Comments on: Corvino: Diversity and discrimination http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:23:24 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Scott http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-66930 Scott Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:16:39 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-66930 This is what I love about philosophers - the tempest over a titmouse, and the furious focus to the exclusion of all else whilst contemplating belly-button lint. When will you lot grow up? The fallacy of legislating societal behavior has been proven for millenia of human civilization. Thanks to our human stupidity, however, we just can't help ourselves and keep returning to the idiocy. Discrimination is discrimination, at whatever remove - contortions over degrees does not change that fact, John. Your article, like so many others you've written over the years, illustrates for me the meaning of the following: "We dance around a ring and suppose - -while the Secret sits in the middle and knows..." This is what I love about philosophers – the tempest over a titmouse, and the furious focus to the exclusion of all else whilst contemplating belly-button lint. When will you lot grow up?

The fallacy of legislating societal behavior has been proven for millenia of human civilization. Thanks to our human stupidity, however, we just can’t help ourselves and keep returning to the idiocy.

Discrimination is discrimination, at whatever remove – contortions over degrees does not change that fact, John. Your article, like so many others you’ve written over the years, illustrates for me the meaning of the following:

“We dance around a ring and suppose -
-while the Secret sits in the middle and knows…”

]]> By: cm http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44948 cm Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:55:07 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44948 As long as it's ok to be black/jewish/female, as long as you "don't act black/jewish/female/muslim", I'm all for this too! Come on, John. You're smarter than this. I think even Kant would say it's fundamentally/categorically flawed. Take your education in philosophy and apply some William James to it. As long as it’s ok to be black/jewish/female, as long as you “don’t act black/jewish/female/muslim”, I’m all for this too!

Come on, John. You’re smarter than this. I think even Kant would say it’s fundamentally/categorically flawed. Take your education in philosophy and apply some William James to it.

]]> By: TANK http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44944 TANK Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:13:27 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44944 Definitions are important. You distinguish sexual behavior from sexual orientation, and thus think of sexual orientation as something different from sexual activity. You cede that "we are intimately connected with what we do," but nonetheless sustain the "distinction". I, however, think it goes further than that. It would be, in this case, a lot like calling someone a shipbuilder who has never built a ship for whatever reason, or someone who stops building ships for whatever reason and yet maintains the title. But a shipbuilder is someone who builds ships... I suppose you can say that a homosexual is not someone who engages in homosexual activity, but that's not true, as many homosexuals do. What you're saying, then, is that it's not necessary to the definition of homosexual to engage in homosexual activity. Does engaging in homosexual activity make one a homosexual? Not necessarily, but it actually is a part of being a homosexual as many homosexuals will attest (a byproduct, if you will ;). So, while one need not necessarily engage in homosexual acts in being a homosexual, homosexual acts are actually a part of being a homosexual; they are the satisfaction conditions of homosexual sexual desires--and necessarily so; though one need not satisfy them and be a homosexual. So homosexual acts are, in fact, necessarily a part of being a homosexual (as the satisfaction conditions of, say, homosexual sexual desire), though individual homosexuals need not necessarily engage in them and be homosexual. So that means that the acts prohibited do constitute sexual orientation discrimination in spite of the fact that no homosexual need ever engage in same sex sexual activity. QED Another thing to consider is that homosexuality is sexual attraction to members of the same sex, and attraction is an activity (we'll take a broadly Quinean behavioristic view of "actions and behaviors" here). Is it sexual activity? It's not necessarily sexual activity with a member of the same sex, but it is sexual activity that involves members of the same sex (it's got something it's about). And, it can actually involve sexual activity with members of the same sex. I, however, see no reason to make such clear cut distinctions based on the fact that sometimes, sexual activity and sexual orientation do not match, and thus it is not logically necessary. Such rigid definitions and distinctions have nothing to do with the case, you see. And that, after all, is what we are seeking to address. Definitions are important. You distinguish sexual behavior from sexual orientation, and thus think of sexual orientation as something different from sexual activity. You cede that “we are intimately connected with what we do,” but nonetheless sustain the “distinction”. I, however, think it goes further than that.

