Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[etdpratt]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Solid gas lighting attempt champ. Every person who reads this knows exactly why you chose the example you chose, and exactly what it says about you.

It was a piece of #### move and should result in you getting banned.

If I felt that way, I would have come out, responded, and called it equivalents or as abhorrent. I am not afraid to say what I believe. I couldn't give a damn. I don't even know who you are. You think the risk of being banned from commenting on a hockey forum would make me revise what I originally intended from the comment, then you overvalue my need to comment on here. Again, pedophilia is a whole different ball game vs homosexuality. It was meant to highlight that many years ago it was consensus from most of population that "homosexuality" was horrible, and was only trying to call out another standard of today that most of society deems abhorrent.

[N-E-B]

Jesus, it's a night to show a community of people who have historically been outcasts in hockey that they're welcome to join in and we're trying to get better at welcoming them. And really, it's not even a themed night. There's like one interview done between periods with a community member highlighting their hockey initiatives and the players wear a rainbow for 16 minutes during warmups. That's pretty much all it is.

If it bothers you that bad, just don't go. I also get it if you don't want to expose young kids to it. Sexuality is a topic I believe should be taught by the parents at an appropriate age. Don't bring them to the game if you don't think they're ready for that stuff yet. There's 40 other hockey games to take your kid to.

Is it really that hard to let a community have one game a year out of 41 home games? Come on. If it's not for you, boo hoo. You can have the other 40.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Yeah, like I have pointed out I clearly said homosexuality is not a choice. I thought that would be enough to explain my perspective.

Well you were wrong anyways, lifestyle (no matter what definition you use) does imply choice. Unless one thinks that someone having an expensive lifestyle is not a choice. Virtually every way that the word lifestyle is used in relation to society implies choice.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

No, I already responded because you decided to interpret what I said as equivalents, when the entire point was that societal norms and what is deemed "ok" has changed throughout time. If you want to get caught up in your feels and tell me I meant to say something I didn't, then go ahead.

You attempted to establish a moral compass argument by introducing pedophilia as some kind of equitable ethical standard to queerness. As already mentioned there are numerous other evolved stances you could have used, such as women's suffrage or civil rights, that are much more relevant, but you chose pedophilia. It was silly and offensive, and even if done unconsciously it shows a fairly severe lack of understanding concerning even the basics of this conversation.

Instead of doubling down you probably should have just retracted using that argument to make your point because it's now lost in some pretty obvious absurdity.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Defending Christian moralists with the argument that their spiritually defined framework is no more or less inherently valid than anyone else's is pretty rich just in a historical context... but even more absurd given that the entire divine command theory of morality was already dead on arrival before Jesus was ever born.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

If I felt that way, I would have come out and called it equivalents or as abhorrent. I am not afraid to say what I believe. I couldn't give a damn. I don't even know who you are.

Instead of getting defensive about making an extremely offensive association you truly meant nothing by, why don’t you acknowledge that you didn’t know and just apologise?

Nobody is perfect, so it seems weird to double down and antagonize people upset by it.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Jesus, it's a night to show a community of people who have historically been outcasts in hockey that they're welcome to join in and we're trying to get better at welcoming them. And really, it's not even a themed night. There's like one interview done between periods with a community member highlighting their hockey initiatives and the players wear a rainbow for 16 minutes during warmups. That's pretty much all it is.

If it bothers you that bad, just don't go. I also get it if you don't want to expose young kids to it. Sexuality is a topic I believe should be taught by the parents at an appropriate age. Don't bring them to the game if you don't think they're ready for that stuff yet. There's 40 other hockey games to take your kid to.

Is it really that hard to let a community have one game a year out of 41 home games? Come on. If it's not for you, boo hoo. You can have the other 40.

Just building off your post: generally we as a culture don't hide all aspects of sexuality from kids. Folks ask young kids all the time if they have a little boyfriend or girlfriend at school or whatever. Yet as a culture when it comes to queer sexuality and how little Timmy has two moms or two dads, or one of his mom's nonbinary it thus becomes adult and should be sheltered from children. There are def age appropriate way for folks to talk to kids about this with.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

@ the beaverton

(Christians aren't held to Levitical law because Jesus marks the start of a new covenant between God and humanity according to a lot of Christian theology. And as an amateur religious studies/theology person that argument even as a joke bugs me because it's just not correct. but then that also leads to me to ways in Christianity appropriates Judaism and has since at least the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by Rome and it's move from a small weirdo Jewish sect/off shoot which were common in 1st century Israel until something else entirely. but now I'm going off another tangent, 1st century christian history is the day after post cold war geo poltics. today is queer theory)

This would be a sound rebuttal if the source of the biblical argument about homosexuality being an abomination wasn't also from Leviticus.

