PDA

View Full Version : Required to attend LGBT training at colleges.. right or wrong?



garhkal
03-18-2015, 09:53 PM
Saw this on the GOPUSA site, but also on breibart and several other "NON mainstream sites'..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-as-hate-group-for-asking-for-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

http://www.educationviews.org/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-hate-group-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

Should a College campus be allowed to REQUIRE students to attend LGBT training if it would go against their religious beliefs? And if those students refuse to attend it, should they be getting labeled as racists, hate filled etc?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-18-2015, 11:08 PM
Saw this on the GOPUSA site, but also on breibart and several other "NON mainstream sites'..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-as-hate-group-for-asking-for-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

http://www.educationviews.org/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-hate-group-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

Should a College campus be allowed to REQUIRE students to attend LGBT training if it would go against their religious beliefs? And if those students refuse to attend it, should they be getting labeled as racists, hate filled etc?

Sure, just as long as they make it mandatory to take a course on the US Constitution. Won't happen though, as too many professors despise America and hate the Constitution.

Rainmaker
03-19-2015, 01:56 AM
Definitely Right. Because, Once the Government controls everything we will finally all live in Harmony.

sandsjames
03-19-2015, 11:56 AM
Saw this on the GOPUSA site, but also on breibart and several other "NON mainstream sites'..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-as-hate-group-for-asking-for-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

http://www.educationviews.org/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-hate-group-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

Should a College campus be allowed to REQUIRE students to attend LGBT training if it would go against their religious beliefs? And if those students refuse to attend it, should they be getting labeled as racists, hate filled etc?

They should not be allowed to make anyone attend any training unless it is a requirement directly related to their degree. They've already got "training" for freshmen about drinking, sexual assault, etc, that is patronizing. This is just another thing to add to it. Imagine if they tried to make it mandatory to attend a "tolerance of religion" class.

It's no different than the military conducting the same types of training, except with GIs they can make it mandatory, whether ethical or not.

TJMAC77SP
03-19-2015, 12:38 PM
They should not be allowed to make anyone attend any training unless it is a requirement directly related to their degree. They've already got "training" for freshmen about drinking, sexual assault, etc, that is patronizing. This is just another thing to add to it. Imagine if they tried to make it mandatory to attend a "tolerance of religion" class.

It's no different than the military conducting the same types of training, except with GIs they can make it mandatory, whether ethical or not.

I had the same thought SJ (regarding the religious tolerance training). I don't condone the ill-treatment of anyone based on some prejudice but it seems that the issues are cherry-picked and targeted for outrage

Rainmaker
03-19-2015, 01:15 PM
I had the same thought SJ (regarding the religious tolerance training). I don't condone the ill-treatment of anyone based on some prejudice but it seems that the issues are cherry-picked and targeted for outrage

I'm sure the Father of our Country would be so proud to have his name associated with this New Underworld Order Communist Shit Cult of Homo worship.

garhkal
03-19-2015, 09:25 PM
They should not be allowed to make anyone attend any training unless it is a requirement directly related to their degree. They've already got "training" for freshmen about drinking, sexual assault, etc, that is patronizing. This is just another thing to add to it. Imagine if they tried to make it mandatory to attend a "tolerance of religion" class.

It's no different than the military conducting the same types of training, except with GIs they can make it mandatory, whether ethical or not.

Exactly. Heck when you see colleges going after the 10 commandments and other signs of religion, how can it be ok to then make it a requirement to attend "sensitivity training" for the other side of the issue.??

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 06:43 PM
Saw this on the GOPUSA site, but also on breibart and several other "NON mainstream sites'..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-as-hate-group-for-asking-for-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

http://www.educationviews.org/george-washington-university-yaf-smeared-hate-group-resisting-lgbt-sensitivity-training/

Should a College campus be allowed to REQUIRE students to attend LGBT training if it would go against their religious beliefs?

Of course a private college shouold be allowed to require training.

Apply the same principle. Should a Catholic University be allowed to REQUIRE students to attend religious classes?

Yes, of course.


And if those students refuse to attend it, should they be getting labeled as racists, hate filled etc?

No, they should be invited to leave the college.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 06:47 PM
They should not be allowed to make anyone attend any training unless it is a requirement directly related to their degree. They've already got "training" for freshmen about drinking, sexual assault, etc, that is patronizing. This is just another thing to add to it. Imagine if they tried to make it mandatory to attend a "tolerance of religion" class.

It's no different than the military conducting the same types of training, except with GIs they can make it mandatory, whether ethical or not.

So, if a college has a problem with sexual assault, you don't think they should be able to make education as part of their solution?

Crazy.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 06:49 PM
Exactly. Heck when you see colleges going after the 10 commandments and other signs of religion, how can it be ok to then make it a requirement to attend "sensitivity training" for the other side of the issue.??

On the flip side...why not?

Why shouldn't a private college be able to teach the things they find valuable? Whether it is a Catholic University teaching the 10 commandments, or a secular University, let's say, teaching against them?

Rusty Jones
04-02-2015, 07:21 PM
Here's an idea: the school no longer mandates LGBT tolerance courses. This, of course, leaves the school more vulnerable to litigation. So if an incident occurs on campus, whatever it costs the school gets equally divided among the students who did not attend the course and it gets added to their tuition. So now we've got freedom of choice!

SomeRandomGuy
04-02-2015, 08:32 PM
Here's an idea: the school no longer mandates LGBT tolerance courses. This, of course, leaves the school more vulnerable to litigation. So if an incident occurs on campus, whatever it costs the school gets equally divided among the students who did not attend the course and it gets added to their tuition. So now we've got freedom of choice!

Here's the thing. I understand the classes are a CYA thing but even that is a symptom of the problem. You are in HR so you can appreciate this story. My dad was in HR for a company that made fiberglass sleepers for tractor-trailers. They hired lots of temp employees because no one really enjoys working in a fiberglass plant. Anyways, when the employees were spraying fiberglass they would wear full body zip up suits sorta like AF flight suits. The suits were kind of a pain to get off because particles of fiber glass would get caught in there and what not. Anyways, they hire a female temp employee. She's finishing up her shift and about to take her suit off. The zipper is jammed. She turns to a supervisor who is walking by carrying some supplies. She says, "Hey, can you unzip me?" He looks down (hands full) looks at her and says, "With what, my teeth?"

She sues the company for sexual harrassment. She somehow fucking wins in court because the company couldn't prove it trained employees about sexual harrassment.

Maybe this also proves what you are saying Rusty, but it also brings up a larger issue. First off, the remark was in jest and clearly not meant in a sexual way. The woman who sued was jobless and looking for money. Third, even if the supervisor meant it in a sexual way, he would have known it was wrong and no amount of training would change that.

So I guess the point Sandsjames is making is that you shoudln't need classes to teach people right and wrong. All of the sensitivty training is strictly a CYA thing based on frivelous lawsuits.

sandsjames
04-02-2015, 08:37 PM
So, if a college has a problem with sexual assault, you don't think they should be able to make education as part of their solution?

Crazy.

They should absolutely be able to make it part of the solution, as long as they make it a prerequisite/orientation type thing. And, as has been mentioned before, don't fool yourself into thinking it's about education. It's all about CYA.

sandsjames
04-02-2015, 08:39 PM
Here's an idea: the school no longer mandates LGBT tolerance courses. This, of course, leaves the school more vulnerable to litigation. So if an incident occurs on campus, whatever it costs the school gets equally divided among the students who did not attend the course and it gets added to their tuition. So now we've got freedom of choice!

How about this. How about organizations quit getting held responsible for the stupidity of it's people. How 'bout the lawsuits take place against the individual. Of course, that would mean that all these companies/colleges/hospitals would be able to drop their prices and we'd be able to afford them, so we can't have that.

Punish the people involved. Don't fuck everyone else for the stupidity of some. I know that's hard to imagine after being in the military, but it is a viable option.

edit: Just noticed that the same point was made above...

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 08:58 PM
They should absolutely be able to make it part of the solution, as long as they make it a prerequisite/orientation type thing.

