i can see this turning ugly

[Immanuel]

Psychiatry and psychology are not based in the medical sciences? Really? Now you are just pumping gas on Mars. Of course, I knew you guys would simply dismiss any evidence or statement from the professionals that contradicted your personal beliefs. You all are nothing if not predictable.

You can dismiss it if you want. The medical community does not and your opinion is simply that.

As I stated, and proved, the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a choice.

So if Ms. Keeton was claiming something to the contrary, she was in the wrong.

Really?

Were Copernicus and Galileo wrong when they went against the consensus in regards to Heliocentrism? How about Darwin and his Origin of the Species? Einstein and the Theory of Relativity?

Suppression of free thought is contradictory to progress.

Immie
Was Darwin wrong when he

Not only that, but our schools are established (by the Supreme Court) as a place where ideas are expressed and studied. Students CANNOT BE SILENCED because they voice an opinion that is unpopular.

Wanna bet? Just ask the staff at ASU.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

Immie, you react to the remediation plan as if the school were sending this chick to a Gulag. Mightn't it be helpful to know what, exactly, the school wants her to do? Seems to me one way of looking at this is, they have a troubled/troublesome student and they are trying to accomodate her.

I wonder if the Jewish people were told the same things as Hitler's thugs marched them off to concentration camps.

I'm not saying that you would want to do that, but might that not be what they were told?

Would you say the same thing if this young lady had hooked up with Jim Jones in early 1978 and they wanted to ship her off to a "re-education camp" in Jonestown?

You are damned right I look at this like a concentration camp, because when you start trying to force your opinions on someone else at the barrel of a gun (threatening to withhold a very expensive degree is the same kind of a thing) you are in effect putting them in a concentration camp.

Immie

O my word, Immie. I hardly think this situation compares to Jonestown or the Holocaust. The school is not working on "opinions", they are working on "facts", aka, accepted standards for the profession this student seeks to enter. I think you are reacting to the descriptive phrase they chose, and not the reality....if they called it "make up credit", would you be more comfy?

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you react to the remediation plan as if the school were sending this chick to a Gulag. Mightn't it be helpful to know what, exactly, the school wants her to do? Seems to me one way of looking at this is, they have a troubled/troublesome student and they are trying to accomodate her.

I wonder if the Jewish people were told the same things as Hitler's thugs marched them off to concentration camps.

I'm not saying that you would want to do that, but might that not be what they were told?

Would you say the same thing if this young lady had hooked up with Jim Jones in early 1978 and they wanted to ship her off to a "re-education camp" in Jonestown?

You are damned right I look at this like a concentration camp, because when you start trying to force your opinions on someone else at the barrel of a gun (threatening to withhold a very expensive degree is the same kind of a thing) you are in effect putting them in a concentration camp.

Immie

O my word, Immie. I hardly think this situation compares to Jonestown or the Holocaust. The school is not working on "opinions", they are working on "facts", aka, accepted standards for the profession this student seeks to enter. I think you are reacting to the descriptive phrase they chose, and not the reality....if they called it "make up credit", would you be more comfy?

They didn't call it "make up credit" and according to her, they insisted that she attend a gay pride parade. This does compare to concentration camps and Jonestown although not to the level of either, it is an attempt to accomplish the same kind of "re-education".

Another institution that might fit is The Spanish Inquisition.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

 

[ConHog]

Immie, you react to the remediation plan as if the school were sending this chick to a Gulag. Mightn't it be helpful to know what, exactly, the school wants her to do? Seems to me one way of looking at this is, they have a troubled/troublesome student and they are trying to accomodate her.

I wonder if the Jewish people were told the same things as Hitler's thugs marched them off to concentration camps.

I'm not saying that you would want to do that, but might that not be what they were told?

Would you say the same thing if this young lady had hooked up with Jim Jones in early 1978 and they wanted to ship her off to a "re-education camp" in Jonestown?

