Should I Join a Fraternity?

[Kaak]

End: a few things...

1. I never claimed to be perfect. I know that i have my own shortcomings.

2. I also never said that I agree with everything that baylor does. I was just trying to help explain this school, its actions and why it does them.

and as far as frat boys getting kicked out, I said "for being caught..." as with all the other things, just don't get caught, and you are fine.

Well, you obviously don't treat everyone as equals...

Hmm...not really sure how that makes sense as you used it. either a) you are trying to draw an arbitrary conclusion

Thus, completely defeating the point of going to University in the first place. Oh well.

And I thought the reason to go to a university was to get an education

However, as I understand it, the Christian doctrine suggests that we can be forgiven for all our "sins".

then you don't entirely understand it. How can you ask and receive forgiveness for something you aren't sorry for doing? All sins can be forgiven when someone asks with a repentant heart, but without remorse, it just can't work.

Also, it is sad that when your arguements fail, you decide to take personal shots at me. I was merely trying to explain. I, once again, must say that I do not agree with everything here, but by the same token, I do agree with some...

If I were Asher, I'd be heading down to Texas right now with a shotgun.

Don't you know all texans have guns? he better bring more than a shotgun

Presumably, that's Christian "psychology", a bit like Christian "science".

You're right, that is a presumption, and quite wrong. Baylor doesn't teach its classes any differently than state schools. Science is science, and psychology is psychology. Neither are taught from a christian perspective. And please ask your friends!

They're both unchangeable characteristics.

Well, once again, I don't believe that homosexuality is unchangable. I think it is a psychological disorder, and can be cured with proper help.

as far as books go, read several. study psychology, and then make your own decision...

dm:

You claim you don't like "cookie cutter" frats/societies and one of the reason you like your frats is because it gets you "a$$."

Hmm...can you quote where i said i liked it because I get a$$? I think i merely gave that as a reason for david to join. As far as a$$ goes, I have never had a problem getting it before or after the fraternity, but joining does help some. As far as me wanting a structured christian orthodox enviroment, can you point exactly to where i said that? because I'm pretty sure i didn't. I have been defending baylor in these posts in somewhat of a sophist manner, and said very little about how I feel one way or the other. AS far as my sin, I know that i sin, and that is between god and myself. If baylor kicks me out because of it, then so be it. I can be accountable for my actions.

AS i pointed out earlier and you failed to notice, i said that blacks and different race groups have their own clicks.....even their own greek clubs.

I think my point here was that you see the groups with or without fraternities. but that is something we can talk about when we meet.

claiming that i fit into a nice stereotype

I didn't claim that you fit into a nice stereotype, just that you fit into a neater one than I do.

As far as financial stress, we give scholarships to the most financially needy pledge, the person with the highest GPA, and 3 hardship grants a semester to members...

Animals in some respects are comperable, but they are not equivalent. Some areas, animal research helps, some it doesn't.

I would also seriously like to see how you can justify Hitler with christianity...

It is also quite interesting how you just "forgot" about the points where you were obviously wrong...


OH! and ps- I checked the PMs...there was no msg about us meeting, and NO INSTANCE of me blowing you off. IIRC, the only time it was even mentioned was in a thread in passing...

[Asher]

Asher: Christianity won't show you the way, but psychotherapy might...

That's odd, because all of the therapists I know of these days know it's not a choice, and are against forcing homosexuals to become heterosexual just so as to make other people happy. The people who think otherwise are the ones that need therapy.

More years than i can imagine? now that is funny. Let's see...I am a fifth year. I was a psychology major for 7 semesters (plus summer school). Who do you think has had more classes?

Having psychology classes at a school which has very controversial and plainly false views on homosexuality doesn't make you an expert, buddy. It's like taking a political science course in Iraq...

Asher: only a moron would compare being black to being gay...

I don't see why? Both blacks and gays are minorities, not by choice, and have been treated like sh*t in the history of your Christian nation. Blacks were the first to get full equal rights, and people like you protested against it back then. Now it's time for the gays, and people like you again protest against it. One day I hope you wake up and figure out the real truth, not what your Christian friends try to brainwash you with.

I was just wondering if this was an intentional pun.

Don't you know all texans have guns? he better bring more than a shotgun

Don't you know all Albertans have guns?

Baylor doesn't teach its classes any differently than state schools.