It would be, in this case, a lot like calling someone a shipbuilder who has never built a ship for whatever reason, or someone who stops building ships for whatever reason and yet maintains the title. But a shipbuilder is someone who builds ships…

I suppose you can say that a homosexual is not someone who engages in homosexual activity, but that’s not true, as many homosexuals do. What you’re saying, then, is that it’s not necessary to the definition of homosexual to engage in homosexual activity. Does engaging in homosexual activity make one a homosexual? Not necessarily, but it actually is a part of being a homosexual as many homosexuals will attest (a byproduct, if you will ;) . So, while one need not necessarily engage in homosexual acts in being a homosexual, homosexual acts are actually a part of being a homosexual; they are the satisfaction conditions of homosexual sexual desires–and necessarily so; though one need not satisfy them and be a homosexual. So homosexual acts are, in fact, necessarily a part of being a homosexual (as the satisfaction conditions of, say, homosexual sexual desire), though individual homosexuals need not necessarily engage in them and be homosexual. So that means that the acts prohibited do constitute sexual orientation discrimination in spite of the fact that no homosexual need ever engage in same sex sexual activity. QED

Another thing to consider is that homosexuality is sexual attraction to members of the same sex, and attraction is an activity (we’ll take a broadly Quinean behavioristic view of “actions and behaviors” here). Is it sexual activity? It’s not necessarily sexual activity with a member of the same sex, but it is sexual activity that involves members of the same sex (it’s got something it’s about). And, it can actually involve sexual activity with members of the same sex. I, however, see no reason to make such clear cut distinctions based on the fact that sometimes, sexual activity and sexual orientation do not match, and thus it is not logically necessary. Such rigid definitions and distinctions have nothing to do with the case, you see. And that, after all, is what we are seeking to address.

