Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

[TheLeviathan]

The hate speech at torii...Jesus Christ. I mentioned violence as, if you're going to compare the "hate speech" directed at Hunter in this thread with hate speech directed at gay people daily, well violence is part of one of those.

 

No, it's not. Again, here is Brock's quote:

"dude, you're a dick and you need to stop saying that" versus "dude, I hate you, everybody like you, and you all need to go away forever".

 

I responded specifically to that line. And I stated that some of the comments in this thread were crossing the line from the first example to being exactly like the second. You jumping to equate that with physical violence and murder is wholly unwarranted and unfair. My comments were nothing of the sort and you know that. That was the true strawman. Now let's move on.

 

I'd say show me an instance where someone has said or implied something here so ugly as half the **** you hear almost daily directed at the gay community, but you won't, and I don't even care. No one has said hunter should be punished, reprimanded, harmed. Just made to feel foolish for saying something foolish

 

Well, at least you told me what that "something" is I'm supposed to be doing finally. Here's the truth, you wouldn't accept anything here as being hateful or out of line because you have so much personal stake that you'd never equate any amount of ugly no matter how equal it may be. So that entire setup is ridiculous, I won't indulge it. What I will say is this: I want gay people to have equal rights in every way. And I want that to be a permanent social change. The great thing about the Civil Rights movement is that it made dramatic changes to our culture and they have stood, unchallenged!, every since. Has it swayed every mind? Of course not, but so much compassion and understanding was drummed up in that movement that no political shifts or social conflict has so much as challenged it to this day. I want the same for the gay community. Take women's rights as an example - every four years the individual acting as president potentially threatens those rights. Why? Because the social change that got them there in the first place was forced in. (Don't take this point any further than it is intended) The tact was inappropriate and we're still suffering through that battle today. Martin Luther King was one of our greatest citizens because he saw the need to change hearts before documents or the documents would be meaningless. Getting in the ugly pit with anti-gay people doesn't win anyone, it only keeps a deeply driven animosity festering below the surface. Yes, Torii's feet should be held to the fire. He should be told he is ignorant and behind the times. But hate him? Talk like Dave has, for example? Not helpful. Not going to achieve what you and I agree on for the future. My point is as simple as that.

[TheLeviathan]

Jesus, this is a silly response. You're using a slippery slope argument to transparently distort my point. Are you really suggesting Torii ought be treated with compassion for making homophobic remarks? Or is this argument another one of your academic points you are making?

 

I distorted nothing, you're once again struggling to keep the context with remarks. I'm not saying Torii should be treated with compassion, I'm saying your primary motivation should be to get him to say gay people's plight with compassion. You don't get that with the tact you continually keep defending and/or attacking a reasonable, well-stated tact. Meanwhile, justifying indecency in the name of your personal moral opinions works for many other areas and moral opinions I highly doubt you'd share.

[Riverbrian]

Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their beliefs? How far are you willing to go down this slippery slope?

 

My slope ain't that slippery. It's pretty firm ground. Torii is a product of his upbringing... Just like you and I are and that is how we all form our opinions on all subjects. Torii is part of the majority in his psychography... Expecting him to rise above it isn't really fair. Some do... Most don't.

 

It's a social issue and there are a large amount of people on both sides of the issue. We are not talking about handfuls... We are talking about a large amount of people on both sides of the issue. Torii is not the only one... He is just the only who has been quoted in this article! (out of context according to Torii).

 

Let's suppose the reporter asks Justin Morneau for his opinion on abortion and he's pro-choice or pro-life and expresses it.

 

Justin will be attacked viciously by pro-lifers or pro-choicers who feel strongly about the morality of the issue. It doesn't seem to matter if it's a majority opinion. The Morality of his response will be determined by each individual reader based on their own personal morality.

 

Pick your social issue... What if Joe Mauer says he doesn't believe in God!!! What happens next to Joe publicly!!! I'm willing to bet that someone in a locker room somewhere doesn't believe in God!

 

Do we really need to know what Trevor Plouffe thinks about global warming...Do we need to know who is democrat or republican. How about a word from Josh Willingham on Stem Cell Research... Animal Rights... Environmental issues... Gun Control.

 

My stance is on pretty firm ground. Do we need our athletes black listed ala Joe McCarthy? I don't want Ryan Braun on this team because he's against the War in Afghanistan!!!

 

It's a social issue and in the court of public opinion. Torii will be slayed either way. Give him a break!!!

 

Torii expressed an opinion that is actually a majority opinion in his own particulur psychography but he gets to be the poster boy now. He gets to be the target for the other side.

 

How about the Dixie Chicks... Was it fair what happened to them?

 

So what exactly do you want Torii held accountable for? Growing up where he did? When he did? Attending the church he attended? Believing what he believes? Not having any gay friends? Speaking Honestly?

 

My slope ain't that slippery.

 

The Slippery Slope elephant in the room... Is giving a rats ass what anyone thinks!!! You are on that slope and you are going to end up being pissed at a lot of people as the opinions start rolling in.