You are damned right I look at this like a concentration camp, because when you start trying to force your opinions on someone else at the barrel of a gun (threatening to withhold a very expensive degree is the same kind of a thing) you are in effect putting them in a concentration camp.

Immie

O my word, Immie. I hardly think this situation compares to Jonestown or the Holocaust. The school is not working on "opinions", they are working on "facts", aka, accepted standards for the profession this student seeks to enter. I think you are reacting to the descriptive phrase they chose, and not the reality....if they called it "make up credit", would you be more comfy?

Ahem, if it were FACT that some people were just born gay, there would be no further attempts to investigate it. For instance, gravity is a Fact, therefor you don't see scientists running around dropping apples to make sure it still holds true, but scientists are still studying whether the THEORY that some people are gay is in fact true. Seeings as how it is still a theory, wouldn't it be nice if our public Universities allowed differing opinion?

Oh, and let me ask you a question. Let's say a person wanted to be a historian and they were working on their advanced history degree and they happened to get a Christian professor in a class who taught that the story of Noah's Ark was fact and that failed a student who argued that it wasn't. How would you feel then?

 

[Madeline]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

 

[Immanuel]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

And how is she supposed to learn if she is not allowed to speak her mind?

We learn by having discussions and asking questions. If she is prevented from speaking her mind, then she is assumed to agree with everything the professors say and open discourse is squelched.

Immie

 

[ConHog]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

And how is she supposed to learn if she is not allowed to speak her mind?

We learn by having discussions and asking questions. If she is prevented from speaking her mind, then she is assumed to agree with everything the professors say and open discourse is squelched.

Immie

From this point forward Immie, I will tell you what to think. Oh and notice Madeline won't address my posts? LOL smart of her.

 

[AllieBaba]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

Jesus, how draconian.

Part of learning is batting around ideas and experimenting with theories, nitwit. And we are protected from religious persecution by our constitution, whether you believe in it or not.

Persecution includes being banned from universities for your religious beliefs.

 

[Immanuel]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

Jesus, how draconian.

Part of learning is batting around ideas and experimenting with theories, nitwit. And we are protected from religious persecution by our constitution, whether you believe in it or not.

Persecution includes being banned from universities for your religious beliefs.

My "Thanks" is for everything in that except for the highlighted part.

Good post, but I would say berating her because you disagree with her is the same as attempting to squelch her point of view.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

And how is she supposed to learn if she is not allowed to speak her mind?

We learn by having discussions and asking questions. If she is prevented from speaking her mind, then she is assumed to agree with everything the professors say and open discourse is squelched.

Immie

From this point forward Immie, I will tell you what to think. Oh and notice Madeline won't address my posts? LOL smart of her.

Tell me whatever you want, but I'll just ignore ya.

Immie

 

[ConHog]

Madeline, why won't you answer my posts?

 

[AllieBaba]

The right to free political speech is never more necessary as when it's unpopular. Isn't that right libs?

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

And how is she supposed to learn if she is not allowed to speak her mind?

We learn by having discussions and asking questions. If she is prevented from speaking her mind, then she is assumed to agree with everything the professors say and open discourse is squelched.

Immie

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

Jesus, how draconian.

Part of learning is batting around ideas and experimenting with theories, nitwit. And we are protected from religious persecution by our constitution, whether you believe in it or not.

Persecution includes being banned from universities for your religious beliefs.

My "Thanks" is for everything in that except for the highlighted part.

Good post, but I would say berating her because you disagree with her is the same as attempting to squelch her point of view.

Immie

Of course I'm trying to squelch her point of view. That's the point.

I'm NOT however, violating her right to free speech. And I will exercise mine as well.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not dodging the issue. I'm saying you didn't prove it. This is the same problem Madeline had. You can't prove something with a lie. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. But you guys have no concept of fact or truth, so it's a waste of time to try to explain it to you.

A.) I am not Madeline, so save your hatefest for your interactions with her. I am a separate person.