]]> By: montrealbren http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44526 montrealbren Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:32:13 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44526 @Myke: Your argument concerning the APA's ethical guidelines have merit: philosophers ought not need a moral code to govern their association. You make a solid case for that. But as a Vietnamese general told a US general in the 1990s, after hearing the US claim that America won every battlefield fight during the war: "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant". While you scorn the Philosophers Association's code of ethics, surely you know that all such professional/academic associations have these guidelines. Even advertising agencies and fast food chains have them. It's a private club, they are entitled to set the parameters of membership. If I want to get choice gigs as a translator, I have to fork over money to the Translator's Association. They also have a similar non-discrimination policy. I understand the duality which I believe you are trying to point out: the non-discrimination policies are tantamount to discrimination toward those with views that run counter to those espoused by the group. All trades have a natural tendency to form guilds, if not outright unions. As US universities are mostly profit-based enterprises, one can expect all academics to create such entities to enhance their members' success in the field. Philosophy, in the American context, has no other choice than to act like a business. The tradition among such businesses (professional guilds) is to establish a code of ethical guidelines. To ask philosophers - or translators, or doctors, or scientists - to not take measures that ensure their continued ability to make a living is unrealistic in a society where everything is a commodity - and where everyone expects such groups to operate under some form of moral mission. True, philosophers, doctors, translators, etc. all existed before the advent of the university. But the advent of the university has changed the playing field. Your argument leads to a situation in which the rights of association are threatened. If universities all have a code of ethics that separate acceptable from unacceptable applicants, it is predictable that the various groups that serve as vendors to universities establish similar guidelines. I may have some sympathy for the overall point you're making, but it doesn't reflect the way in which institutions now function. We don't much question the American Medical Association's adherence to the Hippocratic oath. But the oath is discriminatory toward those who nowadays lean toward the "death with dignity" movement that promotes euthanasia for those who do not wish to end their life in prolonged pain. All such codes of ethics will eventually run into contradictions. Americans tend to think in black and white terms, where there is no room for any shade of gray. We crave ideology and loathe pragmatism. This is one of the inevitable results of that way of thinking. @ gay senior I'm with you: I read his column because he's cute... Thank goodness he knows how to write. If my discriminatory shallowness leads me to learn something new, however, I guess I can live with it... And while many accuse him of apostasy and apologism, I find his non-black, non-white thinking very refreshing. So not only is he cute, he's flexible to boot. Drool. @Myke:
Your argument concerning the APA’s ethical guidelines have merit: philosophers ought not need a moral code to govern their association. You make a solid case for that. But as a Vietnamese general told a US general in the 1990s, after hearing the US claim that America won every battlefield fight during the war: “That may be true, but it is also irrelevant”.
While you scorn the Philosophers Association’s code of ethics, surely you know that all such professional/academic associations have these guidelines. Even advertising agencies and fast food chains have them. It’s a private club, they are entitled to set the parameters of membership. If I want to get choice gigs as a translator, I have to fork over money to the Translator’s Association. They also have a similar non-discrimination policy. I understand the duality which I believe you are trying to point out: the non-discrimination policies are tantamount to discrimination toward those with views that run counter to those espoused by the group. All trades have a natural tendency to form guilds, if not outright unions. As US universities are mostly profit-based enterprises, one can expect all academics to create such entities to enhance their members’ success in the field. Philosophy, in the American context, has no other choice than to act like a business. The tradition among such businesses (professional guilds) is to establish a code of ethical guidelines. To ask philosophers – or translators, or doctors, or scientists – to not take measures that ensure their continued ability to make a living is unrealistic in a society where everything is a commodity – and where everyone expects such groups to operate under some form of moral mission. True, philosophers, doctors, translators, etc. all existed before the advent of the university. But the advent of the university has changed the playing field. Your argument leads to a situation in which the rights of association are threatened. If universities all have a code of ethics that separate acceptable from unacceptable applicants, it is predictable that the various groups that serve as vendors to universities establish similar guidelines. I may have some sympathy for the overall point you’re making, but it doesn’t reflect the way in which institutions now function. We don’t much question the American Medical Association’s adherence to the Hippocratic oath. But the oath is discriminatory toward those who nowadays lean toward the “death with dignity” movement that promotes euthanasia for those who do not wish to end their life in prolonged pain. All such codes of ethics will eventually run into contradictions. Americans tend to think in black and white terms, where there is no room for any shade of gray. We crave ideology and loathe pragmatism. This is one of the inevitable results of that way of thinking.

@ gay senior
I’m with you: I read his column because he’s cute… Thank goodness he knows how to write. If my discriminatory shallowness leads me to learn something new, however, I guess I can live with it… And while many accuse him of apostasy and apologism, I find his non-black, non-white thinking very refreshing. So not only is he cute, he’s flexible to boot. Drool.

]]> By: Jay http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44525 Jay Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:24:05 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44525 With spokespeople like Corvino, we don't need enemies. I suppose he has some philosophical justification for opposing ENDA or keeping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" intact. Or continuing to allow gay people to marry. One can always justify discrimination and the denial of equal rights, especially if one is willing to quibble over "fine lines." Give me a break. With spokespeople like Corvino, we don’t need enemies. I suppose he has some philosophical justification for opposing ENDA or keeping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” intact. Or continuing to allow gay people to marry. One can always justify discrimination and the denial of equal rights, especially if one is willing to quibble over “fine lines.” Give me a break.

