Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[PreachersWife2004]

You just made fun of the fact that I have a small vocabulary. That's pretty damned disrespectful. Stop acting like you're so innocent here when you just made fun of me.

And why do you believe that sex is intended for marriage and that marriage is to be between a man and a woman? Oh yes, that's right: because the Bible says so. There's no other reason at all why you believe those things. I'm sure that if the Bible told you to walk off a cliff, you'd do that, too.

It's called having faith and being a Christian - things that I've already pointed out you wouldn't understand. Yes, I believe these thing because of the bible, because I believe the bible is the word of God.

And no, I didn't make fun of you because you can't understand large words. I simply pointed out that it's easy to look up words if you don't understand them and ignoring someone simply because they use bigger words isn't the solution.

By the way, your use of the word "damned" is quite offensive, considering it's a rule violation. I'd edit it if I were you. I'm not going to report it because I've responded to your post, but someone else probably will.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

So are we all going to play nice again?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Instead of criticizing my small vocabulary, why don't you go open your mind a bit and read some pro-gay marriage articles? Here are a few for you to start with:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
Homosexuality: Not a Sin...Not a Sickness
Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

If you read those articles, I'll broaden my vocabulary. Do we have a deal?

That's pretty scary that you'll base your own enlightenment on whether or not I agree with you about homosexuality.

Have it your way. I'd prefer to not read articles that try to tell me there's nothing wrong with sexual immorality.

 

[a_nony_mous]

So are we all going to play nice again?

I would just put PreachersWife on ignore, but you can't put Mods or Admins on ignore. So, as long as I can read her posts, I'll respond to them as I see fit.

 

[a_nony_mous]

That's pretty scary that you'll base your own enlightenment on whether or not I agree with you about homosexuality.

Have it your way. I'd prefer to not read articles that try to tell me there's nothing wrong with sexual immorality.

And I'd prefer not to spend my Spring Break studying, when it's supposed to be a break from studying. I suggest you don't tell me to do things that I obviously don't want to do (such as studying during Spring Break) if you don't want me to tell you to do things that you obviously don't want to do (such as reading articles about how homosexuality isn't a sin).

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

I would just put PreachersWife on ignore, but you can't put Mods or Admins on ignore. So, as long as I can read her posts, I'll respond to them as I see fit.

I'll take that's a no then. You know, it weird playing armchair mod in a thread with a mod.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I'll take that's a no then. You know, it weird playing armchair mod in a thread with a mod.

I know. You'd think that she could be more mature than she's being, but I guess she can't, even though she's an Admin, and even though she's quite a bit older than I am.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And I'd prefer not to spend my Spring Break studying, when it's supposed to be a break from studying. I suggest you don't tell me to do things that I obviously don't want to do (such as studying during Spring Break) if you don't want me to tell you to do things that you obviously don't want to do (such as reading articles about how homosexuality isn't a sin).

Bwah.

My irony meter just broke into a million pieces.

Word of advice: if you aren't willing to take the extra step to learn what words mean, you can't complain about people using them.

 

[AirPo]

not to nitpick, but she "asked" at 2:32pm. ND responded about ten minutes after she made her request. She responded to that post at 2:44 with her statement that she was going to ignore him.

I've often found that people who use a large vocabulary when they talk find it hard to use smaller words to get their point across. I'm a writer by nature and I tend to use larger words because most of my writing is at a college level. That is reflected here and if someone asked me to use smaller words, it would be a challenge and one that I couldn't rectify in 12 minutes.

I didn't say she was patient.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I know. You'd think that she could be more mature than she's being, but I guess she can't, even though she's an Admin, and even though she's quite a bit older than I am.

hey, you're the one complaining about big words and calling people names.

I've just been calling you on it. That's usually what people do in a debate. Could you kindly point out where I've been immature?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I didn't say she was patient.

Good point.

 

[NotreDame]

So are we all going to play nice again?

Sure...the only problem some of us have is with the following notion a bias shows an argument to be wrong, false, or incorrect. For example.

James Madison: The sedition law of 1796 violates the First Amendment free speech clause because of X, Y, and Z.

John Adams: You are biased James Madison.

James Madison: What? How does this show or demonstrate as false, wrong, or incorrect my claim the sedition law of 1796 is a violation of the First Amendment Free Speech clause? How does this show my reasons in support of such a claim do not adequately support my claim?

John Adams: Because you are biased.

James Madison: Yeah, so? This is beginning to transform itself into a circular argument you are making John.