 

You will end up being pissed at me and I agree with you on the issue!

 

He plays baseball... I'm going to judge him on if he is putting effort on the field and trying to help his team win.

[jokin]

Yeah those damn liberals wanting to limit speech and not have a discussion of ideas!

 

I guess you haven't been on a university campus lately.

[jokin]

Who is abandoning their principles? NO ONE IS FOR SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. Stop it with that strawman. But you're goddamn right I'm going to tell-off those who use their liberty to deny others liberty.

 

...Haven't been on a university campus lately....

[jokin]

Who is saying free speech should be suppressed? Bigots can say what they want, but the rest of society in turn then has the obligation to shame that person to demonstrate to other bigots that those views will no longer serve to dictate the direction our society will head thus forth. Unless you are of mind that those biggoted views serve a positive purpose?

 

Yes, having the absolute right to freedom of expression (short of the fire in a theater exception) is IMO, our greatest freedom, and it is why it is listed as the 1st Amendment.

 

We all have a greater obligation to protecting the guarantee of free speech for all than wiping out the speech with which we disagree.

 

If free speech had not been guaranteed to us 200-some odd years ago and all the accompanying liberties that were made possible by free speech, our social advancements would have been much more problematic and greatly retarded from the point we have currently reached. Acting like the Fascists we defeated 67 years ago to preserve what has been accomplished seems more than just a little hypocritical.

[jokin]

No one AT ALL said anything about limiting First Amendment speech rights. Go straw-man people somewhere else.

 

You above all others on this board, know that the suppression of free speech isn't a strawman argument on university campuses.

[FrodaddyG]

You above all others on this board, know that the suppression of free speech isn't a strawman argument on university campuses.

Wow, this pointless diversion statement is even more effective the third time you used it as a response.

[jokin]

Fair, but generalizing the left or liberals is gonna get me fired up. And I agree tact matters, though that should hardly be our chief concern.

Sorry to engage in risk generalization, but that explains the Left's all-too-frequent abandonment, of late, of the rational argument, in favor of the emotional and/or ideological one, often laced with a underlying love letter to its opponents in Crypto-Fascist undertone. History's results show mixed accomplishments for the victors in emotional and ideological arguments (to be sure, the Right has plenty of guilt to share), to say the least.

[jokin]

Wow, this pointless diversion statement is even more effective the third time you used it as a response.

 

Pointless especially with those who choose to close their mind rather than engage. (You also undoubtedly are not aware that Shane is a college instructor.)

[flpmagikat]

No, it's not. Again, here is Brock's quote:

 

I responded specifically to that line. And I stated that some of the comments in this thread were crossing the line from the first example to being exactly like the second. You jumping to equate that with physical violence and murder is wholly unwarranted and unfair. My comments were nothing of the sort and you know that. That was the true strawman. Now let's move on.

 

[/font][/color]

 

Well, at least you told me what that "something" is I'm supposed to be doing finally. Here's the truth, you wouldn't accept anything here as being hateful or out of line because you have so much personal stake that you'd never equate any amount of ugly no matter how equal it may be. So that entire setup is ridiculous, I won't indulge it. What I will say is this: I want gay people to have equal rights in every way. And I want that to be a permanent social change. The great thing about the Civil Rights movement is that it made dramatic changes to our culture and they have stood, unchallenged!, every since. Has it swayed every mind? Of course not, but so much compassion and understanding was drummed up in that movement that no political shifts or social conflict has so much as challenged it to this day. I want the same for the gay community. Take women's rights as an example - every four years the individual acting as president potentially threatens those rights. Why? Because the social change that got them there in the first place was forced in. (Don't take this point any further than it is intended) The tact was inappropriate and we're still suffering through that battle today. Martin Luther King was one of our greatest citizens because he saw the need to change hearts before documents or the documents would be meaningless. Getting in the ugly pit with anti-gay people doesn't win anyone, it only keeps a deeply driven animosity festering below the surface. Yes, Torii's feet should be held to the fire. He should be told he is ignorant and behind the times. But hate him? Talk like Dave has, for example? Not helpful. Not going to achieve what you and I agree on for the future. My point is as simple as that.

 

"you're an idiot and should be treated as such" really isn't the same as "I hate you and you should go away forever". Just what do you think the going away forever means?

 

"Here's the truth, you wouldn't accept anything here as being hateful or out of line because you have so much personal stake that you'd never equate any amount of ugly no matter how equal it may be. So that entire setup is ridiculous"

 

Of course you won't, because you're you, and you blame me for you saying something extremely ignorant. Hate speech against torii!

 

The strawman is no one has said they hate hunter or others that share his view. Or that he should be punished beyond just being exposed as foolish and closeminded. Or silenced. But keep fighting the mean liberals who keep fighting the bigotry and closeminded with sometimes less than polite rhetoric. I mean, someone has to stand up for them.