]]> By: Myke http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44463 Myke Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:06:55 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44463 philosopher (a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity) Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, justice, beauty, validity, mind and language. So what part of rational thinking does forced discrimiation play in being a Philospher? Somehow Philosophy only dwells within the confines of a piece of paper claiming you are "Philosophical" or a group of you who clamor together for self recognition? That seems to me to go against the concept of Philosophy. How is it that religious institutions can claim to be Philosophical when by definition rationality has something to do with it? Talking snakes, humungous boats carrying pairs of animals, walking on water,72 virgins, 8 armed Gods? There were no degrees in Philosophy when colleges didn't exist yet there were many Philosophers. Stop getting caught up in your own self adulation. Every person at some point in time is a Philosopher even if your group doesn't recognize them as such. A rational, thinking person who seeks justice and truth shouldn't even be part of an organization that claims these principles. Is your claim that if all of you who form this clique join together in ideas and concepts that it makes them so? The very definition deems that by even thinking about deliberate discrimination that none of you are acting Philosophically. If you have a predetermined structure in place then by definition you have already excluded a principle or concept rather than rationally discussing it, exploring it and so forth.Philosophy doesn't close doors, it opens them. By automatically ruling something out in advance then you are not seeking the truth nor are you searching tirelessly for truth and justice. How can this even be an issue for you "Philosophers" when it completely contradicts being a Philosopher? Philosphers don't pander or convince. They simply share conclusions they have reached through unending quests for truth and justice and all the other things. Having a code of conduct contradicts the exploration or search for ideas that you may not have answers to. If you want to be a Philosopher you should go "balls to the wall" seeking truth and justice. Not this tepid hierachical struggle with group membership and policies. A policy reinforces a preconceived notion and therefore the quest has ceased and the truth will never be found out. I just can't understand how a group of Philosophers can even pass a petition around. It goes against the concept of trying to figure things out. You shouldn't err in either direction. You are just supposed to be on a perpetual quest. That quest never reaches an end because it is conceptual and not finite. As the world changes so goes Philosophy. More will always be revealed so why stop looking? Somehow having your group sign a document about my "conduct" diminishes what you are all claiming your own higher ground. To even question the concept of discrimination means that none of you are Philosophers. You are just self important eggheads thinking you have the inside scoop to what we should all be doing. I am just guffaw at the premise of professional Philosophers. To me it's an inside job. So while I laugh at anybody who tries to limit the sexual behavior of nature I laugh just as hard at people who claim to be "Philosophers" who have a professional affiliation. Can you seek the truth without a paycheck being your motivation? Can you speak to injustice without having to have a few letters added to your title? Can you positively influence humanity without expecting money, property, and prestige? Morality has no part of Philosphy. Morals are determined, Philosophy is a quest. Why would anybody want to have a job where their private sexuality is a requirement for pay. If you settle for a job with such requirements then you are self serving rather than a Philospopher anyhow. philosopher (a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity)
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, justice, beauty, validity, mind and language.

So what part of rational thinking does forced discrimiation play in being a Philospher? Somehow Philosophy only dwells within the confines of a piece of paper claiming you are “Philosophical” or a group of you who clamor together for self recognition? That seems to me to go against the concept of Philosophy.

How is it that religious institutions can claim to be Philosophical when by definition rationality has something to do with it? Talking snakes, humungous boats carrying pairs of animals, walking on water,72 virgins, 8 armed Gods?
There were no degrees in Philosophy when colleges didn’t exist yet there were many Philosophers. Stop getting caught up in your own self adulation. Every person at some point in time is a Philosopher even if your group doesn’t recognize them as such. A rational, thinking person who seeks justice and truth shouldn’t even be part of an organization that claims these principles. Is your claim that if all of you who form this clique join together in ideas and concepts that it makes them so? The very definition deems that by even thinking about deliberate discrimination that none of you are acting Philosophically. If you have a predetermined structure in place then by definition you have already excluded a principle or concept rather than rationally discussing it, exploring it and so forth.Philosophy doesn’t close doors, it opens them.
By automatically ruling something out in advance then you are not seeking the truth nor are you searching tirelessly for truth and justice. How can this even be an issue for you “Philosophers” when it completely contradicts being a Philosopher?
Philosphers don’t pander or convince. They simply share conclusions they have reached through unending quests for truth and justice and all the other things.
Having a code of conduct contradicts the exploration or search for ideas that you may not have answers to.
If you want to be a Philosopher you should go “balls to the wall” seeking truth and justice. Not this tepid hierachical struggle with group membership and policies.
A policy reinforces a preconceived notion and therefore the quest has ceased and the truth will never be found out.
I just can’t understand how a group of Philosophers can even pass a petition around. It goes against the concept of trying to figure things out. You shouldn’t err in either direction. You are just supposed to be on a perpetual quest. That quest never reaches an end because it is conceptual and not finite. As the world changes so goes Philosophy. More will always be revealed so why stop looking?
Somehow having your group sign a document about my “conduct” diminishes what you are all claiming your own higher ground.
To even question the concept of discrimination means that none of you are Philosophers. You are just self important eggheads thinking you have the inside scoop to what we should all be doing.
I am just guffaw at the premise of professional Philosophers. To me it’s an inside job.
So while I laugh at anybody who tries to limit the sexual behavior of nature I laugh just as hard at people who claim to be “Philosophers” who have a professional affiliation. Can you seek the truth without a paycheck being your motivation? Can you speak to injustice without having to have a few letters added to your title? Can you positively influence humanity without expecting money, property, and prestige?
Morality has no part of Philosphy. Morals are determined, Philosophy is a quest.
Why would anybody want to have a job where their private sexuality is a requirement for pay. If you settle for a job with such requirements then you are self serving rather than a Philospopher anyhow.