B.) How is linking to the consensus of the two biggest professional societies in the issues of behavioral health "not proving" what you asked me to do (and by proxy refutes you penchant to excoriate me for what you deemed to be my making up that the professional consensus is that homosexuality is not a personal choice).

Now who is being dishonest?

At any rate, for the rest of the posters on here: the professional consensus of mental health professionals is that homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not something that a person chooses to be, it can't be changed with group therapy, and it is multifactorial.

IF homosexuality is 'a state of being', how can someone choose to go straight and stay straight? Sorry, as long as there are 'reformed' homosexuals, your statements do not ring true. The experts, didn't the experts build the titanic?

Most of them don't. The recidivism rate is atrocious for those goofy programs.

 

[geauxtohell]

Please point to a consensus among scientists, not among people who would not understand science if it slapped them in the face.

More weakness from you. Perhaps you should formally study some biological sciences before dismissing M.D.s and Ph.D.s as "not scientific enough".

BTW, if psychiatrists and psychologists are "scientific" enough to study behavior, then who is?

Scientist do not ignore data points that disprove their theories. There exist some homosexuals that insist that they made a conscious choice to be homosexual, which is a data point that destroys the consensus you claim holds sway. If they ignore these people they are not scientists.

By the way, I know plenty of people who are PhDs who are not scientific, among them is Glenn Beck. A degree does not make a scientist, something you should know, if you were honest.

Glen Beck doesn't have a bachelor's degree let alone a doctoral degree. An honorary doctorate isn't a degree. You can basically frame it or wipe your ass with it. Either way, it's useless in academia.

I also never claimed that a Ph.D. = scientist.

It does equal "expert in your field". The Ph.D. degree covers everything from English to Organic Chemistry.

In regards to your earlier dismissal of the consensus of 150,000 psychologists that homosexuality is a choice, you can move the goal posts all you want. There really isn't any "bench science" when it comes to behavioral science. That doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed by the experts in the field. There is no definitive test to diagnose schizophrenia. It doesn't mean we can't diagnose it.

So retreat to your anecdotes. It doesn't matter to me. I knew you and your compatriots would never accept the facts of the matter. I have done what I was asked to do: prove that the expert consensus is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

But hey, go grap a Ph.D. or an M.D. and start researching in order to refute that.

Your Nobel Prize will await.

 

[Immanuel]

That is true, Big Fitz, but a student in a course of study is not debating the facts or their interpretation of the subject matter. She's there to learn.

And how is she supposed to learn if she is not allowed to speak her mind?

We learn by having discussions and asking questions. If she is prevented from speaking her mind, then she is assumed to agree with everything the professors say and open discourse is squelched.

Immie

Jesus, how draconian.

Part of learning is batting around ideas and experimenting with theories, nitwit. And we are protected from religious persecution by our constitution, whether you believe in it or not.

Persecution includes being banned from universities for your religious beliefs.

My "Thanks" is for everything in that except for the highlighted part.

Good post, but I would say berating her because you disagree with her is the same as attempting to squelch her point of view.

Immie

Of course I'm trying to squelch her point of view. That's the point.

I'm NOT however, violating her right to free speech. And I will exercise mine as well.

I would never ask you not to exercise yours. However, I do not believe squelching her point of view is the objective. The objective is to convince her that WE are right.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

Jehovah's Witnesses actually have some sound medical studies backing them up about the transfusions, not that any of them will ever enroll in medical school.

There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?

I don't think so.

There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.

See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.

It used to be, if you had a scheduled operation coming up, you could get your family members or friends of the same blood type to donate and that exact blood would be saved for you and no one else, only if it wasn't needed for you would it be given to someone else. Today, you can't do that. Oh you can give blood, they just don't guarantee it goes to your family member.

That's because they have actually found that the incidence of adverse reactions is higher when you get blood from family members.

What they have now, which is even better, is autologous donation where if you know you have a surgery you can store your own blood in case you need it. (In time to replinish your hematocrit before you go under the knife).

