Yale made a stand in support of anti-gay laws; SJWs slammed

[Ryika]

I wonder why you guys are even still talking about this issue. Is there ANYONE here who is of the opinion that keeping that law active but not enforced is a "good" thing? Everybody seems to agree that keeping that law is, to some extend, stupid and/or dangerous, I don't understand what you're getting out of this "Yeah, we all agree but we phrase our responses in a way that keeps this empty discussion going back and forth."-nonsense.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the original topic anymore either. It's certainly not in the hands of an Ambassador to decide which laws are enforced, which are not and which should be cut completely.

<- Severely confused.

/edit: Started typing before luiz had made the response, but still.

 

[Senethro]

Huh. Theres a few posters who say that they are not bigots, but on every thread across many months that relates to social prejudice or legal discrimination they say that it doesn't matter. Each and every incident is in some way not real or insignificant.

 

[Aea]

Huh. Theres a few posters who say that they are not bigots, but on every thread across many months that relates to social prejudice or legal discrimination they say that it doesn't matter. Each and every incident is in some way not real or insignificant.

You're just intolerant of their beliefs

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't think one is any worse than the other.

Well I find that somewhat astonishing

Consistent enforcement at least creates a reasonable expectation among the population as to what behavior is criminal and what is not, which is a critical component of law and order.

So now you seem to be defending a discriminatory/regressive law that is being enforced on the grounds of "well at least they know where they stand". How is this not worse (or at least equally as bad if you insist) as the stance of the ambassador/board member?

A discriminatory law which is "not enforced" can still be enforced arbitrarily, and therefore people have no legitimate way to anticipate how not to run afoul of enforcement of the law.

Well they could not do the thing that might get them arrested...

Then there is the issue of changing enforcement - a law not being enforced now can return to being enforced in the future, so it remaining on the books is still threatening to the group(s) it is discriminating against.

So if it being enforced in the future is a bad thing, does that not imply that it being enforced is worse? Doesn't that undermine your initial statement? And if the law is repealed entirely, what's to stop it simply being reintroduced in the future?

 

[Aea]

And if the law is repealed entirely, what's to stop it simply being reintroduced in the future?

Ex post facto laws are not valid in most jurisdictions. This is also jumping off the deep-end of what if territory.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ex post facto laws are not valid in most jurisdictions. This is also jumping off the deep-end of what if territory.

You misunderstand. I'm just talking about a law being (re)introduced, not being retroactively applied.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well if we're going to go there, why repeal any law at all since they can all be reintroduced?

Answer: because reintroduction takes time and during the time that the law is not on the books, what you're doing is not illegal and cannot be prosecuted for it.

 

[Ryika]

Huh. Theres a few posters who say that they are not bigots, but on every thread across many months that relates to social prejudice or legal discrimination they say that it doesn't matter. Each and every incident is in some way not real or insignificant.

Given that you've not quoted anyone but made that comment right after my post I'll assume that this was directed at me and... wonder how you can turn a "Everyone agrees that it's nonsense to keep that law, why are you guys getting back at each other as if you weren't in agreement and what does it have to do with the actual topic anyway?" into "It's not real or insignificant." That's some excellent mental gymnastics mate, A+.

 

[useless]

Huh. Theres a few posters who say that they are not bigots, but on every thread across many months that relates to social prejudice or legal discrimination they say that it doesn't matter. Each and every incident is in some way not real or insignificant.

"But let me tell you about those video games and Anita Sarkeesian..."

 

[aelf]

Do you deny that supporting a discriminatory law that is not enforced is less bad than supporting a discriminatory law that is enforced?

That question is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the question at hand. It doesn't matter which of the two is better or worse. What matters is that the ambassador defended a position that is not acceptable to some people, people whom the college where she is a board member also wants to be inclusive towards.

 

[metalhead]

Well I find that somewhat astonishing

I'm not sure why. It's pretty simple. Having laws and not enforcing them creates uncertainty. It also gives local law enforcement discretion to enforce laws arbitrarily, which is exactly the kind of thing law and order is meant to prevent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that arbitrary laws fail under the 5th amendment right to due process. Laws which can only be enforced in an arbitrary manner undermine law and order, and citizens' rights. Whether this is worse than a discriminatory law being consistently enforced is really not a good question to ask - both violate fundamental rights, so trying to determine which is "worse" doesn't seem like a fruitful line of inquiry. Both are bad, and one should not be advocated as an acceptable alternative to the other.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That question is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the question at hand. It doesn't matter which of the two is better or worse. What matters is that the ambassador defended a position that is not acceptable to some people, people whom the college where she is a board member also wants to be inclusive towards.