How is that directly related to a degree? I'm not sure what you mean by "as long as it is a prerequisite/orientation type of thing"...how else would it be delivered that you would think is "wrong?" What if the problem came up in 2104, and they gave it to all students and faculty at that time?

Is it "wrong" in this case to require the leaders of student organizations to attend some leadership training? Why can't that leadership training include the proper ways to address and deal with GLBT people?


And, as has been mentioned before, don't fool yourself into thinking it's about education. It's all about CYA.

Still not seeing the downside.

By CYA...you mean being able to demonstrate to a court/jury/arbitrator that the company/school/supervisor, etc. made a clear stance opposing mistreatment/harassment/discrimination, etc. against a potentially injured person.

Why would you want to prohibit that, again?

Kind of like the old Commander's Safety Policy letters...I've yet to see one that says, "as commander, safety isn't really that important to me"...yes, those letters are to document that the commander told you he values safety, the documentation is solely for CYA, I'm sure.

sandsjames
04-02-2015, 09:21 PM
Why can't that leadership training include the proper ways to address and deal with GLBT people? Why can't it be used to address the proper ways to deal with ALL people? Quit turning specific groups into victims.


Still not seeing the downside.

By CYA...you mean being able to demonstrate to a court/jury/arbitrator that the company/school/supervisor, etc. made a clear stance opposing mistreatment/harassment/discrimination, etc. against a potentially injured person.[

Why would you want to prohibit that, again?

Kind of like the old Commander's Safety Policy letters...I've yet to see one that says, "as commander, safety isn't really that important to me"...yes, those letters are to document that the commander told you he values safety, the documentation is solely for CYA, I'm sure.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It's all the bullshit that they feed you making it sound like they actually give a damn, whether Commanders or colleges. It's so false that everyone sees through it and it makes it meaningless, in addition to making it not get taken seriously.

Cut out the lawsuits. Make individuals responsible for their actions. Quit making everyone into a victim. Everything else will take care of itself.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 09:33 PM
Why can't it be used to address the proper ways to deal with ALL people? Quit turning specific groups into victims.


Maybe their aren't as many issues with the treatment of ALL people.


Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It's all the bullshit that they feed you making it sound like they actually give a damn, whether Commanders or colleges.

Some people actually do give a damn. There is also the possibility that the leadership of GWU genuinely and sincerely wants to make GLBT students feel welcome and respected in student organizations...I mean, they are liberals afterall.


It's so false that everyone sees through it and it makes it meaningless, in addition to making it not get taken seriously.

Maybe, maybe not. I think I genuinely care about the people I work with, while at the same time protecting myself and my company. It's true that some of my actions serve the second purpose moreso than the first.


Cut out the lawsuits. Make individuals responsible for their actions. Quit making everyone into a victim. Everything else will take care of itself.

While tort reform is a lofty goal, it is hardly within the span of control of GWU. Individuals responsible for the actions, sure...but, do you think organizations are never culpable? Certainly, we can all post numerous court decisions that seem to go against common sense, yada yada yada...and I have some of my own personal horror stories with the civil litigation process...and the end of the day though, most of those decisions are made by a jury of ordinary people. Either way, a single organization has very little control over that, but must rather operate within the system.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 09:38 PM
How about this. How about organizations quit getting held responsible for the stupidity of it's people. How 'bout the lawsuits take place against the individual. Of course, that would mean that all these companies/colleges/hospitals would be able to drop their prices and we'd be able to afford them, so we can't have that.

Punish the people involved. Don't fuck everyone else for the stupidity of some. I know that's hard to imagine after being in the military, but it is a viable option.

edit: Just noticed that the same point was made above...

Yes, tort reform is an interesting and totally separate subject, certainly outside the immediate control of GWU or any of us here. I do think there are times when organizations are culpable and should be suject to litigation.

garhkal
04-02-2015, 10:53 PM
On the flip side...why not?

Why shouldn't a private college be able to teach the things they find valuable? Whether it is a Catholic University teaching the 10 commandments, or a secular University, let's say, teaching against them?

If they are receiving public/govt funds though how can they claim to be private though?


Here's the thing. I understand the classes are a CYA thing but even that is a symptom of the problem. You are in HR so you can appreciate this story. My dad was in HR for a company that made fiberglass sleepers for tractor-trailers. They hired lots of temp employees because no one really enjoys working in a fiberglass plant. Anyways, when the employees were spraying fiberglass they would wear full body zip up suits sorta like AF flight suits. The suits were kind of a pain to get off because particles of fiber glass would get caught in there and what not. Anyways, they hire a female temp employee. She's finishing up her shift and about to take her suit off. The zipper is jammed. She turns to a supervisor who is walking by carrying some supplies. She says, "Hey, can you unzip me?" He looks down (hands full) looks at her and says, "With what, my teeth?"

She sues the company for sexual harrassment. She somehow fucking wins in court because the company couldn't prove it trained employees about sexual harrassment.

Maybe this also proves what you are saying Rusty, but it also brings up a larger issue. First off, the remark was in jest and clearly not meant in a sexual way. The woman who sued was jobless and looking for money. Third, even if the supervisor meant it in a sexual way, he would have known it was wrong and no amount of training would change that.

So I guess the point Sandsjames is making is that you shoudln't need classes to teach people right and wrong. All of the sensitivty training is strictly a CYA thing based on frivelous lawsuits.

First off i loved that story. And secondly, i agree, all these courses etc wouldn't be needed if Frivelous lawsuits were nipped in the butt.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 11:04 PM
If they are receiving public/govt funds though how can they claim to be private though?

They are private. They can also accept public money...there's nothing wrong with that. Just because someone/something accepts assistance from the govt. does not mean they give up their liberty.

Do you still claim to be a private citizen if you driven on public roads? Took advantage of a govt. tax credit? etc.

Or do you really want to live in a country where the govt. has the right to control everything and everyone it has given money to?


First off i loved that story. And secondly, i agree, all these courses etc wouldn't be needed if Frivelous lawsuits were nipped in the butt.

There are already laws/penalties for frivilous litigation.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 01:05 AM
First off, the remark was in jest and clearly not meant in a sexual way.

If the entirety of the story is as you relayed it, then it is surprising to me that the company's legal team could not communicate this effectively to what i can only assume was a jury of ordinary people.


The woman who sued was jobless and looking for money.

Not sure the relevance.


Third, even if the supervisor meant it in a sexual way, he would have known it was wrong and no amount of training would change that.

I disagree with this. I think some training has been effective in instructing people on things that might be inappropriate in a workplace setting, or maybe driving home the potential repercussions of misbehaving. I mean, a lot of people like to ratchet up punishments as a deterrent to doing crimes, or misbehaving (death penalty, take away retirement benefits, etc.)...but how would those things be a deterrent if people aren't told about them? A death penalty can't deter crime if the potential criminal doesn't know he might get the death penalty...but what you're saying here is that people know right from wrong and making the punishment more severe won't change the fact that they want to do wrong and will do it anyway? I disagree.

A supervisor might say inappropriate comments if he thinks he'll just be told to stop if and when someone gets "offended"...but, once he learns the offended party might have 10 years to bring a case...and he might get personally sued for not just saying comments, but for being within earshot of comments and not doing anything....learning that might change his behavior and mindfulness in avoiding the perception of collusion as well, and contribute to a healthier work climate.


So I guess the point Sandsjames is making is that you shoudln't need classes to teach people right and wrong.

Not everyone has the same understanding of professional conduct, as is clearly evident from this board alone.


All of the sensitivty training is strictly a CYA thing based on frivelous lawsuits.

The lawsuit isn't frivilous if she won (okay, we can all disagree with that). But, more importantly, I would think it is not only a good idea, but an obligation to help cover their company's ass from lawsuits. If this training helps do that...why are people against it again?

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 01:06 AM
Maybe their aren't as many issues with the treatment of ALL people. Of course not. Nobody other than "victims" are mistreated. We couldn't possibly teach people to treat EVERYONE with respect. We MUST focus on specific groups.




