Thread: Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Look, to somehow suggest that the gains made by the LGBT community is demonstrative of their own kingness (to carry on my metaphor) totally obscures the deep dark tyranny-by-majority done onto that LGBT historically. Do you really think I lack knowledge about the gains of that community? My point is those gains are totally insufficient.

None of what I've advocated insinuates that LGBT rights have come "far enough" or that where our culture stands now is in the right. My point is that we are headed forwards, not backwards. In this light, it's possible to continue shifting our cultural interpretation of gay rights through reasoned argument rather than intellectually stagnant prattling.

Let's get practical here, what tangible good can possible come from a debate about the ethics of homophobia?

A better understanding of why homophobia is detestable and utterly unacceptable.

Our culture, which has been long burdened by misconceptions of homosexuals and their right to equal treatment, would be better served through popularizing the rationale behind why the LGBT community deserves equal treatment rather than brutishly shouting down homophobia without substantive reason.

I used to tutor adolescents in physics. I found that the root of many of their problems (math puns unintended) came from not understanding the reasoning behind the greater concepts. They tried to simply memorize formulas, but ultimately failed in applying them because they lacked a proper understanding of why things are the way they are.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

You're making a deterministic argument; all humans are products of their environments, even murders, pedophiles and any number of vile creatures--that's you're slippery slope; how can you give Hunter a pass and somehow hold anyone accountable for any of their actions, statements or beliefs? The question is rhetorical.

The question is rhetorical so I won't answer it...

(tap tap tap)

Ok... I'll make a statement... (Yeah big shock for everyone... I know)... They are not teaching people to be murderers or pedophiles... I don't have to give those vile creatures a pass. You know that... I consider you to be very intelligent... It isnt really fair to lump those vile creatures into the discussion and you should know that as well.

There are churches in the north.... Churches in the east... Churches in the west... Churches across the water and a whole bunch of churches in the south... Down Arkansas way that teach with conviction... Homosexuality is an abomination.

Now you don't believe that it is... I don't believe that it is... Not all Churches do... but most of them do... This means that a large percentage of people have been taught this type of thinking...

How large?

39 states have banned same sex marriage by majority vote.
In 1996 68% of Americans were opposed to homosexuality
its down to 48% in 2012(progress is being made)

It took until the year 2003 for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that its not an actual crime.

The Roman Catholic Church... Eastern Orthodox... Methodist... American Baptist... Southern Baptist... Assemblies of God... Jehovah's Witnesses... The church of Latter Day Saints... Islam... Judaism... (I can make this list really long)... Teach that its a sin... Oh yeah let's not forget Jerry Falwell and his teaching that Aids is Gods punishment for it... Before he dropped dead(which I think was gods punishment for stealing old people's money and teaching hate).

Pat Robertson is still alive with a large audience... These guys aren't just preaching to a handful of nut jobs and a couple of Alligators near TV Sets.

The bible has that whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing... along with Leviticus... Samuel... Romans... Matthew... Luke... Acts... All of these books have passages that the homophobe religious crowd points to as reasoning for their viewpoints.

So... My Rhetorical question in return is this... How many of those religions are teaching murder? How many are teaching pedophilia? No Catholic Priest Jokes please.

The obvious thing that needs to be pointed out... There are many many people who simply are not as enlightened as you are... I don't mean that in a snarky way... I mean that sincerely... You are more enlightened than most in my opinion.

You just got to sit back and realize that you and I and everyone else has gotten into a social issue discussion and its rooted deeply into religion and that is the true slippery slope. And its about 50-50 which side is larger and both sides think the other is morally bankrupt.

To me... your indignation would be much better served heading straight to the source(church elders) and not the by-product of it.

It's not much different than getting pissed and and railing on Christian Ponder for his views on Abortion. Some are pro choice... Some are Pro Life and some just don't care either way. But attacking an opposing view point In the end... Is going to be exhausting... There are a whole bunch of them out there.

