Active Users:402 Time:17/06/2025 09:13:47 PM
What??? Dannymac Send a noteboard - 12/03/2010 02:53:13 AM
Liberals seem to suffer a strange myopia about their issues and causes. They seem to unable to accept that people do not really think as they do or that other people's values and beliefs are as dearly held as their own. They seem to think that they can change those attitudes with their own decrees and the idea of people standing on their own principles does not seem to occur to them.


Exactly who stood on what principles, here? The student, with help from the ACLU, stood for her right to go to a party with another girl and wear a tux while she was there. The School Board canceled, rather than deal with the issues.

In a discussion of same sex marriage on this very MB I contended that it DOES violate non-participants' rights because of the backlash that same-sex marriage laws would create. This case is a perfect example of what I was talking about. A tiny percentage wants something, so they resort to force to get it, and seem to think that compelling people to do something will simply make their desires become reality. They honestly cannot believe that opposition to their view of the issue means as much to their adversaries or that the other side would rather make a sacrifice than accept what the liberal is trying to impose on them. As result, the whole thing is ruined for everyone. For a certain value of ruined, of course. It IS just a high school prom, which, IMO is not worth fighting to attend or getting upset over its cancellation. But the same goes for same-sex marriage. There are people who are THAT opposed to homosexuality, and possessed of sufficient numbers and power, that forcing them to extend to same-sex marriages the same privileges and rights that normal marriages enjoy will cause them to withdraw those rights and privileges rather than extend them to homsexuals!


So what you are implying here is that heterosexual couples will give up marriage rather than share the institution with homosexuals? Funny, you think that this would have come up before, like non abusive couples who so strongly disapprove of abusive marriages that they give up marriage rather than share the institution with... nope, doesn't happen.

Of course, some homosexual advocates are just fine with that, despite the fact that in many cases those privileges or traditions are based on the heretofore heterosexist nature of marriage, e.g. extending medical benefits to an employee's spouse. But the fact remains, to accomodate one person's selfish need to have things all her own way, it was ruined for everyone. In the article, the lesbian in question cites her belief that they would not back down: "'A lot of people said that was going to happen, but I said, they had already spent too much money on the prom' to cancel it, she said."
Yet she also claims:
"'It's a small town in Mississippi, and it's run by an older generation with money. Most of them are more conservative and they don't agree with it,' she said."

She evidently somehow assumed that HER dedication to her principles and values was superior to that of her older, more powerful adversaries! She was standing up for her principles but it never occurred to her that other people were every bit as committed to THEIR principles.


If what she was saying is that she couldn't imagine that the school board would cancel an entire Prom rather than defend it's ruling, then I have to admit, I'd have agreed with her. The School Board isn't defending anything here. It is waffling, unwilling to either justify or change its previous ruling.

This is the blindness I am talking about with liberals - they are perfectly willing to cite the faults and wrongness of the other side's position, yet it never occurrs to them to extrapolate the logical course of action. They are quick to accuse their opponents of bigotry and hatred, or greed or recalcitrance, yet they seem to think that people will take negative emotions every bit as far as positive ones. They accused corporations of being heartless and greedy and caring only about profits, yet somehow they think that when they regulate and tax the corporations, those heartless entities which would do anything for a buck, will meekly accept their punishment and sulkily hoard their dwindling resources, rather than raise the prices of the goods they sell to cover their tax and legal expenses. They are heartless and greedy enough to do anything...except pass along their expenses to the customer! No, a corporation would NEVER stoop THAT low!


Nice tangent. Lesbian girl wants to go to prom with her girlfriend= Liberals stupid about business.

Likewise with racism. People who want black people excluded from some activities are motivated by hatred of their skin color, according to liberals, and so it is perfectly all right to punish them for actions that keep black people away from those who hate them. So they force racists to accept blacks among them, and then get surprised when the racists look for loopholes that will allow them to vent their hatred in ways that won't get them punished, or gang up to terrorize blacks in secret for daring to infringe on their previously white territory.

They seem to think that being made to give up one area of their hatred and spite will magically make them behave in all other aspects. Men exclude women from entering certain jobs and fields with them because they are sexist pigs, the women proclaim as they force their way into those spheres of activity... and then are astounded to find that men in those areas behave like sexist pigs!


Yes. Liberals commit the intolerable sin of not only working against institutionalized prejudice, but also continuing to call people on their personal prejudice as well.

I suppose you think: "But sir, they knew I was a racist when they moved into my neighborhood, I cannot be blamed for acting out my racist beliefs," is a valid defense. It's like you are making out bigotry to be a form of mental illness.

Liberals simply cannot seem to grasp that the other side is just as willing to spoil things for liberals as liberals are to spoil things for them. A liberal thinks she can force the school and tradition-minded students to accept their vision of the prom being spoiled by a same-sex couple imitating a heterosexual couple, and is flabbergasted when the school is just as willing to spoil it for everyone by cancelling it, as she was to spoil it by pretending to be a boy.