Some people actually do give a damn. There is also the possibility that the leadership of GWU genuinely and sincerely wants to make GLBT students feel welcome and respected in student organizations...I mean, they are liberals afterall. Yeah, cuz liberals are always so caring, with no agenda.




Maybe, maybe not. I think I genuinely care about the people I work with, while at the same time protecting myself and my company. It's true that some of my actions serve the second purpose moreso than the first. I believe that people do care about the people in their companies, as a whole, but they don't give a shit about the individual. The reason for that is that the people keep the company in business while the individual is easily replaced. So, when "leaders" say they "care", they mean that they do what's best for the people that is best for the company, with the company being the number one priority. Yet they will try to put it across as the individuals being the number 1 priority. It's all a bunch of smoke blowing. They'd be better off to tell the truth: "My number one priority is keeping this business running at it's peak, no matter who I have to get rid of." That's the truth.


While tort reform is a lofty goal, it is hardly within the span of control of GWU. Individuals responsible for the actions, sure...but, do you think organizations are never culpable? Organizations are culpable, sometimes, but not in any case where an individual does something to another individual. Hell, even if it's someone on the staff (a professor, etc) that is taking part, there is no way that the entire organization can be in the know. At some point, it falls on an individual, whether that's the CEO or the guy in the mailroom. Go after those people.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 01:15 AM
Of course not. Nobody other than "victims" are mistreated. We couldn't possibly teach people to treat EVERYONE with respect. We MUST focus on specific groups.

Okay, so you are in favor of a U having training on teaching respect of all people, but not on teaching respect of any sub-group of people? Is it safe to assume you have backed off of the "only if it is directly related to the degree" stance?

Let's don't focus so much on the CONTENT of what is in the training...that is best left to the individual institutions, their stakeholdes, students, alumni, etc....just on whether or not the college has the right to conduct it. That really separates the principle of the matter. I found it odd (not really) that all the self-proclaimed small-govt. conservatives around here seem to think the govt. should step into this private university and tell them what they can't train on...seems like a terrible imposition on liberty, to me.

If you are President of the James University someday and want to train all students on respect of all people...i would in no way be againt that. If you want to teach them proper respect of Veterans, again...no argument from me. If you want to teach them the proper ways to address a Deacon of the Methodist Church...I will support your right to do so.


Yeah, cuz liberals are always so caring, with no agenda.

Snide comment aside...do you think it is impossible for someone to genuinely care about how a gay person is received by their organization?


I believe that people do care about the people in their companies, as a whole, but they don't give a shit about the individual. The reason for that is that the people keep the company in business while the individual is easily replaced. So, when "leaders" say they "care", they mean that they do what's best for the people that is best for the company, with the company being the number one priority. Yet they will try to put it across as the individuals being the number 1 priority. It's all a bunch of smoke blowing. They'd be better off to tell the truth: "My number one priority is keeping this business running at it's peak, no matter who I have to get rid of." That's the truth.

Oh, I think there are trade-offs with people. In my company, I have seen it first hand with leaders up to and including the CEO, where they have put individuals first.

I've seen where the data clearly says the company should lay off an employee. CEO says, "oh man, our least senior employee is Jane, she just bought a house, we can't do that."

I have many other examples...not everyone in leadership is cold-hearted.


Organizations are culpable, sometimes, but not in any case where an individual does something to another individual. Hell, even if it's someone on the staff (a professor, etc) that is taking part, there is no way that the entire organization can be in the know. At some point, it falls on an individual, whether that's the CEO or the guy in the mailroom. Go after those people.

It's really tough to talk this in generalities. The degree to which the organization allowed certain behaviors is certainly culpable...if they encouraged it, surely....if they failed to take reasonable actions to prevent it, maybe also. That last part is probably what we're dealing with...and I get the point that the company should not necessarily be expected to anticipate illegal actions on the part of the employee. Employees should be expected to act in a legal manner, for the most part....but much like it would be unreasonably negligent for a large investment company...to have only one person responsible for the money without oversight..standard accounting practices insist to have a division of approval/review...even though that individual might be criminally responsible, the company had a responsibility to reasonably safeguard their investors money...it could be also negligent for a company to not set in place reasonable standards of employee conduct.

garhkal
04-03-2015, 06:10 AM
There are already laws/penalties for frivilous litigation.


Are there? Where? I have never heard of anyone actually getting penalized for bringing one.


I would think it is not only a good idea, but an obligation to help cover their company's ass from lawsuits. If this training helps do that...why are people against it again?

BUt as mentioned training won't stop someone who already has it in their mind to do it. its just a slick way to hopefully cover the business's butt.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 06:46 AM
Are there? Where?

Federal and most, if not all, states.


I have never heard of anyone actually getting penalized for bringing one.

So, you didn't take 30 seconds to google the possiblity before posting this reply...or you would have heard of many many cases. Do you want me to link some, or you do just wanna handle that yourself? Not sure if I can post links since I'm a newbie.

But, this isn't really the issue at hand. You wanna talk tort reform, believe me, I'm all for it. What I don't get is why a, let's say less than just, tort system should be a reason to prevent this college from holding a training class on respect for people who are GLBT.
and, reforming the U.S. Tort system is way beyond the power of this college...best they can do is operate within it...and maybe advocate some change, but that's way beyond this topic.


BUt as mentioned training won't stop someone who already has it in their mind to do it.

If someone "has it in their mind" to treat gay people badly...sure, we aren't going to train them out of it. What if someone doesn't have it in their mind to do so, but through a lack of exposure simply doesn't know any better?

But, once again...I'd ask you to separate the principle from the content. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the content should not be the basis of whether or not you agree with the principle. You can never expect all of America to agree with you on every issue...the test of whether or not you believe in freedom and liberty is whether or not you agree with allowing people you disagree with to have it.

I get from most of your comments that your position is "Liberalism is bad and anything we do to restrict it is therefore good"....in other words, you don't really believe in freedom and liberty...you only believe in the freedom and liberty to fall in line with your party line.

If you are advocating that this private school be prohibited from mandating a training class, because you disagree with the content of that class...you have to be careful where that principle might lead. Because, there is a fair chance that whoever it is that decides which "content" is okay and which isn't, will likely disagree with you at some point...heck there is a good chance that the deciders will eventually be dominated by liberals even! Then what?


its just a slick way to hopefully cover the business's butt.

I wish someone would explain why covering the business's butt should be prohibited...you all keep mentioning it and I, can not for the life of me unnderstand why you think this should be prohibited.

However, in addition to covering the college's legal butt, there is also a very real possibility that the college leadership is genuinely and sincerely concerned about the treatment of people who are LGBT...there are some people who actually care about things.

Whether or not this course will accomplish that is not the bigger point. You can think it won't be effective...but why should they not be permitted to try it?

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 11:26 AM
Okay, so you are in favor of a U having training on teaching respect of all people, but not on teaching respect of any sub-group of people? Is it safe to assume you have backed off of the "only if it is directly related to the degree" stance? As I said, it should be part of an orientation, at most. "Ok, these are our rules. No underage drinking, NO means NO, and treat everyone with respect or you'll be expelled". Pretty simple, really.


Let's don't focus so much on the CONTENT of what is in the training...that is best left to the individual institutions, their stakeholdes, students, alumni, etc....just on whether or not the college has the right to conduct it. That really separates the principle of the matter. I found it odd (not really) that all the self-proclaimed small-govt. conservatives around here seem to think the govt. should step into this private university and tell them what they can't train on...seems like a terrible imposition on liberty, to me. Private schools have the right to teach whatever they want. Public schools do not, so political agendas need to be put in a closet somewhere.


If you are President of the James University someday and want to train all students on respect of all people...i would in no way be againt that. If you want to teach them proper respect of Veterans, again...no argument from me. If you want to teach them the proper ways to address a Deacon of the Methodist Church...I will support your right to do so. Ok...