Yeah... I think I'll give Torii a pass on this one. The same pass that I give other non famous people who believe something that I don't.

Originally Posted by B Richard

None of what I've advocated insinuates that LGBT rights have come "far enough" or that where our culture stands now is in the right. My point is that we are headed forwards, not backwards. In this light, it's possible to continue shifting our cultural interpretation of gay rights through reasoned argument rather than intellectually stagnant prattling.

The implication here, is that I am or anyone in this thread is guilty of "intellectually stagnant prattling," which is a disingenuous (if not inaccurate) and a surprisingly pretentious claim.

A better understanding of why homophobia is detestable and utterly unacceptable.

This sounds great. But again, I think the nature of discourse is more complicated than this rosy outcome. I wish it would be so, but I'm not at all convinced that Torii Hunter really adds much to that understanding. The implication is that there's no cost to us gaining this possible understanding and empowering folks like Hunter--but there is a cost, while we might better understand Hunter's point of view and the public reaction to it, we also give voice to a point of view that not simply stigmatizes a subset of people but also serves to dehumanize these people.

Our culture, which has been long burdened by misconceptions of homosexuals and their right to equal treatment, would be better served through popularizing the rationale behind why the LGBT community deserves equal treatment rather than brutishly shouting down homophobia without substantive reason.

Again, you're being disingenuous: brutishly shouting down homophobia? No one is even quite doing that. And one could argue that homophobia is in itself brutish. Given that you keep responding to my posts politely and thoughtfully, I must be mustering some bits of substance and reason.

I used to tutor adolescents in physics. I found that the root of many of their problems (math puns unintended) came from not understanding the reasoning behind the greater concepts. They tried to simply memorize formulas, but ultimately failed in applying them because they lacked a proper understanding of why things are the way they are.

Coincidentally , I was a math and science tutor throughout my undergrad (though my graduate career has been a severe pivot), and I've found the same the conclusion. In my experience students failed to understand some basic principle and it was never about a lack of intelligence or capacity; it was a rewarding process to discover what was they found obscure, but that process was difficult. People have trouble telling you what they do not know, what piece they are missing, or what is the nature of belief or attitude However, this isn't physics we are discussing. For many this is a matter of Faith, and there is no reason that can combat Faith. Our focus should be not trying to convince those who are homophobic to change their ways, rather we should seek to disempower those who disseminate the kind of vitriol Hunter is guilty of, so as to not normalize and legitimatize bigoted thinking (though the right they may have to it).

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Let the record show that the discrimination blacks faced is equivalent to the discrimination homosexuals face. Come on. That's silly.

I missed this. Sorry for the delay.

It's not equivalent it's SIMILAR. That's all that is needed for a legitimate COMPARISON, as opposed to equation.

Honestly, you're only serving to minimize the harm bigotry causes to homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Somewhere in America, a solitary tear just rolled down Mark Derosa's cheek.

LOL... Good one... Two points for you.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

The implication here, is that I am or anyone in this thread is guilty of "intellectually stagnant prattling," which is a disingenuous (if not inaccurate) and a surprisingly pretentious claim.

Regardless of how you or anyone else read that comment, I assure you it was not my intention to imply that anyone here was engaging in such folly. I'll try to use less extreme wording moving forward- why would I want to insult people I seek to convince of something? Ironically the same line of thinking applies to the very issue we are discussing.

This sounds great. But again, I think the nature of discourse is more complicated than this rosy outcome. I wish it would be so, but I'm not at all convinced that Torii Hunter really adds much to that understanding. The implication is that there's no cost to us gaining this possible understanding and empowering folks like Hunter--but there is a cost, while we might better understand Hunter's point of view and the public reaction to it, we also give voice to a point of view that not simply stigmatizes a subset of people but also serves to dehumanize these people.

How much are homophobes really empowered through the reasoned dismissal of their beliefs? I hesitate to say that we are giving them more of a "voice" than they already have under the Constitution.