So how come Baylor's thoughts on homosexuality are entirely different than the American Psychology Association's? The rest of the world, for that matter? It's part of the Christian agenda, you're just too blind to see it.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Asher
It's part of the Christian agenda, you're just too blind to see it.

hey, there are christians, and then are christians. my church is "open and affirming" meaning that gays are welcome. what christian group Kaak belongs to, i don't know, but i wouldn't exactly call it inviting. don't judge all christians by what they do at baylor. please

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Kaak
Baylor doesn't teach its classes any differently than state schools.

not if baylor says homosexuality is wrong

[Asher]

Originally posted by H Tower
hey, there are christians, and then are christians. my church is "open and affirming" meaning that gays are welcome. what christian group Kaak belongs to, i don't know, but i wouldn't exactly call it inviting. don't judge all christians by what they do at baylor. please

Fair enough.
It's part of the WingnutChristian agenda, then.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Asher

Fair enough.
It's part of the WingnutChristian agenda, then.

thanks

[Solly]

A couple of points...

People take and want different things from the university they attend. For some it is purely for the educational value, for some it's for the social side of things, and for some it's the path they take because it's what their parents expect them to do. I don't think we can criticise people for wanting a certain kind of social scene at their university.

I too am glad this "fraternity" system doesn't operate in the UK. It all sounds a little crazy and needless.

[*End Is Forever*]

Kaak,

I'm way too tired to make a detailed response. I will do later, but while I'm here...

as far as books go, read several. study psychology, and then make your own decision...

I asked you to name me some books that identified homosexuality as a psychological "disorder", or something that can be "cured". If you can name me a couple of texts, I will gladly read them...

[Asher]

It should be noted that the APA (American Psychological Association) ruled out Homosexuality as a disorder ages ago.

If Baylor still teaches that it is a disorder, I have to wonder how valuable pyschology degrees from it are worth.

[Starchild]

I need to be cured? Strange, I didn't know I was sick.

[devilmunchkin]

kaak: with all these people basically backing up what i say, you'd think you would have stopped saying i was wrong about any of these points by now.
as far as the a$$ thing goes, yes you did tell david that it was a good reason to join a frat and that "in fact you had a few girls dancing in your living room" at that moment. that tells everyone your preference right there.
1) you've never met me or seen me or know my personality..so how can you say i fit into a neater category???

I never claimed to be perfect. I know that i have my own shortcomings

i'm guessing this is your way of trying to get out of it all and cover your tracks because you've basically had all your ideas slaughtered by more logical people. ANd noone in this discussion has claimed to be perfect, but when you say illogical and bigoted statements, kaak, you should expect to have them challenged.

as far as your not treating everyone as equals: that statement made perfect sense...trying rereading it. You don't think homosexuals should be allowed on campus..basically saying they shouldn't have the same rights as you....making your view look as if you think they are lesser people...hence your (and baylor's) bigotry...but i am certainly glad we have sloan and the regeants running baylor and not you and your slippery slope arguments..that's not a pot shot..it's just the truth that you've made about as much sense as a Branch Davidian .

ANd again, if you've taken so many psych..classes you should be more than aware of the FACT the homosexuality is NOT a choice. Perhaps you have deluded yourself into thinking this because it conveniently makes religion more logical to you. I'd also like to point out that the rule and laws against homosexuality (found in leviticus and numbers) are among hundreds of other laws of all sorts, many of which are no longer practiced...like eye for an eye, feet washing or prostrating yourself before the altar.....having women wash themselves after sex and other certain cleansing rituals..and above all it is also a sin to waste semen......Look at all of Tamar's dead husband's and that should clue you in right there. so, i'll assume you're with the 99% of the male population that masturbates...so you knowingly sin....
Ok, since you refuse to read judges i'll tell you how they ( God + hitler) are the same: IN Judges God orders his people to kill ALL the Cannaanites, leaving no animal unslaughtered adn taking none of their personal items. Thus they wil receive the land of Isreal IF they can refrain from that AND stay devout to god....but do they? no...so god has the enslaved only to bring up another judge and order the GENOCIDE all over again. What did hitler do? He ordered a genocide on the Jewish communities as his territory grew. He justified it by saying they were inferior to the race he would create...just as in judges.

I also never said that I agree with everything that baylor does. I was just trying to help explain this school, its actions and why it does them.

if you truly didn't agree you would have stated so in the beggining, thus negating any need for this discussion. HAve you noticed that it's basically poly against you?? doesn't that tell you right there that your logic is skewed? These people come from many backgrounds more varied that your frat or baylor could ever be...and all of them say the same thing: you're wrong.