Snide comment aside...do you think it is impossible for someone to genuinely care about how a gay person is received by their organization? Nope, but I also think it's highly unlikely that the person cares about it for more than the reason of not getting sued.




Oh, I think there are trade-offs with people. In my company, I have seen it first hand with leaders up to and including the CEO, where they have put individuals first.

I've seen where the data clearly says the company should lay off an employee. CEO says, "oh man, our least senior employee is Jane, she just bought a house, we can't do that."

I have many other examples...not everyone in leadership is cold-hearted. But the majority are going to do what makes them most money. I've had one good Commander who I believe actually cared about us as individuals. But I've also had many more that cared about the next rank.




It's really tough to talk this in generalities. The degree to which the organization allowed certain behaviors is certainly culpable...if they encouraged it, surely....if they failed to take reasonable actions to prevent it, maybe also. That last part is probably what we're dealing with...and I get the point that the company should not necessarily be expected to anticipate illegal actions on the part of the employee. Employees should be expected to act in a legal manner, for the most part....but much like it would be unreasonably negligent for a large investment company...to have only one person responsible for the money without oversight..standard accounting practices insist to have a division of approval/review...even though that individual might be criminally responsible, the company had a responsibility to reasonably safeguard their investors money...it could be also negligent for a company to not set in place reasonable standards of employee conduct.Right, but if that one person calls someone a "fag" do you hold the entire department responsible? You're example is about liability on stuff related to the actual purpose of the company. That is much different than liability/culpability for the actions of a person as it relates to one on one interactions with coworkers.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 11:33 AM
Federal and most, if not all, states.



So, you didn't take 30 seconds to google the possiblity before posting this reply...or you would have heard of many many cases. Do you want me to link some, or you do just wanna handle that yourself? Not sure if I can post links since I'm a newbie.

But, this isn't really the issue at hand. You wanna talk tort reform, believe me, I'm all for it. What I don't get is why a, let's say less than just, tort system should be a reason to prevent this college from holding a training class on respect for people who are GLBT.
and, reforming the U.S. Tort system is way beyond the power of this college...best they can do is operate within it...and maybe advocate some change, but that's way beyond this topic.



If someone "has it in their mind" to treat gay people badly...sure, we aren't going to train them out of it. What if someone doesn't have it in their mind to do so, but through a lack of exposure simply doesn't know any better?

But, once again...I'd ask you to separate the principle from the content. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the content should not be the basis of whether or not you agree with the principle. You can never expect all of America to agree with you on every issue...the test of whether or not you believe in freedom and liberty is whether or not you agree with allowing people you disagree with to have it.

I get from most of your comments that your position is "Liberalism is bad and anything we do to restrict it is therefore good"....in other words, you don't really believe in freedom and liberty...you only believe in the freedom and liberty to fall in line with your party line.

If you are advocating that this private school be prohibited from mandating a training class, because you disagree with the content of that class...you have to be careful where that principle might lead. Because, there is a fair chance that whoever it is that decides which "content" is okay and which isn't, will likely disagree with you at some point...heck there is a good chance that the deciders will eventually be dominated by liberals even! Then what?



I wish someone would explain why covering the business's butt should be prohibited...you all keep mentioning it and I, can not for the life of me unnderstand why you think this should be prohibited.

However, in addition to covering the college's legal butt, there is also a very real possibility that the college leadership is genuinely and sincerely concerned about the treatment of people who are LGBT...there are some people who actually care about things.

Whether or not this course will accomplish that is not the bigger point. You can think it won't be effective...but why should they not be permitted to try it?

The point is that if there was tort reform the majority of these requirements for "training" would go away because people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves from litigation.

If I'm running a company that creates a product and the sales of that product are determined by how many of those items are produced, do you really think I would want to stop production, or lose some of that production, for a couple hours in order how to "teach" people to act like adults? No chance. The only reason it happens now is because it's going to cost the company more for the lawsuit than it will for the lost production. Take away that financial loss and they aren't going to care.

As for colleges, well, who knows. As I said, private colleges can do what they want.

Just explain one thing to me. Why must the focus be on specific groups? Do you not think that it creates resentment for people who don't want to attend these classes to be forced to attend? Do you think the classes actually change anything? As I've stated, IMO, those who need the class aren't going to change anyway and those who don't need the class don't need to be there in the first place.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 03:16 PM
As I said, it should be part of an orientation, at most.

What else would it be? Well, it sounds like in this case it was a requirement for student-groups to have their leaders attend, not sure if it was at the beginning of the school year or something that came up later. Of course, if course was a reasonable reaction to incidents that happened on campus, you're not going to read about it in Breitbart or GOPUSA, sites whose sole purpose is to manufacture outrage among their readership.

I'm not understanding why whether it's done during an orientation or other time is important to you. In what scenario would you think it's wrong?


"Ok, these are our rules. No underage drinking, NO means NO, and treat everyone with respect or you'll be expelled". Pretty simple, really.

Agreed. Remember, it's the Christian group making this a big deal.


Private schools have the right to teach whatever they want. Public schools do not, so political agendas need to be put in a closet somewhere.

Ok...I don't see anything about a political agenda here, but, this is about a private school anyway.

[quote]Nope, but I also think it's highly unlikely that the person cares about it for more than the reason of not getting sued.

I don't see why it matters if the person cares or not about what reasons. I also think "not getting sued" is a good reason to hold the training.


But the majority are going to do what makes them most money.

That is their job...they have an obligation to their shareholders.


I've had one good Commander who I believe actually cared about us as individuals. But I've also had many more that cared about the next rank.

I believe that...not sure what it has to do with this question. Okay, not all leaders are entirely motivated by moral altruism...so?


Right, but if that one person calls someone a "fag" do you hold the entire department responsible? You're example is about liability on stuff related to the actual purpose of the company. That is much different than liability/culpability for the actions of a person as it relates to one on one interactions with coworkers.

Well, likely no...if it's a one-off person who did something that the department does not condone or encourage, then the whole department is likely not going to be held liable....but if the department knows about similar instances and ignores, colludes, condones or encourages one person calling another a "fag"...then they have some liability.

The specifics of whether or not the company should be held liable is case-by-case and decided by a jury of ordinary people. My point here was to counter a point you made earlier that individuals, not organizations, should be held liable for this kind of stuff...I was just demonstrating that organizations sometimes should also be held liable, not every time, but sometimes.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 03:28 PM
The point is that if there was tort reform the majority of these requirements for "training" would go away because people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves from litigation.

Maybe. But, if people stopped committing crimes we wouldn't need prisons either. Sounds almost like you're arguing that people shouldn't need guns at home cuz they wouldn't need them if people would just stop breaking into homes. A common-sense solution, maybe, but not practical from this level.

I do think there is an argument that could be made for the billions upon billions of dollars that could be saved with some tort reform...but it's not likely, because those billions upon billions of dollars go to the people who are responsible for the tort system.


If I'm running a company that creates a product and the sales of that product are determined by how many of those items are produced, do you really think I would want to stop production, or lose some of that production, for a couple hours in order how to "teach" people to act like adults? No chance.

So...what you're saying is you don't care about individuals, so you have difficulty imagining someone who would.


The only reason it happens now is because it's going to cost the company more for the lawsuit than it will for the lost production. Take away that financial loss and they aren't going to care.

I don't doubt this is true for many, maybe most senior managers. I would hesitate to make a sweeping generalization...but, yes, there is a lot of training we do that is simply to fulfill a legal requirement, there is no doubt about that and I'm still not sure why you think this is bad.


As for colleges, well, who knows. As I said, private colleges can do what they want.

Okay...this was really the point of this whole thread. Until I came along, it seemed everyone was saying, "No, this college should not be ALLOWED to mandate this class"...but, now we agree.


Just explain one thing to me. Why must the focus be on specific groups? Do you not think that it creates resentment for people who don't want to attend these classes to be forced to attend?