I certainly was. You'd think these well minded conservatives would at least have the balls to stand up for what they believe, rather than just take their ball and go home. It is true, Liberals often mistakenly believe that Conservatives believe their arguments hold water.

The assertions that liberal causes are "no threat" to people doing things the normal way are shown in this incident to be disingenuous and deceitful at worst, shortsighted and foolish at best.


How does this show that? The girl did not cancel the Prom. What it does show is that the School Boards inability to either stand up for it's ruling or admit fault in the ruling led to everyone just getting let down.

Additionally, I found the yahoo! headline obnoxiously misleading. "School cancels prom after student's date request" No, actually, they cancelled the prom when the student tried to make a federal case about it, and sued to force it to conform to HER position. If a school cancelled a prom because a student tried to get a court order to let her kick off the prom with a prayer, every major media outlet to cover the story would be taking the "Obnoxious Christians spoil prom for everyone" angle. And so would Aisha.


Yet another idiotic tangent. If students tried to force a prayer into a school prom, there is a nice backlog of precedent for "no prayer at official public school events." There is not, however, much court precedent for "Girls must go to formal dances with girls" or "Girls may not wear Tuxes."

The girl and her date have nothing to be ashamed of. They stood up for something that they believed was right, which is what any parent would teach their child to do. The School Board, alternatively... what a bunch of wimps. If you are willing to make a ruling, be willing to stand by it or back the hell off. It's not like a girl dancing with another girl would have hurt anything. The only reason it even became an issue was because they made it one with the ruling. They could have stood by their ruling, facing the consequences but allowing the students they were supposedly "protecting" to have their Prom. Or, they could have quietly admitted fault, allowed the girl and her date in, and allowed the students to decide whether or not to take part for themselves.

