust and hatred in her inflection. The two seem incompatible. I don't know how she is in the field she is in. Her arguments were sophomoric at best, and were flooded with gut reactions and reflexive emotions. To get an invite to one of the top 5 law schools to teach human rights is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
who uses a word like bloody? This is a Tennessee board.
 
#14
#14
turambar85 said:
No, it became an issue to me mainly because it is connected to a major university, and because of her profession. She is a bloody human rights lawyer. That field attracts a certain type of thinker with certain ideals. And, as before, her opinion was bad enough, but the problem was the disgust and hatred in her inflection. The two seem incompatible. I don't know how she is in the field she is in. Her arguments were sophomoric at best, and were flooded with gut reactions and reflexive emotions. To get an invite to one of the top 5 law schools to teach human rights is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Gay rights = human rights? Since when?

Did she call for gays to be discriminated against? Persecuted? Harassed?

Or did she just express a moral objection, and you are up in arms because you don't agree?
 
#15
#15
It's not unique for Human Rights activists to selectively choose which human rights they vehemently support and which they condemn. I've talked to several "Social Justice" advocates that are clearly hostile towards many individual rights.
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
It's not unique for Human Rights activists to selectively choose which human rights they vehemently support and which they condemn. I've talked to several "Social Justice" advocates that are clearly hostile towards many individual rights.
Click to expand...

While that is probably true, it is strange to hear the absolute disgust she displays towards any homosexuals.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top