I think recent events have shown that some groups ARE treated differently. People are passing laws in states to allow them to discriminate...or at least want to discriminate. A restaurant owner admitted that if he sees a gay couple in his restaurant, he makes up some other excuse to try and have them leave. So, a College professor says, "Hey you student groups, we'll have none of that in our student groups on campus"...As I mentioned previously, it's not clear from the links whether or not this class was in reaction to incidents or trends on campus, or whether the administration was just trying to be proactive...Anyway, then a Christian group says, "Dean, can you exempt us? We're a Christian group and our religion requires us to isolate and throw scorn upon homosexuals?" Dean, says, "Nope, this applies to all"

And here we are...

I do think these classes cause resentment in some people...you, for one, seem to resent them. You are a person, so your statement is true.


Do you think the classes actually change anything?

I think I have learned some things in these types of classes on better ways to handle certain issues, yes. Do I think a 1-hour class is going to change the campus environment? No. But, I think, having attended stuff like this over the years, that a nugget gained here and there has changed things. But, whether or not we think it'll work is not important to the point of whether or not GWU should be allowed to do it.


As I've stated, IMO, those who need the class aren't going to change anyway and those who don't need the class don't need to be there in the first place.

I don't entirely agree. First, I think well-intentioned people do change.

It's kind of like any other briefing...weekly safety briefings seem so redundant and pointless, but whether you like to admit it or not, you have learned from them over the years.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 05:22 PM
It's kind of like any other briefing...weekly safety briefings seem so redundant and pointless, but whether you like to admit it or not, you have learned from them over the years. This is my point that pretty much covers everything I've talked about. Some people (you, for instance) believe that we actually learn something from these safety briefings. It just doesn't happen. I still mow my lawn in my flip-flops, without eye or hearing protection. I don't need a briefing to tell me it's safer not to do it that way, I just choose to do so.

If the organization wants to give a briefing on the consequences of breaking the rules, that's fine. It's only fair that people know what will happen to them if they don't play along, but to brief me on what's respectful and disrespectful is a waste of my time.

And to your other point about there being many recent cases involving LGBT, that's only because it's the current trend. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Every gay performer gets a standing ovation. Every movie about gays wins an award.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Live your life how you want. Just don't tell me how I am supposed to feel about it.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 05:44 PM
This is my point that pretty much covers everything I've talked about. Some people (you, for instance) believe that we actually learn something from these safety briefings. It just doesn't happen. I still mow my lawn in my flip-flops, without eye or hearing protection. I don't need a briefing to tell me it's safer not to do it that way, I just choose to do so.

If the organization wants to give a briefing on the consequences of breaking the rules, that's fine. It's only fair that people know what will happen to them if they don't play along, but to brief me on what's respectful and disrespectful is a waste of my time.

Okay...so you've learned nothing in 20+ years. Everything you ever needed to know about occupational safety, interpersonal relations, etc. was taught to you by your wonderful parents...I don't believe you, but won't argue the point.


And to your other point about there being many recent cases involving LGBT, that's only because it's the current trend. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Every gay performer gets a standing ovation. Every movie about gays wins an award.

Yes, it is the current issue.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Live your life how you want. Just don't tell me how I am supposed to feel about it.

I don't think I did. I do think an organization be it a college or company has a right to tell you how they expect you to behave there.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 05:54 PM
Okay...so you've learned nothing in 20+ years. Everything you ever needed to know about occupational safety, interpersonal relations, etc. was taught to you by your wonderful parents...I don't believe you, but won't argue the point. I'm talking about the information that's on the same level as how to treat LGBT...you know...like wear your seatbelt...don't drink and drive...the stuff that takes a brain surgeon to be able to understand.




Yes, it is the current issue. Unfortunately it will continue to be the "current" issue for the...let's see...how long have the fights for women's right been going on? Oh, yeah, forever.




I don't think I did. I do think an organization be it a college or company has a right to tell you how they expect you to behave there.So do I. I just don't think that it's relevant to how I approach a certain group of people. For instance, as I mentioned, they have the right to tell me to "act like a respectful adult". I don't want to hear how special someone is or how unfair certain people get treated. I just don't want it. I know it. It's out there all the time. It's in our face 24/7.

This is Sexual Assault Awareness month, you know. Without it, I'd be out raping people right now, or I'd be standing by watching others rape people. Hell, I may not have even known that sexual assaults existed without it. Thank God someone was smart enough to institute this fun month of training. I really don't know how we functioned as a society before they started teaching us these things.

Rusty Jones
04-03-2015, 06:00 PM
How about this. How about organizations quit getting held responsible for the stupidity of it's people. How 'bout the lawsuits take place against the individual. Of course, that would mean that all these companies/colleges/hospitals would be able to drop their prices and we'd be able to afford them, so we can't have that.

Punish the people involved. Don't fuck everyone else for the stupidity of some. I know that's hard to imagine after being in the military, but it is a viable option.

edit: Just noticed that the same point was made above...

That's the wrong answer. Let's say I had a gay son in college. He gets harassed one day, and then beaten the next because of his sexual orientation. If, based on what he has told me about his experience at the school, I have reason to believe that the college actually tolerates such behavior towards LGBT students... yes, I'm going to want the school to be held accountable. After seeing to it that the students involved in the attack are dealt with accordingly, I'm going to want to know the school's stance on that particular issue AND I'm going to want to know what the school does to prevent such things. You've gotta put yourself in the shoes of the parents.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 06:03 PM
I'm talking about the information that's on the same level as how to treat LGBT...you know...like wear your seatbelt...don't drink and drive...the stuff that takes a brain surgeon to be able to understand.

There was a time that even the smartest brain surgeons did not habitually wear seatbelts.
Many of people in our generation used to drink and drive regularly.
One of my first military supervisors had 2 marijuana busts in his military record. He wasn't alone.
Wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly acceptable to tell a gay joke at morning roll call

I'll also say...that back before seatbelts became the norm for the civilian population, they became the norm for the military population...and it being hammered into our heads repeatedly was part of the reason for that.

So, things do change.


Unfortunately it will continue to be the "current" issue for the...let's see...how long have the fights for women's right been going on? Oh, yeah, forever.

Yes, it's unfortunate it has to be a "fight" at all.


So do I. I just don't think that it's relevant to how I approach a certain group of people. For instance, as I mentioned, they have the right to tell me to "act like a respectful adult". I don't want to hear how special someone is or how unfair certain people get treated. I just don't want it. I know it. It's out there all the time. It's in our face 24/7.

This is Sexual Assault Awareness month, you know. Without it, I'd be out raping people right now. Thank God someone was smart enough to institute this fun month of training. I really don't know how we functioned as a society before they started teaching us these things.

We functioned with widespread and embedded sexual assault, harassment of gays, women...institutional discrimination of minorities...unsafe working conditions...that's how we functioned.

Anyway, none of this matters to the point of this thread anyway...we seem to agree now that GWU is and should be allowed to hold this training.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 08:31 PM
That's the wrong answer. Let's say I had a gay son in college. He gets harassed one day, and then beaten the next because of his sexual orientation. If, based on what he has told me about his experience at the school, I have reason to believe that the college actually tolerates such behavior towards LGBT students... yes, I'm going to want the school to be held accountable. After seeing to it that the students involved in the attack are dealt with accordingly, I'm going to want to know the school's stance on that particular issue AND I'm going to want to know what the school does to prevent such things. You've gotta put yourself in the shoes of the parents.

If he was to get harassed and beaten, notified the school and they did nothing about it then, yes, they are culpable. However, if he is to get harassed and beaten and the school appropriately disciplines the other student then it's not the fault of the school, whether they provided training telling students it's not ok to harass and beat people or not.

Either way, the training shouldn't be to the students on how you should treat gay kids with respect, it should be to the faculty on how to appropriately deal with those who do the "bullying".