Again, you're being disingenuous: brutishly shouting down homophobia? No one is even quite doing that. And one could argue that homophobia is in itself brutish. Given that you keep responding to my posts politely and thoughtfully, I must be mustering some bits of substance and reason.

More generally, I've seen numerous people respond to homophobia in such terms. I'm not making subtle implications about you or anyone else on this website. Again, it would be more difficult for me to convince you of anything if I personally insulted you. I will say it took me quite some time to understand that finer point.

Coincidentally , I was a math and science tutor throughout my undergrad (though my graduate career has been a severe pivot), and I've found the same the conclusion. In my experience students failed to understand some basic principle and it was never about a lack of intelligence or capacity; it was a rewarding process to discover what was they found obscure, but that process was difficult. People have trouble telling you what they do not know, what piece they are missing, or what is the nature of belief or attitude However, this isn't physics we are discussing. For many this is a matter of Faith, and there is no reason that can combat Faith. Our focus should be not trying to convince those who are homophobic to change their ways, rather we should seek to disempower those who disseminate the kind of vitriol Hunter is guilty of, so as to not normalize and legitimatize bigoted thinking (though the right they may have to it).

I agree here in part. Some people are too far buried in their own hate to see alternative viewpoints. A great example would be the Westboro Baptist church. I consciously chose to not capitalize "church." Interestingly enough, the so-called "church" is actually independent, and in my opinion, not representative of mainstream religiously-motivated dissent towards homosexuality. I apologize for my use of anecdotal evidence, but I do know people who have changed their views on homosexuality by tailoring their faith to reflect growing concerns about the importance of equality for homosexuals.

On a different note, I still have trouble believing that we normalize bigoted thinking by refuting it with reasoned argument rather than empty statements. We do disempower bigots when we show the world that their thinking is warped and unreasonable.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

I missed this. Sorry for the delay.

It's not equivalent it's SIMILAR. That's all that is needed for a legitimate COMPARISON, as opposed to equation.

Honestly, you're only serving to minimize the harm bigotry causes to homosexuals.

That was a response to Frodaddy, not you.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

That was a response to Frodaddy, not you.

And the only part I was saying was "equivalent" was that neither was a choice. You were the one somehow saying that it was impossible to compare them because one is obvious at a glance, and the other has to be "told to the world".

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

And the only part I was saying was "equivalent" was that neither was a choice. You were the one somehow saying that it was impossible to compare them because one is obvious at a glance, and the other has to be "told to the world".

Indeed, the comparison is quite loose. Not impossible to compare, but silly to do so. There are many things, accidental to human nature, which are not a choice. Height, would be an example. Odd number of hairs also. And yes, these are not just like or properly comparable to discrimination based on color.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Indeed, the comparison is quite loose. Not impossible to compare, but silly to do so. There are many things, accidental to human nature, which are not a choice. Height, would be an example. Odd number of hairs also. And yes, these are not just like or properly comparable to discrimination based on color.

If there were widespread discrimination based upon something like height or hair color, they would be comparable to discrimination based upon race or sexual orientation. Seeing as there ISN'T, then yes, the comparison is very "silly". The straws you grasp at are getting more and more ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Indeed, the comparison is quite loose. Not impossible to compare, but silly to do so. There are many things, accidental to human nature, which are not a choice. Height, would be an example. Odd number of hairs also. And yes, these are not just like or properly comparable to discrimination based on color.

You're trying way to hard to sound smart.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Indeed, the comparison is quite loose. Not impossible to compare, but silly to do so. There are many things, accidental to human nature, which are not a choice. Height, would be an example. Odd number of hairs also. And yes, these are not just like or properly comparable to discrimination based on color.

No, the comparison would not be "quite loose," as I suggested earlier I'm sure any legitimate study would find a statistically significant correlation bigotry of racism and homophobia.

Notre Dame football commit Torii Hunter Jr.?s devastating injury caught on film | Prep Rally - Yahoo! Sports

Karma can be a you know what

I cannot wait for spring training to start -- this hot stove talk is getting tiresome.