Of course, that doesn't matter in a trauma situation.

 

[ConHog]

And how is she supposed to learn if she is not allowed to speak her mind?

We learn by having discussions and asking questions. If she is prevented from speaking her mind, then she is assumed to agree with everything the professors say and open discourse is squelched.

Immie

My "Thanks" is for everything in that except for the highlighted part.

Good post, but I would say berating her because you disagree with her is the same as attempting to squelch her point of view.

Immie

Of course I'm trying to squelch her point of view. That's the point.

I'm NOT however, violating her right to free speech. And I will exercise mine as well.

I would never ask you not to exercise yours. However, I do not believe squelching her point of view is the objective. The objective is to convince her that WE are right.

Immie

In the history of internet message boards I would imagine the rarest thing in the world is someone having their minds changed. Frankly, I don't think Madeline is capable of such self growth.

 

[geauxtohell]

The root of JW objection to blood transfusion is grounded in religious objection and has been since 1961 before the risks of blood transfusion were well understood. Your original statement was that medical science supported JW objections. My point was that medical science doesn't delve into religion.

If JW object to blood due to safety issues, it's ancillary to their religious objections which come from Leviticus.

My original statement was that studies support JWs about transfusions. For some reason you assumed that I meant that I meant about blood being sacred, or something equally off the wall. You are the one that made the assumption, not me.

How does "no" not answer your question? You inform them of the risks of refusal just as you inform them of the risk of acceptance.

You did not say no, you just pontificated about their right to refuse treatment.

You mean you just now decided not to limit it to JWs.

No, I mean you assumed I was talking about JWs, just like you assumed I was talking about JWs religion when I mentioned that studies back them up.

Then it wasn't a good example as the root of JW objection to blood transfusion is grounded in religious belief and there is no medical science that supports that notion.

As I said in my OP, there are certainly risks involved in transfusion. They are minimal but they exist. The fact that JW are latching on to that factoid is ancillary to the real reason they object which is a passage in leviticus.

Also, I certainly did answer "no" when you asked me the question originally.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2545439-post584.html

Open your eyes.

 

[geauxtohell]

Do you have proof that she did so? No, you don't because this school is in fact preventing her from even entering the profession. How can you defend that?

And yes, this is based on her RELIGIOUS beliefs, no amount how much you want to claim it isn't.

For the 15th time: no one on here has proof of anything. What we have is the claim of one plaintiff. As I have said before, I want to hear both sides of the story.

I fully defend a school from not awarding a degree to someone who fails to meet the standards. It appears Ms. Keeton has a penchant to editorialize in her academic writing. That is sub-par and anyone that has made it out of English 101 knows that.

And again, I don't take umbrage with Ms. Keeton's religious beliefs. I take umbrage with her belief that she can introduce it into her academic career when it is not germane to the issue.

Her beliefs about homosexuality being a lifestyle choice are at odds with the medical community.

Here is the problem as I see it. She stated in the articles that she would not do that. Made it very clear that she would not. It seems unfair of you to accuse her of being a liar when you know nothing at all about her.

I would have a problem if she said that she would "convert" homosexuals, but as far as we know, she has never said that. Without evidence contradicting that, you are wrong to assume that she is a liar.

She is 24 years old and strong willed. That doesn't make her hateful. The hateful people are the ones that would deny her opportunities because they disagree with her beliefs whether they be religious beliefs as it appears in this case or they simply be a belief that homosexuality is curable.

And I will repeat. It is hypocritical of this school to insist that she attend a "re-education" camp in order to brainwash her simply because they are afraid she may someday do that to a student. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy.


Immie

It goes beyond that. If Ms. Keeton was introducing her personal opinion into academic writing, I could see how that would be problematic. That is poor writing at the graduate level.

I don't know if that is what happened, but if it did and the school tried to remediate the issue and that is what Keeton is suing for, I don't think she has a leg to stand on.

Academic writing at the graduate level is not for OPED pieces.