Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Because you made the comment in the context of my conversation with SCC. I didn’t know whether you meant in support of him or of me or merely as a peripheral observation. I have no quarrel with what you said on its face. 

I guess I don't assume that every interaction with you has to be adversarial. I was just commenting on what you said and indirectly responding to him. I'll remember to be more hostile in future.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I think he's saying that a straight person is not allowed to engage in homosexual behavior, so they are treated exactly the same as gay people.

I am saying that the Honor Code prohibits homosexual behavior.  That this prohibition applies to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.  

Quote

Kind of tortured reasoning. 

The feeling is very much reciprocated.  I see nothing but "tortured reasoning" relative to the Honor Code.  It's right there in black and white:

Quote

Church Educational System Honor Code

Brigham Young University and other Church Educational System institutions exist to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That atmosphere is created and preserved by a community of faculty, administration, staff, and students who voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and who strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing class enrollment, each member of the BYU community personally commits to observe these Honor Code standards approved by the Board of Trustees “at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9):

• Be honest.
• Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman.
• Respect others, including the avoidance of profane and vulgar language.
• Obey the law and follow campus policies.
• Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, vaping, and substance abuse.
• Participate regularly in Church services (required only of Church members).
• Observe Brigham Young University’s Dress and Grooming Standards.
• Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code.

The near-constant evasions, equivocations, mischaracterizations, etc. are pretty lame.

Everyone knows that homosexual behavior is verboten.  But the refusal to acknowledge that this standard applies to everyone at BYU just doesn't work.

Now, will I acknowledge a disparate impact?  Sure.  The Honor Code has a different impact on heterosexual students as compared to homosexuals.  But then, the Honor Code also has a different impact on single heterosexuals as compared to married heterosexuals.  Same standard, disparate impacts.

Quote

ETA: My dad and his twin brother are both left-handed. When they were in elementary school, they were punished if they wrote with their left hands. By Spencer's reasoning, my dad and his brother were treated no differently than right-handed students, who also weren't allowed to write left-handed.

If nobody was allowed to write left-handed, if the same standard applied to everyone, then everyone was held to the same standard.  Again, same standard, disparate impacts.

Quote

Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be the argument he's making. 

There seems to be a bit of equivocation going on.  The Honor Code "treats" everyone the same.  Nobody is allowed to engage in fornication, adultery, same-sex marriage, and so on.

Now, if a BYU student chooses to violate the Honor Code and engage in fornication, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Nope.  Why?  Because the same standard applies to everyone at BYU.

If a married student chooses to violate the Honor Code and engage in adultery, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Again, no.  Nobody is allowed to engage in adultery.

If a student at BYU  chooses to violate the Honor Code by engaging in homosexual behavior, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Again, no.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

But what if the individual has a natural inclination toward prohibited behavior?  Can he say "The Honor Code says X is prohibited, but I am naturally inclined toward X, ergo I am being treated differently than other students"?  Nope.  That he is disparately impacted by the prohibition against X is clear, but that doesn't change the reality that he is being held to the same standard as everyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I don't assume that every interaction with you has to be adversarial. I was just commenting on what you said and indirectly responding to him. I'll remember to be more hostile in future.

No need for that. A non-adversarial post from you is rather refreshing — and welcome. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If nobody was allowed to write left-handed, if the same standard applied to everyone, then everyone was held to the same standard.  Again, same standard, disparate impacts.

Good grief...you don't see a problem with this?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that the Honor Code prohibits homosexual behavior.  That this prohibition applies to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.  

The feeling is very much reciprocated.  I see nothing but "tortured reasoning" relative to the Honor Code.  It's right there in black and white:

The near-constant evasions, equivocations, mischaracterizations, etc. are pretty lame.

Everyone knows that homosexual behavior is verboten.  But the refusal to acknowledge that this standard applies to everyone at BYU just doesn't work.

Now, will I acknowledge a disparage impact?  Sure.  The Honor Code has a different impact on heterosexual students as compared to homosexuals.  But then, the Honor Code also has a different impact on single heterosexuals as compared to married heterosexuals.  Same standard, disparate impacts.

If nobody was allowed to write left-handed, if the same standard applied to everyone, then everyone was held to the same standard.  Again, same standard, disparate impacts.

There seems to be a bit of equivocation going on.  The Honor Code "treats" everyone the same.  Nobody is allowed to engage in fornication, adultery, same-sex marriage, and so on.

Now, if a BYU student chooses to violate the Honor Code and engage in fornication, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Nope.  Why?  Because the same standard applies to everyone at BYU.

If a married student chooses to violate the Honor Code and engage in adultery, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Again, no.  Nobody is allowed to engage in adultery.