Great, balanced piece by Morosi

Detroit Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter was quoted as saying his Christian beliefs would make it ?difficult and uncomfortable? for him to accept an openly gay teammate. - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

Wow. 11 pages on this? Impressive. This is not like asking Trevor Plouffe his views on abortion. Torii was asked what it would be like to have a gay teammate. Big difference.

Of course he's entitled to his opinion, but 'free speech' means the government can't arrest you for speaking your mind, not that you deserve to have your view 'respected' and treated as equal and valid no matter what it is, which is what some of you seem to be asking for.

We don't give Westboro Baptist Church 'equal' platforms to spout their views. Why not? Because their views are abhorrent to the vast majority of folks. 40 years ago, they weren't. Clearly this issue has not yet reached that level of consensus. But the way that changes isn't so much in changing the minds of the bigots. It's by taking away their microphone and marginalizing their views for what they are.

Originally Posted by howeda7

But the way that changes isn't so much in changing the minds of the bigots. It's by taking away their microphone and marginalizing their views for what they are.

You achieve that how exactly? Force? Threats? Please explain "taking away" and "marginalizing" in a way that isn't a good sound bite.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

You achieve that how exactly? Force? Threats? Please explain "taking away" and "marginalizing" in a way that isn't a good sound bite.

Shame. We don't need to impede people's rights to make them look stupid and shallow.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Shame. We don't need to impede people's rights to make them look stupid and shallow.

We all agree that what we want is for bigotry against homosexuals to end and for them to have equal rights....correct? That is a practical objective, so let's talk practical. Shaming Torii Hunter does not keep the microphone out of his face. If that was the case, no one would have asked him this question after he was shamed for his racist comments a few years ago. I assure you, this won't be the last time someone asks him a question on this topic no matter how much shame you pile on. As for marginalizing, the only people who agree that his opinion is marginalized by shaming him are the people already sympathetic towards gay rights. You aren't marginalizing it with anyone else by shaming him. They have to care that the opinion is wrong before shame accomplishes that.

Maybe this analogy will help, maybe it won't. Bigotry is a very stupid, childish thought. When a child does or says something wrong, shaming them is a response you can have, but as the go-to it is highly ineffective for altering behavior. We are, in this case, truly trying to alter behavior. Shaming, no matter what spiffy titles we put on it to make our rejection of his comments empowering, will not change anyone's behavior. All you're doing is preaching to the choir. Note: That doesn't mean shaming can't be part of the process, but it isn't the central thrust because it has no real power without more effective practices being employed with it. (Like....reason, positive relationships, etc.)

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

We all agree that what we want is for bigotry against homosexuals to end and for them to have equal rights....correct? That is a practical objective, so let's talk practical. Shaming Torii Hunter does not keep the microphone out of his face. If that was the case, no one would have asked him this question after he was shamed for his racist comments a few years ago. I assure you, this won't be the last time someone asks him a question on this topic no matter how much shame you pile on. As for marginalizing, the only people who agree that his opinion is marginalized by shaming him are the people already sympathetic towards gay rights. You aren't marginalizing it with anyone else by shaming him. They have to care that the opinion is wrong before shame accomplishes that.

Maybe this analogy will help, maybe it won't. Bigotry is a very stupid, childish thought. When a child does or says something wrong, shaming them is a response you can have, but as the go-to it is highly ineffective for altering behavior. We are, in this case, truly trying to alter behavior. Shaming, no matter what spiffy titles we put on it to make our rejection of his comments empowering, will not change anyone's behavior. All you're doing is preaching to the choir. Note: That doesn't mean shaming can't be part of the process, but it isn't the central thrust because it has no real power without more effective practices being employed with it. (Like....reason, positive relationships, etc.)

You do recall Hunter coming out like the next day and saying he was misquoted or taken out of context, without actually correcting that misquote? Like people tend to do when they're embarrassed or say, ashamed of what they've said.