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 08:40 PM
There was a time that even the smartest brain surgeons did not habitually wear seatbelts.
Many of people in our generation used to drink and drive regularly.
One of my first military supervisors had 2 marijuana busts in his military record. He wasn't alone.
Wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly acceptable to tell a gay joke at morning roll call Right, but be truthful. DUIs still happen. People still drive without seatbelts. The reason many people don't do those things isn't because they feel it's "unsafe", they just don't want to go to jail. So, I don't need a class showing me what happens when someone gets in a drunk driving accident, or an accident without a seatbelt. I just need to know what the legal consequences are for me if I fail to follow the law. Just as I don't need training on how I should treat LGBT (or any other group), I just need to be told that "if you decide to mistreat anyone, here are the consequences". Very simple. I don't need to be briefed on the personal feeling of the briefer/teacher as to why it's "wrong" to do something because, in my eyes, it may not be wrong. However, whether wrong or not, I won't do it if I know I'm going to get in trouble for it.


I'll also say...that back before seatbelts became the norm for the civilian population, they became the norm for the military population...and it being hammered into our heads repeatedly was part of the reason for that.

So, things do change. Again, they change solely because of the fear of getting in trouble, not because the person actually feels that doing it is wrong. So...tell me the consequences and let me be.




Yes, it's unfortunate it has to be a "fight" at all. Indeed, because there is no reason for it.




We functioned with widespread and embedded sexual assault, harassment of gays, women...institutional discrimination of minorities...unsafe working conditions...that's how we functioned.

Anyway, none of this matters to the point of this thread anyway...we seem to agree now that GWU is and should be allowed to hold this training.Sure they should. They should also tell students before they fork over their tuition money that they are going to have to attend these sorts of indoctrinations.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 08:49 PM
Right, but be truthful. DUIs still happen. People still drive without seatbelts.

Not nearly as much...especially the seatbelts.



The reason many people don't do those things isn't because they feel it's "unsafe", they just don't want to go to jail.

For myself, I would agree with that more in the DUI than on the seatbelt thing. The main reason I don't DUI is my fear of getting caught...I personally believe I could effectively drive on 3 beers, but I'm afraid to get caught, so I don't.

Seatbelts...I really feel unsafe if I'm not wearing one.


So, I don't need a class showing me what happens when someone gets in a drunk driving accident, or an accident without a seatbelt. I just need to know what the legal consequences are for me if I fail to follow the law. Just as I don't need training on how I should treat LGBT (or any other group), I just need to be told that "if you decide to mistreat anyone, here are the consequences". Very simple. I don't need to be briefed on the personal feeling of the briefer/teacher as to why it's "wrong" to do something because, in my eyes, it may not be wrong. However, whether wrong or not, I won't do it if I know I'm going to get in trouble for it.

I guess I just believe that not everyone is exactly like you...and I believe in the aggregate, over the years, training on these things has an impact. Maybe the accident movie doesn't do anything for you...I think it does for some other people. The punishment threat works for you, might not for some other people. A personal opinion of a respected mentor/leader might work for someone else.

I think somewhere, DUI briefings impacted me. Not one in particular, but overall, they did. If I had just been told once how I would be punished for a DUI and nobody every mentioned it again...I don't believe it would have had the same impact, for me.


Again, they change solely because of the fear of getting in trouble, not because the person actually feels that doing it is wrong. So...tell me the consequences and let me be.

Indeed, because there is no reason for it.

Not sure what you mean by that...do you mean because there is no reason to fight because there is no unequal treatment of gays or women? Or that there is no good reason that there is unequal treatment?


Sure they should. They should also tell students before they fork over their tuition money that they are going to have to attend these sorts of indoctrinations.

Well, everybody knows now, I guess. Will be interesting to see if the Christian groups re-enroll next semester.

Rusty Jones
04-03-2015, 09:06 PM
If he was to get harassed and beaten, notified the school and they did nothing about it then, yes, they are culpable. However, if he is to get harassed and beaten and the school appropriately disciplines the other student then it's not the fault of the school, whether they provided training telling students it's not ok to harass and beat people or not.

Either way, the training shouldn't be to the students on how you should treat gay kids with respect, it should be to the faculty on how to appropriately deal with those who do the "bullying".

Right, so it's better for a gay student to get jumped as long as they punish the students who did it... than to create an enviroment where students know that such behavior is not tolerated and what the consquences are, thus reducing the likelihood of such an attack occuring in the first place.

While we're at it, maybe we should stop mandating car seats for infants and toddlers. After all, the hospital will fix them right up!

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 09:14 PM
Right, so it's better for a gay student to get jumped as long as they punish the students who did it... than to create an enviroment where students know that such behavior is not tolerated and what the consquences are, thus reducing the likelihood of such an attack occuring in the first place. It's not going to create that environment, Rusty. That environment will come with time and familiarity, nothing less. And it's not right for ANY student to get jumped (why the fuck is that so hard to understand???).


While we're at it, maybe we should stop mandating car seats for infants and toddlers. After all, the hospital will fix them right up! It's not just infants and toddlers. Some places it's kids up to 9 or 10 years old, depending on their weight/size. I would stop that mandate, for sure. Do I think infants and toddlers should ride in one? Sure I do, and I would put mine in one. Are you going to put your 9 or 10 year old son in a booster seat in your car? I highly doubt it.

It's the choice of the parent, just as abortion is. Doesn't mean I would do it, but in a country that offers choice it's the only way to go about it.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 09:20 PM
For myself, I would agree with that more in the DUI than on the seatbelt thing. The main reason I don't DUI is my fear of getting caught...I personally believe I could effectively drive on 3 beers, but I'm afraid to get caught, so I don't. Good to know that you're more interested in protecting yourself than possibly killing someone else.




I think somewhere, DUI briefings impacted me. Not one in particular, but overall, they did. If I had just been told once how I would be punished for a DUI and nobody every mentioned it again...I don't believe it would have had the same impact, for me. But the point is that it has nothing to do with the actual reason for driving after a few beers, other than the punishment. Same as the college training. It's about the outcome, not the reasoning behind it.




Not sure what you mean by that...do you mean because there is no reason to fight because there is no unequal treatment of gays or women? Or that there is no good reason that there is unequal treatment? There is unequal treatment of everyone at some point. I guess it depends on what you believe equates to unequal treatment as it relates to women.




Well, everybody knows now, I guess. Will be interesting to see if the Christian groups re-enroll next semester.Oh, they will definitely enroll, just to create a reason to bitch. Christian groups are no different than any of the other groups we've been talking about. They want to be victims. They want the attention. They want to create an environment that breeds contempt. Just as with the LGBT groups, the Christian groups either want you to agree with their point of view or you aren't worthy of being around. It's not good enough to just tolerate people now. You are expected to accept everyone. That's just not going to work.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 09:27 PM
Good to know that you're more interested in protecting yourself than possibly killing someone else.

Wow..that was quite a leap.


But the point is that it has nothing to do with the actual reason for driving after a few beers, other than the punishment.

...hey, you yourself said all you need to know is the punishment.


Same as the college training. It's about the outcome, not the reasoning behind it.

The outome is sort of important, don't you think? We can not make people feel good about gays...we can make them them not discriminate (or face consquences)


There is unequal treatment of everyone at some point. I guess it depends on what you believe equates to unequal treatment as it relates to women.

Let's just say...over the past 50 years, the average woman have had to put up a lot more harassment, lack of opportunity, lower pay, and other discrimination than the average man. Some of it still goes on, though it's better than it was 50 years ago.


they will definitely enroll, just to create a reason to bitch. Christian groups are no different than any of the other groups we've been talking about. They want to be victims. They want the attention. They want to create an environment that breeds contempt. Just as with the LGBT groups, the Christian groups either want you to agree with their point of view or you aren't worthy of being around. It's not good enough to just tolerate people now. You are expected to accept everyone. That's just not going to work.

Doesn't mean we give up and let everyone treat each other with contempt.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 09:42 PM
It's not just infants and toddlers. Some places it's kids up to 9 or 10 years old, depending on their weight/size. I would stop that mandate, for sure. Do I think infants and toddlers should ride in one? Sure I do, and I would put mine in one. Are you going to put your 9 or 10 year old son in a booster seat in your car? I highly doubt it.