If a student at BYU  chooses to violate the Honor Code by engaging in homosexual behavior, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Again, no.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

But what if the individual has a natural inclination toward prohibited behavior?  Can he say "The Honor Code says X is prohibited, but I am naturally inclined toward X, ergo I am being treated differently than other students"?  Nope.  That he is disparately impacted by the prohibition against X is clear, but that doesn't change the reality that he is being held to the same standard as everyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made. I think I'll bow out of this before I say something I really regret. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made. I think I'll bow out of this before I say something I really regret. 

An appeal to ridicule doesn't work, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief...you don't see a problem with this?

Sure I see a problem with left-handed students being punished for writing with his left hand.  Particularly since the students likely had no say in the matter, and also since there is no moral component to writing with one's left hand.

I see a world of difference between that and the voluntarily-agreed-upon constraints of the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code.  Students at BYU do have a say in the matter.  They are not compelled to attend.  And there is a moral component, an extremely strong and important one, in the constraints on sexual behavior as found in the Law of Chastity and reflected in the Honor Code.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

An appeal to ridicule doesn't work, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not ridiculing. On purely "logical" grounds, you're probably on fairly solid ground, but I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy. 

[Jamie]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not ridiculing. On purely "logical" grounds, you're probably on fairly solid ground, but I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy. 

The whole point of having an Honor Code stipulating what is and is not considered acceptable and honorable behavior is to point out what is and is not acceptable and honorable.  Are you advocating for an "everything is good and honorable" approach?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not ridiculing. On purely "logical" grounds, you're probably on fairly solid ground, but I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy. 

On purely logical grounds, I see nothing inhumane about a school setting standards for admission and subsequently enforcing standards contractually agreed to by the enrollee. And I find the hyperventilating over it absurd. 
 

Maybe it’s an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

On purely logical grounds, I see nothing inhumane about a school setting standards for admission and subsequently enforcing standards contractually agreed to by the enrollee. And I find the hyperventilating over it absurd. 
 

Maybe it’s an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing. 

Not hyperventilating, but yeah, I do have a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other. I don't expect you to agree. 

And am I the only person out there who thinks it odd that apologists are now arguing that church membership and covenants are of no more importance than, say, membership at a gym or a social club? 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

An appeal to ridicule doesn't work, either.

I'm not ridiculing.

Yes, you are.  "It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made" is an appeal to ridicule.

Quote

On purely "logical" grounds, you're probably on fairly solid ground,

Well, I agree.

Quote

but I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy. 

Oh, brother.  Nothing I have said evinces a "lack of humanity."  Clinical, dispassionate analysis and examination is important where, as here, lots of emotion (particularly anger/resentment, as typified in your comments) are in play.  That doesn't mean I don't have feelings.  I am just circumspect as to when and where I share them.

This is just an "appeal to guilt" fallacy.  It doesn't work, either (particularly given what you said above).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Yes, you are.  "It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made" is an appeal to ridicule.

Well, I agree.

Oh, brother.  Nothing I have said evinces a "lack of humanity."

This is just an "appeal to guilt" fallacy.  It doesn't work, either (particularly given what you said above).

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not appealing to guilt or ridicule. Just expressing my dismay and disgust. I think you're a better person than the argument you're making.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not hyperventilating, but yeah, I do have a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other. 

This is just nonsense.  Every student who wants to attend BYU knows about the Honor Code.  Nothing is hidden.  Nothing is sprung on them.  And there are many hundreds of alternative schools to attend if you don't like the Honor Code.

It is unserious and unreasonable to characterize the Church's teachings about and application of constraints on sexual behavior as "real hurt people do to each other."  Gadzooks.  

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And am I the only person out there who thinks it odd that apologists are now arguing that church membership and covenants are of no more importance than, say, membership at a gym or a social club? 

Nobody has done that.  This is a strawman (in addition to your previous appeal to ridicule and appeal to guilt).  Boy, you're really pulling out a lot of these fallacies today.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is just nonsense.  Every student who wants to attend BYU knows about the Honor Code.  Nothing is hidden.  Nothing is sprung on them.  And there are many hundreds of alternative schools to attend if you don't like the Honor Code.

It is unserious and unreasonable to characterize the Church's teachings about and application of constraints on sexual behavior as "real hurt people do to each other."  Gadzooks.  

Nobody has done that.  This is a strawman (in addition to your previous appeal to ridicule and appeal to guilt).  Boy, you're really pulling out a lot of these fallacies today.

Thanks,

-Smac

And you're making arguments that really put the church in a bad light. I know, nonsense, fallacy, hyperbole. Whatever. 

[OGHoosier]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think you're a better person than the argument you're making.

This is a clear implication of moral failing. How is this not an appeal to guilt?

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not appealing to guilt or ridicule.

You are doing precisely that.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just expressing my dismay and disgust. I think you're a better person than the argument you're making.