How can you ask and receive forgiveness for something you aren't sorry for doing? All sins can be forgiven when someone asks with a repentant heart, but without remorse, it just can't work.

so did you ask forgiveness for the dancing girls in your apt last night? or any premarital hanky panky you've ever done?
as for getting caught: no one I know ever gets caught because frankly the admin doesn't care or doesn't look. Or maybe the people YOU know make it too obvious to be ignored?

Wow. That is a tough statement. RIGHT. Who is to say what is right and wrong? You? me? I'm a christian, remember. I think god is the definative source of right and wrong, so therefore, kicking someone out because they are WRONG according to the Word would seem justifiable.

actually i can. YOu're bible has restriction s on you that arn't over me...why...because i don't believe in god. i know there isn't one. BUt if you, kaak, are going to believe, then it is your duty to follow those rules set before and not pick and choose.

as far as classes at baylor: they arn't as tinged as one might think. ALot of kids already come to baylor with ideas about things already implanted in their brains...that's why many have a rough time with the religion courses because they are taught in orthodox baptist fashion and are not set up as a bible school class..rather as scholarly study....many can't handle that. Other areas of the school to tend to shy away from anything controversial and we even have a center of creationism here (although our official science depts. have seriously attacked it due to it's lack of academic viability).

[Logical Realist]

Baylor's just following orders!(God's orders)

quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
Kicking a person out for this or that can obviously be part of your religion...that doesn't make it right.
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>

Wow. That is a tough statement. RIGHT. Who is to say what is right and wrong? You? me? I'm a christian, remember. I think god is the definative source of right and wrong, so therefore, kicking someone out because they are WRONG according to the Word would seem justifiable.

Likewise many southerners thought that releasing slaves went aganist the "Word" and that letting women vote went against the "Word". Did that make them right? Your whole post assumes that God exists and makes right and wrong. Which is untrue. By saying "since its part of your religion so its automatically right", you imply that racism and such, like that perpetuated against the "untouchables" in India are "right" just because they are part of someone's religion. I'm saying that such a statement does not necessarily follow.

By asking "who's to say what's right and wrong" you reveal your whole subjectivist/relativist essence to us all. Christians like to talk about objective morals a lot, but do they say "what is right and wrong, what law or object is right or wrong?" No it's "who determines right and wrong?"......sounds pretty subjectivist to me. And who is it? GOD. Why God? Well cause he has the POWER to enforce His whims of course. All Christianity is is third person relativism or subjectivism. Far from destroying the idea that morals are all a matter of opinion, Christians like Kaak embrace such a notion and merely add a new spin. It's opinion all right; God's opinion; and God's pretty tough so you best listen to Him.

Plato disproved this "Divine Command" theory of morality or at least showed it to be bankrupt, two thousand plus years ago. Plato was arguing against a polytheistic, not monotheistic view, so the details differ but it's similar enough to use. Plato argued that if God just "invents" morals, then rape,murder, genocide,racism and just about anything considered by most to be immoral would be moral...if God said so. The only alternative to this is that God gets His morals from some sort of objective existents. In which case morals cease to be a matter of opinion and man has no need of God the middle man cause he can now go to the source.

It is by these moral standards, deontological, utilitarian, virtue theory and other objective moral systems that I say bigotry and intolerance for the inconsequential is wrong. By objective morals, not your solipsist superstitions. And my claim is not a "Big one", as in extrordinary, but one backed by philosophers and ethicists since the beggining of the study of morals.





[qute]Logical Realist:
quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
Hers seem to be on the mark and her condemnations made for good reasons.
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>

On what grounds can you quantify this? Are you just making an illogical assumption too?[/quote]

I judge this by three things 1) Your reactions. 2) A priori judgement based on prior experience of what I know of fundamentalist Christians and Baptists, like those a college like Baylor would take under its wing and support. Her reports seem very probable based on what I know and are thus accepted. Just like I would be likely to accept reports of harassment by Jewish friend's under some neo-nazi school. This is because I know what Nazis and nazi ideology are like and hence have already determined, by very reasonable a priori judgement that such incidents are probable. Likewise I know what fundies,red necks and rich, spoiled, jocks that would likely go to rich Fundy school's are like. Hence DM's reports seem probable. Especially since your statements have caused you to lose credibility(since you are a bigot) and her's have not. Hence I have reason to believe her and reason to doubt you.