I'll be honest, I don't know the true stats, here...but, what if you learned that, children up to 8 were 73% more likely to escape serious injury in a car seat, and 9 and 10 year olds were 60% more likely to escape serious injury if using a car seat?

What if you learnd that by age 11, it made almost no difference?

Would this maybe change your mind, if not mandating it for all, but for you own hypothetical kids? Or do stats and studies make no impact, you just go with your gut? What number would be an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk for you to avoid giving them the baby treatment of a car seat? (yes, kids hate that at a certain age)

What if, you happened to learn this in a shop safety briefing? Would that briefing have an impact, at all, on your safety behavior?

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 09:49 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know the true stats, here...but, what if you learned that, children up to 8 were 73% more likely to escape serious injury in a car seat, and 9 and 10 year olds were 60% more likely to escape serious injury if using a car seat?

What if you learnd that by age 11, it made almost no difference?

Would this maybe change your mind, if not mandating it for all, but for you own hypothetical kids? Or do stats and studies make no impact, you just go with your guy? What number would be an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk for you to avoid giving them the baby treatment of a car seat? (yes, kids hate that at a certain age)

What if, you happened to learn this in a shop safety briefing? Would that briefing have an impact, at all, on your safety behavior?

Some real stats:


Buckling children in age- and size-appropriate car seats, booster seats, and seat belts reduces the risk of serious and fatal injuries:


Car seat use reduces the risk for death to infants (aged <1 year) by 71%; and to toddlers (aged 1–4 years) by 54% in passenger vehicles.2
Booster seat use reduces the risk for serious injury by 45% for children aged 4–8 years when compared with seat belt use alone.3
For older children and adults, seat belt use reduces the risk for death and serious injury by approximately half.4

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 09:57 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know the true stats, here...but, what if you learned that, children up to 8 were 73% more likely to escape serious injury in a car seat, and 9 and 10 year olds were 60% more likely to escape serious injury if using a car seat? [

What if you learnd that by age 11, it made almost no difference?

Would this maybe change your mind, if not mandating it for all, but for you own hypothetical kids? Or do stats and studies make no impact, you just go with your guy? What number would be an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk for you to avoid giving them the baby treatment of a car seat? (yes, kids hate that at a certain age) I'd use my best judgment. For instance, driving on the freeway, I'd have my kid (maybe up to age 3/4) in a car seat. Not above that, though. Now, if I'm driving out to a lake, or up a mountain, or something no on the main road, the kid is probably going to be sitting up front with me. You know why? Because I, personally, am a safe driving. I just turned 40. Never had a speeding ticket, never been is as much as a fender bender. But, because of insurance companies having to charge such high rates because of frivolous lawsuits, I am still required to follow the same rules. It's pretty much a "Minority Report" type country we are living in today. That's not freedom. That's not what any of our founders would have fought for.


What if, you happened to learn this in a shop safety briefing? Would that briefing have an impact, at all, on your safety behavior?No. Nor would it as a stat from anything else. You know how many videos, briefings, commercials, etc, I've seen about what cigarette smoking does? I'm quite aware of what it does, yet I still choose to smoke. And, actually, even if I'm not craving one, an anti-smoking commercial will make me want to go outside and have one.

garhkal
04-03-2015, 09:58 PM
but through a lack of exposure simply doesn't know any better?

I'd be wondering what rock they have been living under. TO claim in this day and age anyone can "simply not know any better" is rather poor form.



I get from most of your comments that your position is "Liberalism is bad and anything we do to restrict it is therefore good"....in other words, you don't really believe in freedom and liberty...you only believe in the freedom and liberty to fall in line with your party line.

If you are advocating that this private school be prohibited from mandating a training class, because you disagree with the content of that class...you have to be careful where that principle might lead. Because, there is a fair chance that whoever it is that decides which "content" is okay and which isn't, will likely disagree with you at some point...heck there is a good chance that the deciders will eventually be dominated by liberals even! Then what?

No, its more that since over the past 3-4 years we have seen MORE and more instance of anything Religious getting sued out of school, how is it then its ok to effectively force people to attend something that is IMO anti-religious (Since not one religion iirc allows or accepts LGBT people).
Its imo Hypocritical.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 09:58 PM
Some real stats:

[/SUP]
[/LIST]

These stats assume you are getting in an accident.

sandsjames
04-03-2015, 10:00 PM
I wonder what the argument would have been if the school would have said "We are having a mandatory training class on how to properly treat Christians with respect".

Rusty Jones
04-03-2015, 10:11 PM
I'd be wondering what rock they have been living under. TO claim in this day and age anyone can "simply not know any better" is rather poor form.

Someone transferring in from Liberty or Regent might just really not know better.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 10:28 PM
I'd be wondering what rock they have been living under. TO claim in this day and age anyone can "simply not know any better" is rather poor form.

I'll be honest, last year we had an employee (contractor) "come out" as transgender and informed everyone he would be transitioning to a she over a period of a few months...I didn't know much about the whole deal and how it all goes down.

I think we, for the most part, wanted to treat this person with dignity and respect...he was generally a well-liked and respected employee...but there were some questions about some things.

There are also, I think, still some people that have been born and raised in a small town somewhere that have never actually met a gay person, to their knowledge...it's a fear of the unknown thing. I was at a shop camp-out one time with my wife...sitting around the campfire talking about whatever with the gang...one guy starts going some commentary about Jews and how he is sure they are probably wonderful people, but he said he'd never actually met a Jew. Of course, he had, he just didn't know it, I informed him he was sitting next to one...



No, its more that since over the past 3-4 years we have seen MORE and more instance of anything Religious getting sued out of school,

I think you are confusing public schools and private schools. We have many religiously-based private schools that do all sorts of religious training, mandatory church attendence, etc. and no liberals are complaining.


how is it then its ok to effectively force people to attend something that is IMO anti-religious (Since not one religion iirc allows or accepts LGBT people).

It is a private school. I also don't think it is anti-religioius to treat gay people with respect.


Its imo Hypocritical.

I think your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the issue.

garhkal
04-05-2015, 02:35 AM
I wonder what the argument would have been if the school would have said "We are having a mandatory training class on how to properly treat Christians with respect".

From all the evidence we have seen over the past 3-4 years, it wouldn't have even gotten past the proposal level before getting sued for being a violation of 'separation of church and state'.

Stalwart
04-05-2015, 11:32 AM
I wonder what the argument would have been if the school would have said "We are having a mandatory training class on how to properly treat Christians with respect".

It probably would not fly. Now, training on how to appropriatly conduct one's self in a multi-faith environment is sometthing that would probably be okay.

sandsjames
04-05-2015, 12:26 PM
It probably would not fly. Now, training on how to appropriatly conduct one's self in a multi-faith environment is sometthing that would probably be okay.

Right, as would conducting one on how to treat EVERYONE with respect, instead of breaking it into subgroups.

Stalwart
04-05-2015, 01:07 PM
Right, as would conducting one on how to treat EVERYONE with respect, instead of breaking it into subgroups.

That would make too much sense.

garhkal
04-05-2015, 11:47 PM
That would make too much sense.

Yup. Can't have common sense dictate policy. Gotta have all those little cliques getting their special attention!

Stalwart
04-06-2015, 12:46 AM
Yup. Can't have common sense dictate policy. Gotta have all those little cliques getting their special attention!

I will agree, we are too cliquish; we too much try to identify as African American, Italian American, Native American etc. vice "American" We too much try to identify as "I am a Boatswain's Mate", "I am a Chief", "I am an Operations Specialist" vice "Sailor". I think there is value in diversity, pride in our heritage, in our rating or MOS, in our particular Service of choice or calling ... but we (people as a whole) have too much of a need to be a part of something that others cannot be -- our special clubs or cliques. That cliquishness ends up with people treating other people disrespectfully, unfairly or in some cases contemptuously.