[etdpratt]

Originally Posted by Yamer

You attempted to establish a moral compass argument by introducing pedophilia as some kind of equitable ethical standard to queerness. As already mentioned there are numerous other evolved stances you could have used, such as women's suffrage or civil rights, that are much more relevant, but you chose pedophilia. It was silly and offensive, and even if done unconsciously it shows a fairly severe lack of understanding concerning even the basics of this conversation.

Instead of doubling down you probably should have just retracted using that argument to make your point because it's now lost in some pretty obvious absurdity.

I chose pedophilia because in today's society it's deemed abhorrent, no different than what many believed (ridiculously) back in the day abhorrent with homosexuality. Man, i get the sensitivity but the whole point was finding something that most of society today would deem abhorrent.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

Great, and it goes back to my argument of what is the right moral standard/framework? What you have adopted in your own life? Because you set the bar in different places, and I bet it's changed over the course of your life. So are we always supposed to expect everyone to accept your moral framework as one everyone should support?

Yes, people often change positions when new evidence comes to their attention or someone makes a good argument. As long as you have appropriate reasoning behind the change, it's not an issue to do so.

But if that framework comes from a religious/spiritual foundation, then you have a huge issue with it. Whether from the belief in supreme being or one that you have recognized as your "source of truth", what you deem as "wrong" may not hold in the views of others.

I can't speak for others, but I do have a huge issue with it. Arguments that come from religious convictions are based on faith, and not based on reason or evidence. Moreover, they tend to be dogmatic, citing doctrine or scripture and verse, and the funny thing about that is the doctrines and interpretations change over time depending on the societal norms and culture, so it isn't even consistent depending on the era.

Many Christians, Muslims, etc... believe fornication is wrong. Or gambling is wrong. You could argue there's actually a sound argument for those in terms of why going against those standards can cause many societal problems. But, they are supposed to follow and support your standards, without any expectation of reciprocity.

The irony of saying "people realized it was wrong" when that is again based on your moving standard. So you are asking everyone to adopt and actively support where you have agreed to move the goal posts, but if a Christian asks you to actively support a cause they follow, that's religious oppression?

People realized it was wrong because it caused horrifying psychological damage and long-term consequences of the abused becoming the abuser in their adult years, perpetuating a cycle of violence. That's supersedes a purely moral argument because we have good evidence and sound reason to support the idea.


You don't need religion to make good choices for society, you just to understand consequences of behavior.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This would be a sound rebuttal if the source of the biblical argument about homosexuality being an abomination wasn't also from Leviticus.

Oh totally. And like if you want to go really deep too the translations choices to suit a homophobic agenda also comes into play.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, I don’t know what I’m supposed to think of you. Have you ever once thought, considering you’ve come to the conclusion that nobody ever understands you and apparently nobody on CP can read, that there is a disconnect between how you believe you’re coming across and how you’re actually being received?

It's a mixture of cannon not saying what they think they are, then not comprehending what others are saying back, and then mixing in some trolling on top of all that. Trying to pull definitions from the dictionary as some lame 'gotcha' and not realizing it proved the exact opposite point was the clearest example.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not about having consistent viewpoints, it’s that your views consistently run counter to the people you claim to be close to and you consistently show less empathy for the people who stand to be hurt the most by the things you defend than the people doing the hurting.

So, I don’t know what I’m supposed to think of you. Have you ever once thought, considering you’ve come to the conclusion that nobody ever understands you and apparently nobody on CP can read, that there is a disconnect between how you believe you’re coming across and how you’re actually being received?

You say my views run counter, but from my position my views are just more nuanced than yours. I very much believe that the internet has put nuance on life support. When there is a rage mob ready to strip a young man of his dreams (or worse) for something he did as a child and there is a voice advocating penance, internet culture treats that as opposition. Or if a voice is not in lockstep with popular opinion, they are cast into the pile of deplorables. The internet is in a hurry to have a problem and mobs are easily formed, they also change direction on a dime and frequently eat their own. None of this, in my view, is good or should be encouraged. I am clearly in the minority here, if this thread is any sample.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t think it’s a big ask to say that we should be allowed to criticize the beliefs of someone when those beliefs are that it is wrong and invalid to be gay or trans, or that it’s just an activity or lifestyle and not how someone is? Reimer is a nobody in the grand scheme of things, but there are people with actual power who think just like him and believe those same things and make policy that reflect those beliefs and harm LGBTQ folks, kids especially. Is that above criticism to you? Or is it ok that we criticize beliefs like Reimer’s so long as we “tolerate” him, just as everyone has done since he made the statement?

And if it is ok, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by argument against something nobody is arguing for?