Just like if a black friend said some red necks at some private university known as "Confederate Stronghold" harassed him I'd likely believe it.

quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
A person's sex life, even if it were a matter of choice does not affect you
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>

I don't recall saying that it did. and while I agree with you on a singular basis, it is a sociological fact that no group can exist without affecting its surroundings. Granted, it sounds good for you to say that, but it doesn't really hold water on any sizable scale.

Likewise it has no effect on the sizable scale either. If you disagree, then you need some hard evidence to prove how a form of sex affects the population greatly. To me, likewise going by some 'a priori' knowledge such a claim seems bogus. Such a statement goes against what we know of sex and how inconsequential it is to those not involved in the act.

quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
Do other animals, ven chimps our closest relatives choose to be attracted to females? What then makes you think mankind is an exception?
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>


I think that a heterosexual disposition is hereditary and inate. However, animals aren't really comprable to humans because there sex drive is much greater, and more indiscriminate.

Actually animals(as if human's weren't animals) like peahens are very selective. Going after only the most brightly colored mates. This is because animals, wishing to spread their genes want healthy offspring which come from fitter parents. This process of being choosy is known as artificial selection and it premeates throughout the entire animal kingdom. But lets suppose hetrosexuality is hereditary? Genes differ, enviroment isn't chosen, fetal conditions can change the person's sexual orientation and such. Keep in mind that heredity is cultural, as well as, genetic. A person's genetic tendency is usually just that, a tendency that can be driven unto a different course by enviromental conditions.

I don't fully understand what you're saying though. You seem to be champoining genetic determinism, one of exclusive heterosexuality, yet if that's the case, then gays should not exist. You're implying that genes make one choose to be attracted to a certain gender and are all the same(big leap) and that one can just "randomly choose" to violate such genes. On what basis would they randomly choose to violate such a thing? And if it's really random, like free will implies, why blame them?

As for the nature of god and his omniscence, how could it be possible for one that is not omniscient to understand one that is? they would exist on two completely seperate planes of thought. If you claim to be able to understand God, then you are a much greater fool than I.

I'm not saying I understand omniscience completely or God. As I don't think that God(or omniscience for that matter) even exist. All I'm saying is that given the definition of omniscience as "all knowing" it would seem that God would know the future. In which case the arbitrary, and free will would create a problem for God as the arbitrary is by nature unpredictable.

quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
Also your reasoning is bsed on the premise that two wrongs make a right.
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>


Great. right and wrong again. We have an irreconcilable difference of definitions of right and wrong if I am christian, and you are not.

No, you were not saying "Baylor does it cause God says so" here. You were saying that it's ok for Baylor to descriminate, because such descrimination takes place "all the time". That is saying that two wrongs make a right. And that sort of reasoning is fallacious. That's like saying, murder is committed all the time, so its ok if Johnny murders someone.

quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
And blacks still get harrassed in the deep south.
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>

lol...ask someone from georgia if texas is in the deep south...and no, people make no CHOICES about their racial background. I think all racial discrimination is wrong.

as for your next post: no one said anything about hating gays, i merely said that they weren't conducive to the enviroment aforementioned. Thanks for putting words in my mouth!

After your post, it is quite clear that you chose a poor nick...your points were poorly thought out, and unfounded in any clear logic.

As far as my points being illogical goes.....look who's talking. The evidence points to homosexuality not being choice in that way its like being black. Gay people also hurt no one by being gay, in that way its also similar to being black. Consertatives have hated both groups, in that way both are similar still. You try to cop out of the evidence of gay's not choosing their sexual orientation, by labeling it a "subconscious choice' meanwhile you'd say your own sexual orientation was determined not by free will, but by genes. An obvious case of non-credible, biased, speculation. Also saying that even if being gay was proven to be due to the effect of enviroment and genes, that'd it be a "choice", a "subconscious choice" shows how irrational you really are, how willing to rationalize you are and mislead to protect your petty prejudices. Instead of admitting that it would not then be "chosen" you prefer to call it something absurd like a "subconscious choice' meaning that you will not accept the obvious conclsuion even IF it were 100 percent proven by the facts.

Also saying that you're not hating gays, by saying that they merely aren't "conductive to the enviroment aforementioned" is an obvious case of newspeak; that even a junior high kid could see through. A clear euphamism made to disguise an ugly fact. "He's not "stubborn" he's "firm" in his beliefs." Not "fanatical" but "devoted". It's not that he's "beaten" just "corrected". Its actually sad how you can trick yourself so easily by just changing the words.

[Logical Realist]

Correction

BTW my third point on how I quantify my assumptions was that I trust DM more than Kaak. Just forgot to put in 3).