It's only a non-sequitur if you're only willing to deal in absolutes. Defending (or not overtly attacking, or whatever she actually did) a nominal law that is not enforced is less bad than defending a law which "innocent" people are actually being locked up for. Being less bad, this will offend fewer people, and to a lesser extent. This lessening of degree is entirely relevant to whether or not she should be forced to resign. If you deal only in absolutes then to remain on the board, every student should 100% agree with all opinions of the board member 100% of the time, which is untenable. It also kind of undermines the point of having a board made up of multiple people in the first place.

 

[aelf]

It's only a non-sequitur if you're only willing to deal in absolutes. Defending (or not overtly attacking, or whatever she actually did) a nominal law that is not enforced is less bad than defending a law which "innocent" people are actually being locked up for. Being less bad, this will offend fewer people, and to a lesser extent. This lessening of degree is entirely relevant to whether or not she should be forced to resign. If you deal only in absolutes then to remain on the board, every student should 100% agree with all opinions of the board member 100% of the time, which is untenable. It also kind of undermines the point of having a board made up of multiple people in the first place.

I don't deal in absolutes. It was not my argument to make.

Ironically your position is the one that smacks of "My way or the high way". Just because it appears less bad to you doesn't mean it has to be more acceptable to other people. That's why I posed you that question earlier, trying to get you to think hypothetically about a law that arbitrarily targets you - whether you would find that an acceptable situation. If you can think of why you might find something like that unacceptable, then you might have enough empathy to understand why some people would find it unacceptable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not sure why. It's pretty simple. Having laws and not enforcing them creates uncertainty. It also gives local law enforcement discretion to enforce laws arbitrarily, which is exactly the kind of thing law and order is meant to prevent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that arbitrary laws fail under the 5th amendment right to due process. Laws which can only be enforced in an arbitrary manner undermine law and order, and citizens' rights. Whether this is worse than a discriminatory law being consistently enforced is really not a good question to ask - both violate fundamental rights, so trying to determine which is "worse" doesn't seem like a fruitful line of inquiry. Both are bad, and one should not be advocated as an acceptable alternative to the other.

So an unjust/unfair law that isn't enforced, is just as bad as one that is consistently enforced because it MIGHT be enforced at some point?

Also, if you're referring to this then that doesn't seem to be describing the same sort of thing at all. This is a clear and specific law that is just not being enforced, not a vague and unintelligible law which IS enforced.

I don't deal in absolutes. It was not my argument to make.

Ironically your position is the one that smacks of "My way or the high way". Just because it appears less bad to you doesn't mean it has to be more acceptable to other people. That's why I posed you that question earlier, trying to get you to think hypothetically about a law that arbitrarily targets you - whether you would find that an acceptable situation. If you can think of why you might find something like that unacceptable, then you might have enough empathy to understand why some people would find it unacceptable.

But when I say "less bad" I don't mean that to mean "not at all bad". I just mean that fewer people are going to have a problem with it. Obviously SOME people are still going to (and clearly do) have a problem with it, but it becomes a question of how many people, to what degree they disagree, and how representative they are of everyone else. Which is why my personal opinion about a hypothetical case isn't relevant because I am a sample of 1.

If you're saying that if any people find it unacceptable then ALL must find it unacceptable (or at least must bow to the demands of those who do), then you ARE dealing in absolutes. I'm saying that it isn't reasonable to demand the resignation of somebody when they haven't transgressed any rules or demonstrated a conflict of interest and have only, at the most, espoused an opinion which offends a small number of people. It's precisely because it's a small minority of people that makes it unreasonable, and so any argument about it being "less bad", which would serve to reduce that minority even further, is entirely relevant. (I can already predict what the counter argument to this is going to be by the way...)

You'll always find someone who is capable of finding almost anything "unacceptable", but you can't allow them to dictate everything.

 

[metalhead]

No, I'm not referring to vagueness. The application of law has to be rational, and laws themselves need to have a rational basis in order to be legitimate. This means that any state action - legislative or executive, which includes policing as an extension of state executive action - is rational. Therefore, arbitrary enforcement of laws violates fundamental rights of citizens, and fundamental principles of law and order.

Even worse is the fact that homosexual acts between females have been legalized, so the laws only apply to males - meaning they also violate principles of equal protection. So argue that this isn't a big deal, but it is. Laws which violate fundamental rights of people are not something I think people ought to argue are harmless, but that's on you.