[PseudoSABR]

I guess you haven't been on a university campus lately.

What are you talking about? I've taught at universities for more than a decade, fyi. But that shouldn't necessarily legitimate mine or anyone's opinion on this issue...

 

And I don't doubt there's some ideologue hypocrite liberals someplace suppression someone's speech through PC bull****. But as a generalization liberals are beasts for the first amendment.

[PseudoSABR]

My slope ain't that slippery. It's pretty firm ground. Torii is a product of his upbringing... Just like you and I are and that is how we all form our opinions on all subjects. Torii is part of the majority in his psychography... Expecting him to rise above it isn't really fair. Some do... Most don't.

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.

[TheLeviathan]

"you're an idiot and should be treated as such" really isn't the same as "I hate you and you should go away forever". Just what do you think the going away forever means?

 

Well, that isn't what Torii said either. He's being interpreted much more harshly than the actual content of his quotes reveal. But I would agree that's hismessage, just like many of the message on here are meant to be pretty similar.

 

Of course you won't, because you're you, and you blame me for you saying something extremely ignorant. Hate speech against torii!

 

I never said any such thing about you. I responded to Brock and you took my response and made into something it absolutely wasn't.

 

The strawman is no one has said they hate hunter or others that share his view. Or that he should be punished beyond just being exposed as foolish and closeminded. Or silenced. But keep fighting the mean liberals who keep fighting the bigotry and closeminded with sometimes less than polite rhetoric. I mean, someone has to stand up for them.

 

He was exposed already by a journalist. What is anyone else accomplishing more than this other than walking a fine line to hating Torii Hunter and being no better than his ignorant opinion?

[PseudoSABR]

I distorted nothing, you're once again struggling to keep the context with remarks. I'm not saying Torii should be treated with compassion, I'm saying your primary motivation should be to get him to say gay people's plight with compassion. You don't get that with the tact you continually keep defending and/or attacking a reasonable, well-stated tact. Meanwhile, justifying indecency in the name of your personal moral opinions works for many other areas and moral opinions I highly doubt you'd share.

Oh, of course, I'm giving up my principles because I'm tactlessly scorning Torii's homophobia. And where, exactly has anyone been harmfully tactless or recommended the behaviors of abortion protesters? I mean where the heck do you get off saying that I'm justifying something indecent? What is this indecent thing I've done?

 

And frankly, Levi, you're the about the worse person who should be lecturing some one tact. It's laughable.

[TheLeviathan]

Oh, of course, I'm giving up my principles because I'm tactlessly scorning Torii's homophobia. And where, exactly has anyone been harmfully tactless or recommended the behaviors of abortion protesters? I mean where the heck do you get off saying that I'm justifying something indecent? What is this indecent thing I've done?

 

I didn't say you did.....you just continue to rush to attack anyone that posts anything along the lines of "we should use this ignorance to help further the cause." I won't presume to say why you continue to do that. But you are. Then, you make it a point to say that anyone calling for more decent rhetoric on it is crowning the king. As if, any discussion of decency or tact should be cast aside as "petty" if our moral impulses are strong enough. Again, I think you'd fall on the other side of that argument in many, many cases.

 

My tact here is meaningless. The tact on gay rights nationally is incredibly meaningful because people I care about are affected.

[twinsnorth49]

Spirit... I kinda think you're an idiot. And I'm really disappointed in 99% of the comments below. Some guy said, "I read the article"... um, did you really? Did you read the original Kevin Baxter issue too? I don't get, maybe you skimmed.

 

Torii is outspoken. Yes. It's refreshing that someone can do it with some intelligence. Nothing ignorant about what was said nor HOW he said it.

 

Media loves playing with context. Media loves taking a story and manipulating it, TO MANIPULATE YOU!

 

This is a waste of a story. Read Torii's thoughts after. They're not the typical "oh yeah, I'm sorry so I don't get into trouble"... it's more the, "eff you for trying to make me look like an ass when I was being candid about how things are in the locker room"...

 

I give him credit.

 

Stop being so effin offended by every little thing. That's directed at everyone here who thinks they found something out about their long lost hero. What a bunch of crap. Grow up.

 

Quite the contrived little lecture. Is everyone entitled to an opinion as long as it's yours?

[Craig Arko]

[DaveW]

Quite the contrived little lecture. Is everyone entitled to an opinion as long as it's yours?

 

Haha. Don't respond to the troll next time , I do like how he is playing the "blame the media!" card though.

 

Also for the record Hunter was never my long lost hero, I stopped idolizing athletes as "heros" sometime around my 14th birthday or so.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I stopped idolizing athletes as "heros" sometime around my 14th birthday or so.

 

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

[B Richard]

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.

[Riverbrian]

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.

[PseudoSABR]

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).

[PseudoSABR]

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.

[Riverbrian]

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

 

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

[B Richard]

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.

[Ultima Ratio]

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.

[FrodaddyG]

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".

[Ultima Ratio]

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.

[FrodaddyG]

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.