You're allowed to criticize him all you want. And I'm allowed to criticize the rage culture that is wholly unhelpful to the "inclusive" mission.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

Great, and it goes back to my argument of what is the right moral standard/framework? What you have adopted in your own life? Because you set the bar in different places, and I bet it's changed over the course of your life. So are we always supposed to expect everyone to accept your moral framework as one everyone should support?

But if that framework comes from a religious/spiritual foundation, then you have a huge issue with it. Whether from the belief in supreme being or one that you have recognized as your "source of truth", what you deem as "wrong" may not hold in the views of others.

Many Christians, Muslims, etc... believe fornication is wrong. Or gambling is wrong. You could argue there's actually a sound argument for those in terms of why going against those standards can cause many societal problems. But, they are supposed to follow and support your standards, without any expectation of reciprocity.

The irony of saying "people realized it was wrong" when that is again based on your moving standard. So you are asking everyone to adopt and actively support where you have agreed to move the goal posts, but if a Christian asks you to actively support a cause they follow, that's religious oppression?

I was raised Catholic and then burned out of it when I realized a lot of Catholics conveniently chose which parts of the bible/religious tenets they liked to live by in their daily life.

It isn't my own personal moving standard. The goalposts weren't maliciously moved, culture and society progressed. It is a slow moving process that is pushed by progressives and pushed back on by conservatives. Women's suffrage, labour laws, the abolition of slavery etc didn't happen overnight and by accident. More and more people came together and said hey maybe things should change.

I generally live by my own moral code of you do you and not being a dick. The conservative/religious side is making it harder for people to be themselves and the progressive side wants to expand acceptance and rights. Easy choice.

When it comes to reproductive rights and LGTBQ+ issues the religious side is actively trying to oppress people and restrict options and the the progressive side is trying to maintain people's rights to make their own choices. No one is forcing Christians to become gay or have abortions but Christians are stopping people from having abortion access and restricting their ability to express themselves and happily live their life.

The bonus is when they cry about being persecuted when people push back against their publicly stated beliefs. I never said Reimer had to wear the jersey but I can call him and the people who support him a dick.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Defending Christian moralists with the argument that their spiritually defined framework is no more or less inherently valid than anyone else's is pretty rich just in a historical context... but even more absurd given that the entire divine command theory of morality was already dead on arrival before Jesus was ever born.

Probably not a great time to mention what Greek men got up to during that period. That really wouldn't help etdpratt's point...

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Just building off your post: generally we as a culture don't hide all aspects of sexuality from kids. Folks ask young kids all the time if they have a little boyfriend or girlfriend at school or whatever. Yet as a culture when it comes to queer sexuality and how little Timmy has two moms or two dads, or one of his mom's nonbinary it thus becomes adult and should be sheltered from children. There are def age appropriate way for folks to talk to kids about this with.

Kids are way smarter than most people give them credit for too

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It's a mixture of cannon not saying what they think they are, then not comprehending what others are saying back, and then mixing in some trolling on top of all that. Trying to pull definitions from the dictionary as some lame 'gotcha' and not realizing it proved the exact opposite point was the clearest example.

I see it a bit differently (Surprise, surprise). I don't think you or PepsiFree can wrap your heads around my viewpoints because they don't fit cleanly into your political paradigm. If not A, then he must be B -- there is no ####ing C. Or if you are willing to consider C, then you hold it against me for "wanting to have it both ways". When in reality we never agreed on the orientation of those ways in the first place.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

If I felt that way, I would have come out, responded, and called it equivalents or as abhorrent. I am not afraid to say what I believe. I couldn't give a damn. I don't even know who you are. You think the risk of being banned from commenting on a hockey forum would make me revise what I originally intended from the comment, then you overvalue my need to comment on here. Again, pedophilia is a whole different ball game vs homosexuality. It was meant to highlight that many years ago it was consensus from most of population that "homosexuality" was horrible, and was only trying to call out another standard of today that most of society deems abhorrent.

It was a dog whistle.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Someone made the point of "Godwin's Law" for homosexuality and pedophelia. It is 100% accurate. It's the only bullet they have left in their gun and they are quick to fire it off.

Yeah, I was hearing that crap in University when it came to legalizing gay marriage. The funniest/saddest part of it is that a state in 2023 refused to pass a law banning child marriage and it sure wasn't a progressive state or Democrats stopping it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

I chose pedophilia because in today's society it's deemed abhorrent, no different than what many believed (ridiculously) back in the day abhorrent with homosexuality. Man, i get the sensitivity but the whole point was finding something that most of society today would deem abhorrent.

Your example doesn't work because homosexuality = pedophilia isn't an idea that has been mainly relegated to the history books. It is still actively being promoted today in religious and conservative circles. The idea that drag queens are grooming children is just another example that is being used today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/drag-s...d-us-1.6677999