 

[Ryika]

It's precisely because it's a small minority of people that makes it unreasonable, and so any argument about it being "less bad", which would serve to reduce that minority even further, is entirely relevant.

Which is once again why the way the original complaint about the board member was phrased is so important. I think nobody is saying that the people aren't allowed to give their opinion just because it's a minority opinion, but writing things as if they were the universal truth when somebody is giving their opinion is just not a reasonable thing to do and it's completely fine to point that out.

We've seen it in other universities, somebody makes an opinion-piece, other people start yelling and suddenly a vocal group of people controls what is supposed to be a dialog, nobody knows how big that vocal group is and then people have to step down. This case is different in that it didn't take off, but clearly the beginning was exactly the same.

Even worse is the fact that homosexual acts between females have been legalized, so the laws only apply to males - meaning they also violate principles of equal protection.

This does mean it would be a step in the right direction to outlaw lesbian sex, right? Only in lawmaking can removing half of the possible victims make a problem "worse". (Disclaimer: This comment is not meant to be that serious.)

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No, I'm not referring to vagueness. The application of law has to be rational, and laws themselves need to have a rational basis in order to be legitimate. This means that any state action - legislative or executive, which includes policing as an extension of state executive action - is rational. Therefore, arbitrary enforcement of laws violates fundamental rights of citizens, and fundamental principles of law and order.

But "not enforced" isn't arbitrary enforcement. Do you see such a similarly massive problem with policies not to arrest or charge prostitutes in certain areas, or not to charge people found with small amounts of marijuana, or not to prosecute people caught driving at 30mph in 20mph zones? There are all laws which are (in some areas) not enforced because it's not in the public interest to do so. They're not enforced arbitrarily as a means to terrorise and control the populace. Or at least, this isn't NECESSARILY so by default, and you haven't demonstrated or given any reason to believe it is so in this case.

Even worse is the fact that homosexual acts between females have been legalized, so the laws only apply to males - meaning they also violate principles of equal protection. So argue that this isn't a big deal, but it is. Laws which violate fundamental rights of people are not something I think people ought to argue are harmless, but that's on you.

Sorry to break it to you, but there is no objective universal standard for what "fundamental rights" actually are. If there was then it would make debates of this nature a lot easier wouldn't it. As an American (I assume), you would probably hold the opinion that being able to purchase a submachine gun in a grocery store falls into this category, but others would disagree. Anyway, I still fail to see how not having an equivalent law for women makes this WORSE somehow, and I also never said anything about it being "harmless", so no that's not "on me".

 

[metalhead]

I'm mildly flabbergasted than you don't see how passing laws that fall unequally on men as opposed to women for the same exact behavior is not problematic. It violates basic fairness, and further supports the conclusion that the law is irrational and arbitrary. This fundamentally goes against the basic principles of law and order in society. It is simply not an acceptable state of affairs. I'm not advocating enforcement as a reasonable alternative, merely pointing out that the law as it stands is untenable and not really "better" than the law being enforced.

 

[Senethro]

Seriously, what is the motivation behind such persistent and low quality contrarianism that comes up with such great arguments as "Why should we do a good thing? Maybe someone will undo it in the future." or "Maybe we can expect that the police state won't arbitrarily enforce this law."

 

[aelf]

But when I say "less bad" I don't mean that to mean "not at all bad". I just mean that fewer people are going to have a problem with it. Obviously SOME people are still going to (and clearly do) have a problem with it, but it becomes a question of how many people, to what degree they disagree, and how representative they are of everyone else. Which is why my personal opinion about a hypothetical case isn't relevant because I am a sample of 1.

If you're saying that if any people find it unacceptable then ALL must find it unacceptable (or at least must bow to the demands of those who do), then you ARE dealing in absolutes. I'm saying that it isn't reasonable to demand the resignation of somebody when they haven't transgressed any rules or demonstrated a conflict of interest and have only, at the most, espoused an opinion which offends a small number of people. It's precisely because it's a small minority of people that makes it unreasonable, and so any argument about it being "less bad", which would serve to reduce that minority even further, is entirely relevant. (I can already predict what the counter argument to this is going to be by the way...)

You'll always find someone who is capable of finding almost anything "unacceptable", but you can't allow them to dictate everything.

You've never heard of liberal democracy? Where minorities have rights even though they are minorities?

If you make it illegal for fraternal twins with red hair to eat, that would still be highly unjustifiable, even though only a very small minority of people are fraternal twins with red hair.

How did the West come to fail to understand liberalism so? Every place on Earth should just become like Singapore. Tyranny of the majority for the masses!