Let's take a look at the "appeal to guilt," shall we?  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Appeal to Guilt

Description:

The argument attempts to persuade by making the person to be persuaded feel guilty for not accepting the position.

Examples:

"Aren't you ashamed of yourself for not buying this car, after I've gone to all the work to fill out the credit application."

"It would break your mother's heart to hear you defend those immoral Harry Potter books in that way."

See also "appeal to shame," as here:

Quote

An appeal to shame is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone's actions or arguments are described as "shameful" (meaning, looked down upon by others in society) and therefore wrong.

And "appeal to emotion," as here:

Quote

An appeal to emotion (Latin: argumentum ad passiones) (sometimes personal appeal or argumentum ad personam) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience, e.g. eliciting fear or outrage. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (Religion, nationalism, and nostalgia being common good concepts, homosexuality, drugs, and crime common bad ones). In debating terms, it is often effective as a rhetorical device, but is dishonest as a logical argument, since it often appeals to listeners' prejudices instead of being a sober assessment of a situation.

"Just expressing my dismay and disgust" and "I think you're a better person than the argument you're making" (which argument, BTW, you have conceded is "logical") seems to fit the "appeal to guilt/shame/emotion" bill pretty well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And you're making arguments that really put the church in a bad light. I know, nonsense, fallacy, hyperbole. Whatever. 

Yep.  You're a regular Top Ten List of Logical Fallacies today.  Appeal to Shame.  Appeal to Guilt.  Appeal to Emotion.  Poisoning the Well.  Argumentum as Populum.  Appeal to Fear.

"Whatever," indeed.

If you have a reasoned rebuttal to the points I have made, I'd like to see it.  As it is, you trying to shame/guilt me into silence just won't work.

I have zero problem with the Honor Code.  Reasonable minds can disagree about the morality of homosexual behavior.  That being so, there is room in society for people who believe that constraints on sexual behavior are appropriate and good.  People like you are trying to use logical fallacies to guilt/shame/silence/ridicule the Church and its members into capitulating on the Law of Chastity and its reflected manifestations (like the Honor Code).  I will not capitulate.  I will not be silent.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Not hyperventilating, but yeah, I do have a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other. I don't expect you to agree. 

And am I the only person out there who thinks it odd that apologists are now arguing that church membership and covenants are of no more importance than, say, membership at a gym or a social club? 

You are indeed hyperventilating. There is nothing per sé hurtful or unjust about holding all parties to the terms of a contract voluntarily entered into by those parties. On the contrary, it is eminently fair and reasonable. Any civilized society is dependent on it. 
 

And by trying to use covenants as a basis for denouncing “apologists” for advocating the honoring of contracts, you are essentially turning the concept of covenants on its head, since a covenant at its essence is a contract between God and man/woman. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Jamie]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  You're a regular Top Ten List of Logical Fallacies today.  Appeal to Shame.  Appeal to Guilt.  Appeal to Emotion.  Poisoning the Well.  Argumentum as Populum.  Appeal to Fear.

"Whatever," indeed.

Thanks,

-Smac

as if jk today is different today than he is on any and every other day.  please.  we are what we are every day of our lives.  nothing new to see here, folks.  just more of our usual entertainment.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Jamie said:

as if jk today is different today than he is on any and every other day.  please.  we are what we are every day of our lives.  nothing new to see here, folks.  just more of our usual entertainment.

Oh, shut up, Mr. Banned-Four-Times.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, shut up, Mr. Banned-Four-Times.

Meh, don't worry about it. Sometimes things really get to me here. I wish they didn't, but some things just hurt the heart. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. 

[Jamie]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, shut up, Mr. Banned-Four-Times.

same old ttribe.  and I know you have at least one other real name.

[smac97]

.

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I've had plenty of substantive interactions/discussions/debates with JK.  But his vitriolic/emotionalistic/bombastic rhetoric is maxing out my irony meter:

• "Kind of tortured reasoning."
• "It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made."
• "I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy."
• "I do have a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other."
• "I'm . . . {j}ust expressing my dismay and disgust."
• "I think you're a better person than the argument you're making."
• "And you're making arguments that really put the church in a bad light."

This sort of shame/guilt, appeal-to-emotion tactics generally don't work on me.  I've been a litigation attorney for too long.  That's not to say I can't make mistakes.  That's not to say I don't have emotions.  I can screw up.  And I can let my emotions affect my assessment of a disputed topic.  But look at Fair Dinkum's conclusory "Sorry sir but you are just wrong" claim.  Or JK's laundry list of fallacies and manipulations above.  Virtually no evidentiary analysis or reasoned argument and rebuttal.  Quite a bit of anger and attempts to silence and shame, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're right. I'm angry and disgusted. I make no apologies for that.