John Adams: You said that because you are biased against me!

James Madison: Yeah, even if I were biased against you, does this negate my claim you are making a circular argument false?

John Adams: You are biased.

James Madison: Clearly you do not want to discuss the merits of the issue but focus on irrelevant considerations and red herrings.

Now, I understand you are 16 and may not have had a formal logical reasoning class in high school, but I am not misinforming you by stating an allegation of bias does not render or show some position as false.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Bwah.

My irony meter just broke into a million pieces.

Word of advice: if you aren't willing to take the extra step to learn what words mean, you can't complain about people using them.

Are you really trying to say that I have no right to complain here just because of my intelligence level? Your hatred is showing.

 

[a_nony_mous]

hey, you're the one complaining about big words and calling people names.

I've just been calling you on it. That's usually what people do in a debate. Could you kindly point out where I've been immature?

Making fun of people is part of debating? Last time I checked, that was actually a logical fallacy (Ad Hominem, to be exact).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

it could also be said that anyone who has no problems with homosexuality has a bias towards this event. Does that change how I view their opinion? No...I actually figure that people's biases are exactly what makes them respond to these types of threads.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Making fun of people is part of debating? Last time I checked, that was actually a logical fallacy (Ad Hominem, to be exact).

I haven't made fun of you. YOU HAVE STATED PLAINLY that you didn't understand the words. I said "get out a dictionary". How is that making fun of you?

 

[NotreDame]

it could also be said that anyone who has no problems with homosexuality has a bias towards this event. Does that change how I view their opinion? No...I actually figure that people's biases are exactly what makes them respond to these types of threads.

I alluded to this in my second to last response to Anonymous. I decided to use Anonymous' reasoning against her in post number 146.

"Ya know...I am going to use your logic against you. You are biased against people such as myself. Your prior exchanges, which I have read, with other people in this thread is prima facie evidence you have a bias. Consequently, your entire analysis of me is false based on your bias. In fact, all of your remarks to other people in this thread where you contested their position is immediately, automatically, unequivocally, and absolutely rendered false because of your bias.

There is no point in you and I even addressing each other any further because your allegations of me having a bias is a result of a pre-existing bias you already possessed, thereby tainting your analysis of me, and making it flawed, false, and untrue."

If, however, you follow the logic of CaptainNemo and Anonymous, then they have refuted their own argument in this very thread, because they too have a bias. Just one more piece of evidence their position is not logically coherent.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I haven't made fun of you. YOU HAVE STATED PLAINLY that you didn't understand the words. I said "get out a dictionary". How is that making fun of you?

You made it seem like I was in the wrong for simply asking NotreDame kindly if he would use smaller words (which isn't actually all that hard to do). That is insulting, whether you like it or not.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Bias can cloud how you achieve a conclusion. For examples: the Scottsboro Boys were nine young men wrongfully convicted of a rape they did not commit. But because the justice system was biased against their skin color they were executed. Scottsboro Boys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Maren]

I never disputed the fact she had standing, so your reference to it is rather puzzling.

Second, this analysis is much better than the prior lame allegation they were violating freedom of association and expression. Rather, your remark above is asserting the planned school event was cancelled based on the content of her expression and freedom of association. This is a much better claim and argument to be made.

Typically, the government cannot censor a message based on its content, unless it falls within the well defined and long recognized exceptions of A.) slander B.) libel C.) incitement, Brandenberg v. Ohio, D.) threats or E.) regulation/censorship, not because of the content, but the effect of the message (Tinker v. Des Moines).

Here, we have to assume censorship exists by the cancellation of prom. To be sure, the young lady cannot express herself, or her freedom of association at the prom, but I question whether cancellation of it constitutes as censorship of her message.

In addition, we have to further assume dating someone, or taking someone to the prom as a date, constitutes as freedom of association and I am not sure this is true. The caselaw in this area has never involved just two people but a considerable group, such as clubs, organizations, fraternities, etcetera.

Actually, there appears to be a few cases that are considered to state exactly that -- that choice of date is a form of freedom of expression. Rather than make assumptions by what non-lawyers make about the case and commenting on them, I would encourage you to read the complaint that was filed in court and comment on that. Also, if you look at the attachments, the original letter to the school district is included which gives the relevant case law concerning the right to bring a same-gendered date.

Further, it is interesting to note in the complaint that the written dress code of the school has no language that would suggest a female student cannot wear a tux to the prom.