]]> By: Matt@Chicago http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44412 Matt@Chicago Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:48:41 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44412 you poor thing John....you feel ousted by your own group....yet you side with them...You are the reason we struggle so much. If a fag philospher falls in the forest, does anyone care? If your answer is no, then blame nobody but yourself for the result. You've already been abaondoned by your so-called "conservative friend" at the mere thought of staying at your home. This new development surprises you? really? Perhaps they ought to reevaluate your PhD....your critical thinking skills seem to need some sharpening up. you poor thing John….you feel ousted by your own group….yet you side with them…You are the reason we struggle so much. If a fag philospher falls in the forest, does anyone care? If your answer is no, then blame nobody but yourself for the result. You’ve already been abaondoned by your so-called “conservative friend” at the mere thought of staying at your home. This new development surprises you? really? Perhaps they ought to reevaluate your PhD….your critical thinking skills seem to need some sharpening up.

]]> By: Rebeca http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44393 Rebeca Sun, 22 Feb 2009 05:38:14 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44393 I think Mr. Corvino is dipping a bit too much into the beer barrel because his thinking seems muddled, unforcused,and confused. Bigorty is bigorty, there is no such thing as just a little bigotry. It's like saying a little bit pregnant! Unless these offending universities have a global policy that prohibits sexual contact of any kind, regardless of the person's sexual orientation, it is discrimination. And how ludicrous would it be for a university that is not a monastery, a seminary or a convent to have such a ludicrous no sexual contact policy, right? Using a prohibition of a non criminal behavior is only a veiled form of discrimination--but it is still discrimination. I think Mr. Corvino is dipping a bit too much into the beer barrel because his thinking seems muddled, unforcused,and confused. Bigorty is bigorty, there is no such thing as just a little bigotry. It’s like saying a little bit pregnant! Unless these offending universities have a global policy that prohibits sexual contact of any kind, regardless of the person’s sexual orientation, it is discrimination. And how ludicrous would it be for a university that is not a monastery, a seminary or a convent to have such a ludicrous no sexual contact policy, right?
Using a prohibition of a non criminal behavior is only a veiled form of discrimination–but it is still discrimination.

]]> By: Scott http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44386 Scott Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:57:33 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44386 So I would be allowed to apply for a job as long as I left my partner of 15 years while no such requirement would be placed on a heterosexual? That is discrimination based on sexual orientation, no matter what you call it. So I would be allowed to apply for a job as long as I left my partner of 15 years while no such requirement would be placed on a heterosexual? That is discrimination based on sexual orientation, no matter what you call it.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-diversity-and-discrimination/comment-page-2/#comment-44383 Jonathan Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:30:01 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=5525#comment-44383 It must be nice to never have a dilemma. To never have to consider conflicting thoughts within oneself. To be absolutely certain that every thought that enters your mind or decision you make is beyond reproach. It must be nice to never have a dilemma. To never have to consider conflicting thoughts within oneself.
To be absolutely certain that every thought that enters your mind or decision you make is beyond reproach.

]]>