Instead, they took their ball and went home, and no one gets a prom. It was their decision, they were not forced into it, except as a way to avoid the issue altogether. Good on the girl. Shame on the people who try to make this all her fault. Including you.
Eschew Verbosity
Reply to message
Mississippi High School cancels Prom after Lesbian Student Wanted to Bring a Girl as Her Date - 11/03/2010 11:56:10 PM 1679 Views
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the US? *NM* - 12/03/2010 12:08:32 AM 272 Views
Not ALL of the US. There were same-sex couples at my prom. *NM* - 12/03/2010 12:26:24 AM 305 Views
Yeah, don't worry, I know it's not like that everywhere. - 12/03/2010 09:15:43 AM 632 Views
This is the problem with liberals and their crusades like gay marriage. - 12/03/2010 12:50:12 AM 875 Views
Just a few things that I know you'll proabably disagree with. - 12/03/2010 02:03:32 AM 703 Views
Re: Just a few things that I know you'll proabably disagree with. - 12/03/2010 10:12:04 PM 712 Views
Ummmm.... no. - 12/03/2010 11:02:50 PM 717 Views
i totally agree 100% with what you're saying - 12/03/2010 02:33:55 AM 831 Views
What??? - 12/03/2010 02:53:13 AM 780 Views
Actually... - 12/03/2010 04:56:03 AM 793 Views
Oh, it is definitely self-defense. - 12/03/2010 05:52:50 AM 717 Views
That analogy is not apt. - 12/03/2010 06:10:27 AM 768 Views
Er... - 12/03/2010 06:45:05 AM 654 Views
I'm afraid that again that analogy is not apt. - 12/03/2010 01:39:19 PM 716 Views
... - 12/03/2010 02:05:54 PM 642 Views
I think you mean "I'm afraid that again that analogy is not apt." - 12/03/2010 02:45:23 PM 650 Views
That's right, I forgot to add that. - 12/03/2010 03:23:25 PM 705 Views
It's a rather key piece of any attempted analogy, wouldn't you say? - 12/03/2010 03:45:15 PM 599 Views
Again, you're right. - 12/03/2010 03:59:13 PM 582 Views
Yup. - 12/03/2010 04:02:26 PM 687 Views
Not really. Her point is that they should both be illegal. - 12/03/2010 07:01:47 PM 613 Views
Re: That analogy is not apt. - 12/03/2010 02:06:51 PM 660 Views
And when the school refused to change it's policy... - 12/03/2010 03:25:03 PM 614 Views
Absurd. - 12/03/2010 08:27:19 PM 682 Views
The rules were unjust. - 13/03/2010 05:09:59 AM 718 Views
Wow, talk about proving my point! - 12/03/2010 11:04:34 PM 822 Views
So hang on. - 13/03/2010 05:04:58 AM 700 Views
It's not that I'm surprised they disagree. It's that they're Wrong. - 12/03/2010 06:39:30 AM 688 Views
It is a great case of Selective Outrage, IMHO - 12/03/2010 03:10:01 AM 737 Views
Maybe. - 12/03/2010 06:34:42 AM 733 Views
"ACLU Defends Nazi's Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters" - 12/03/2010 12:31:14 PM 661 Views
Re: "ACLU Defends Nazi's Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters" - 12/03/2010 01:53:39 PM 679 Views
Re: "ACLU Defends Nazi's Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters" - 12/03/2010 03:04:43 PM 639 Views
As is often the case, there seems to be a fair amount of assumption going on here. - 12/03/2010 02:22:48 PM 632 Views
Just giving the benefit of the doubt... - 12/03/2010 02:57:23 PM 693 Views
Re: "Pursuing their ideology" - 12/03/2010 07:23:54 PM 664 Views
Re: "Pursuing their ideology" - 12/03/2010 08:17:25 PM 662 Views
That wasn't the impression I was under - 12/03/2010 11:23:08 PM 558 Views
Re: That wasn't the impression I was under - 13/03/2010 12:09:08 AM 706 Views
Pshhh there's a difference between "wear SOME clothes" and "wear a tux" - 15/03/2010 01:40:37 AM 599 Views
Your comments are inconsistent - 15/03/2010 02:09:43 AM 652 Views
I think you're optimistic about what her chances would've been - 12/03/2010 07:13:38 PM 665 Views
For the record... - 12/03/2010 06:48:25 AM 646 Views
Re: For the record... - 12/03/2010 01:04:33 PM 685 Views
Re: For the record... - 12/03/2010 07:08:06 PM 709 Views
Re: For the record... - 12/03/2010 08:08:42 PM 686 Views
Don't you think you're sensationalizing this just a bit? - 12/03/2010 05:42:21 AM 659 Views
Actually it is that reductionist - 12/03/2010 01:46:23 PM 654 Views
Re: Actually it is that reductionist - 12/03/2010 07:25:41 PM 730 Views
I have issues with both sides, I think - 12/03/2010 02:44:06 PM 620 Views
When I was in high school, my girlfriend and I formulated a petition so we'd be able to attend - 12/03/2010 07:55:33 PM 777 Views
Another thing I think people should remember - - 12/03/2010 07:59:43 PM 772 Views
One point though - 12/03/2010 08:40:32 PM 701 Views
Re: One point though - 12/03/2010 08:46:30 PM 760 Views
My point was that it was a hollow reassurance - 12/03/2010 09:35:46 PM 586 Views
yah, but honestly, is a tux really going to upset anyone that much? - 13/03/2010 04:50:08 PM 558 Views
Just because it wouldn't bother you doesn't mean it won't bother anyone else - 13/03/2010 06:38:03 PM 624 Views
It does - 13/03/2010 07:35:39 PM 604 Views
Re: It does - 13/03/2010 07:48:35 PM 561 Views
I typically agree with you - 13/03/2010 09:19:27 PM 660 Views
Following proper form shouldn't guarantee victory - 13/03/2010 10:17:27 PM 599 Views
yah, but at this point, how much of it is the girl? - 13/03/2010 10:24:57 PM 563 Views
Is she a child or an adult? IIRC she's 18 - 13/03/2010 11:33:39 PM 621 Views
No, it should not - 14/03/2010 12:33:56 AM 826 Views
Re: No, it should not - 14/03/2010 01:16:33 AM 727 Views
I understood that. You explained it well. *NM* - 14/03/2010 03:28:10 AM 281 Views
Re: Following proper form shouldn't guarantee victory - 15/03/2010 01:49:34 AM 662 Views
Re: Following proper form shouldn't guarantee victory - 15/03/2010 02:44:17 AM 541 Views
This is definitely true - 15/03/2010 04:27:43 AM 695 Views
Re: This is definitely true - 15/03/2010 05:18:11 AM 937 Views
Re: It does - 13/03/2010 08:18:03 PM 625 Views
Re: It does - 13/03/2010 09:30:21 PM 558 Views
Re: It does - 13/03/2010 10:11:21 PM 751 Views
Re: It does - 14/03/2010 12:11:11 AM 659 Views
Re: It does - 14/03/2010 03:42:06 AM 701 Views
Re: It does - 14/03/2010 12:47:47 AM 707 Views
Re: It does - 14/03/2010 04:09:18 AM 672 Views
You make good points. *NM* - 15/03/2010 08:08:37 PM 262 Views
Ah, yes, "the rules." - 15/03/2010 01:47:31 AM 590 Views
Read my replies to Nossy and Ghavrel - 15/03/2010 05:01:29 AM 621 Views
Slippery slope arguments are stupid. - 14/03/2010 12:43:00 AM 547 Views
So is likening everythng back to the Civil Rights Movement - 14/03/2010 04:17:54 AM 704 Views
"Dress codes exists for a reason?" - 15/03/2010 01:43:36 AM 610 Views
They do - 15/03/2010 05:08:17 AM 721 Views
Damn. Poor liberals, all revved up with nothing to fight for. *NM* - 12/03/2010 10:16:12 PM 435 Views
So... they were ready to fight something bad, and nothing bad happened - 12/03/2010 11:30:02 PM 549 Views
Teenaged lesbians - 15/03/2010 06:55:12 AM 660 Views

Reply to Message