I am not a bleeding heart for the LGBT cause, or any other particular cause ... but I am also open minded enough to see that in many places (more than I would think) people are being mistreated because of their sexuality. Whether or not I agree with their lifestyle, my job is to ensure their rights (and everyone else's) are not trampled on because people don't like that lifestyle. I would much prefer civil disagreement than what exists in Russia, where people are openly persecuted and jailed for being homosexual.

garhkal
04-06-2015, 11:07 PM
Whether or not I agree with their lifestyle, my job is to ensure their rights (and everyone else's) are not trampled on because people don't like that lifestyle. I would much prefer civil disagreement than what exists in Russia, where people are openly persecuted and jailed for being homosexual.

But how is telling a religious store owner "You have to serve a gay wedding even if it goes against your beliefs" Not stepping on their rights?

PS i gave you a like and thanks for that great comment you made on the too cliqueness we have become as a society.

Stalwart
04-09-2015, 06:40 PM
But how is telling a religious store owner "You have to serve a gay wedding even if it goes against your beliefs" Not stepping on their rights?

PS i gave you a like and thanks for that great comment you made on the too cliqueness we have become as a society.

They (the business) offers a service. Now, if they were a private club etc. and people had to be members to get their services it may be a different story (i.e. I am a member of a club in DC that restricts membership to military officers), you can't get them to cater your wedding if you aren't a member.)

When I was a teenager in Louisiana, many 'bars' used that tactic to serve alcohol on Sunday (blue laws in the state). You bought a membership, usually renewable 'daily' for 2 or 3 dollars, and they had to also serve food (generally hot dogs and nachos etc.) But, in theory you were now a member of a private club who was authorized to sell booze on Sunday.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 06:47 PM
When I was a teenager in Louisiana, many 'bars' used that tactic to serve alcohol on Sunday (blue laws in the state). You bought a membership, usually renewable 'daily' for 2 or 3 dollars, and they had to also serve food (generally hot dogs and nachos etc.) But, in theory you were now a member of a private club who was authorized to sell booze on Sunday.

Saw similar thing in Ohio with smoking. Bars had to be non-smoking, private clubs could have smoking, at that time. One of the bars in town "converted" into a private club. Annual dues were $1.

Also seen the "private club" deal in North Carolina...may of the bars were "private clubs"...in which to enter you either had to be a member or the guest of a member. You and I show up and there is a 100% chance that the guy sitting at the bar will invite us to be his guest..we don't even sit with him. You, I and our black friend show up and no one seems to know us so really cant invite us in. Seen this happen not all that long ago (within 15 years)...I was only TDY, but buddies of mine stationed nearby assured me this was a consistent deal.

garhkal
04-09-2015, 09:42 PM
They (the business) offers a service. Now, if they were a private club etc. and people had to be members to get their services it may be a different story (i.e. I am a member of a club in DC that restricts membership to military officers), you can't get them to cater your wedding if you aren't a member.)

Then why is it that the Colorado court ruled that GAY bakers could refuse to serve cakes made in the shape of bibles, with quotes FROM The bible indicating gay marriage is wrong? Is that not setting a double standard?
Either everyone who offers a service has to offer it to everyone, or everyone should have the right to refuse to serve someone they don't wish.

TJMAC77SP
04-10-2015, 04:29 AM
Saw similar thing in Ohio with smoking. Bars had to be non-smoking, private clubs could have smoking, at that time. One of the bars in town "converted" into a private club. Annual dues were $1.

Also seen the "private club" deal in North Carolina...may of the bars were "private clubs"...in which to enter you either had to be a member or the guest of a member. You and I show up and there is a 100% chance that the guy sitting at the bar will invite us to be his guest..we don't even sit with him. You, I and our black friend show up and no one seems to know us so really cant invite us in. Seen this happen not all that long ago (within 15 years)...I was only TDY, but buddies of mine stationed nearby assured me this was a consistent deal.

So this happened sometime after 2000? Where in NC?

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 06:17 AM
So this happened sometime after 2000? Where in NC?

Wanna say it was the Shady J area (Goldsboro)....around that time, I did a lot of tidy from '98 - ' 01...it was during that time. It wasn't Pope

TJMAC77SP
04-10-2015, 12:27 PM
Wanna say it was the Shady J area (Goldsboro)....around that time, I did a lot of tidy from '98 - ' 01...it was during that time. It wasn't Pope

The only club I am aware of in Goldsboro that displayed that kind of attitude was the Berkeley Tavern (which also had another name when they changed locations by a block or so) which was placed off-limits in the late 80's. I will check with a friend there and see what the current situation is. Goldsboro is certainly not the most inclusive city in the US but the AF there has been very active in keeping airmen out of places like that.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 01:13 PM
Here's a quote from an interview with Ben Carson that pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say about this:

"The important thing is for us as a nation to recognize that all citizens of the United Sates are protected by our constitution. We need to stop deciding that one group versus another group is the flavor of the day and we need to do things that provide for justice and liberty for everybody."

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 03:36 PM
The only club I am aware of in Goldsboro that displayed that kind of attitude was the Berkeley Tavern (which also had another name when they changed locations by a block or so) which was placed off-limits in the late 80's.

Don't recall the name of the place...possible it was a strip club, too. If it was off-limits, we didn't know...then again, we were only TDY.


I will check with a friend there and see what the current situation is. Goldsboro is certainly not the most inclusive city in the US but the AF there has been very active in keeping airmen out of places like that.

Does the AF still do the whole "off limits" thing?...haven't seen those lists in a long time...maybe saw something about places that sell synthetic marijuana or something?

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 03:53 PM
The only club I am aware of in Goldsboro that displayed that kind of attitude was the Berkeley Tavern (which also had another name when they changed locations by a block or so) which was placed off-limits in the late 80's. I will check with a friend there and see what the current situation is. Goldsboro is certainly not the most inclusive city in the US but the AF there has been very active in keeping airmen out of places like that.

Did a little google and found this...certainly not the same bar or same area...must sounds like the same MO

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/11241567/

To be honest, on the surface, i don't really have a problem with people getting together and wanting to have a private club...and wanting to keep it that way...and only invite people "who your wife will feel comfortable standing next to"...if it were indeed a private club...members or gotta know a member type of deal.

This here stuff to me though, I think, is just a front for a bar to discriminate...

TJMAC77SP
04-10-2015, 07:08 PM
Did a little google and found this...certainly not the same bar or same area...must sounds like the same MO

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/11241567/

To be honest, on the surface, i don't really have a problem with people getting together and wanting to have a private club...and wanting to keep it that way...and only invite people "who your wife will feel comfortable standing next to"...if it were indeed a private club...members or gotta know a member type of deal.

This here stuff to me though, I think, is just a front for a bar to discriminate...

Oh, I have definitely seen the type of behavior in these clubs but it somewhat surprises me it was still going on in Goldsboro in 2000. Of course, these clubs open and close all the time and someone doesn't complain the base doesn't know to act.

I can't speak definitively since I have been retired but they were still putting establishments off-limits in 2003. The organ that ran the process was the Disciplinary Control Board (or something like that). They investigated complaints and made recommendations to the base commander, who made the final decision. Part of the SP/SF newcomer's briefing is supposed to be notifying everyone of establishments on the list.

The whole private bar situation started as a response to draconian liquor laws in NC. They had several types of licenses and to this day there is still one dry county in NC. 20 years ago, there were several. Even further back was so-called brown bag licenses. You could bring a bottle into a bar, they took it from you and put your name (or a number) on it and then sold you set-ups with your booze added. Stupidest thing I have ever seen. At the same time, NC had one of the most stringent open container laws so people would try to kill the bottle rather than take an open bottle home. Two couples killing a bottle of Jack is a disaster waiting to happen. You know in most cases the guys will outdrink the women. Crazy.

garhkal
04-10-2015, 10:19 PM
Here's a quote from an interview with Ben Carson that pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say about this:

"The important thing is for us as a nation to recognize that all citizens of the United Sates are protected by our constitution. We need to stop deciding that one group versus another group is the flavor of the day and we need to do things that provide for justice and liberty for everybody."

I agree. Carson seems to speak a lot of common sense!