I approve and appreciate that they didn't disrupt the Speech. I think it was overkill to get up and walk out before he spoke. Why not walk out if he says something you don't agree with. Give the man a chance.
I disagree with Hillary on everything she believes in and much of what she has done with her life, but I would listen to her speak.
If they felt like they needed to protest, walking out is a good way to do it. I appreciate them not being disruptive or in some other way preventing those who wanted to hear the speech from doing so.
I think, as a protest, they handled it well. They did not shout or jeer or in any other way demean the occasion or other participants. I do not condemn their action.
I believe they had a right to walk out on principle, and people who say they must have stayed seated and listening do not really understand the concept of freedom, tending towards a more authoritarian interpretation than I do.
Titles and privilege do not automatically incur respect and no one is obligated to sit and listen just because standing will offend couch pundits.
Now, would I have walked out? Probably not. But for my own reasons and having nothing to do with respect either for the University, the Office, or the person.
They have the right to leave, but it is disrespectful, immature and pointless. As a republican, if Joe Biden was speaking at my graduation ceremony I would be respectful and listen no matter how stupid I thought he was.
But Joe doesn't preach that people should be tortured to get rid of the gay, probably a good portion of those that walked out were gay and/or have family and friends that are. I'd sit for a GW speech, I would have walked out on Pence
Pence actually never has expressed support for shock therapy or any other form of conversion therapy that could be considered torture. He has, however, potentially indirectly expressed support for conversion therapy. But whether or not that is what he meant. The character limit on SOH is too small to go into in too much detail here, but a simple Google search was enough to debunk your claim that he "preaches that people should be tortured to get rid of the gay". Maybe try to do a little research before making claims like that?
Frankly if what he actually has said is enough for someone to feel they need to walk out on his speech, then I support their right to do so (even if I disagree with them doing so). But I certainly hope no one walked out based on the outright lies and misinformation that some liberals have been spreading about him.
You seriously don't think conversion therapy isn't torture? You need to do a simple google search and understand what he advocates for.
On a statement Pence made in 2000 on his congressional campaign website, in which Pence says "Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."
Put that along with his anti gay agenda, it's a pretty good interpretation he's for the therapy.
They are college students. They needed to find their safe space full of baby bottles and pacifiers. I really disliked the whole Obama administration, but I would not walk out on either of them during a speech.
What happens when these disrespectful children get jobs and their boss is someone they despise? Are they going to walk out of work? Sit down and be respectful.
I happen to be a big fan of Pence, but if they wanted a protest, I think a walk out was the most civil way to express their views without ruining the graduation for everyone else.
We all know he was talking about conversion therapy. Whether he means electrocution (which most if not all conversion therapy includes) or not the fact he wants to change people's sexualities is dispicable
At the time when he was first entering the political scene in Indiana in 2000, the methods used in changing sexual behaviors had specifically excluded any sort of electrotherapy for years.
Regardless, the government funds Pence supported would have been only for those who voluntarily signed up for psychological help. And while I may disagree with attempting to convert homosexuals, I do think that the option should be open to those who consent. It can be extremely helpful for those who legitimately would benefit from such care, like pedophiles, for example. I have absolutely no problem with pedophiles, mind you, but living with an unfulfillable attraction to children does often impede their ability to live a happy and healthy life.
So no, I have no problem with government funding for those seeking to change their sexual behaviors.
I feel as if you're intentionally twisting my words here. As far as I'm concerned, of course, both are natural variations on human sexuality. And since I wasn't clear in my previous comment, apparently, I have no inherent moral problem with either homosexuals or pedophiles. The difference is that while consenting same-sex relationships are generally considered acceptable, the same doesn't go for sex with minors. The point I was trying to make is that sexual conversation therapy may come down to a necessity for some and should be open as an option for all.
So yes, to answer your accusations directly, I do believe that homosexuality is comparable with pedophilia. One is a difference in gender, the other a difference in age. You simply seem to be reading that as intolerance of both rather than tolerance of both.
NO his intentions are to tourutre people, scare then for life a s create selfhating monsters.
Again conversation therapy for homosexuality is literally tourutre. Therapy for pedophilia is just that, therapy. Not self hate, not electrodes, nothing. A sit down with a doctor. Conveserion therapy creates self hate, creates life lasting scars and leads to suicides of young adults and children.
Mike Pence was not talking about pedophilia, he was talking about homosexuality.
1. Pence may personally oppose homosexuality on a religious basis, but has pretty much every Republican politician until very recently. He's nothing special for that within the party and the only reason it feels like he might be is because everything he's said on the matter has been horribly exaggerated, to include his first major appearance in the public spotlight for Indiana's RFRA bill, which stands among the worst examples of media misrepresentation. If you ask me, it's a political tool being used to keep up the left's moral high ground on an essentially settled issue against the very first president ever to publicly support same-sex marriage rights at the time of inauguration.
2. I'm not saying that sex with minors should be legal by any means. Heck, I would even support raising the age of consent a few years.
What I am saying is that, if nothing more, you should at least be tolerant of pedophiles as people themselves for the same reasons you might give to those who oppose homosexuals. It's a natural sexual attraction that they have no control over. They're born with it, just like any of the rest of us, and we shouldn't hate them for it.
If you think you've lived with social persecution as a result of being attracted to other women, I can guarantee you it doesn't hold a light to what pedophiles deal with. The tone of your comment was nothing but deep scorn and derision, as if they're somehow automatically horrible people for the sexualities they were born with.
Seriously, the lack of empathy here is frightening.
Truthfully, it feels like an odd bit of role reversal here. A professed social conservative scolding LoFidelityJenna about the importance of sexual tolerance.
Hell must have frozen over and it should probably be a big warning sign for you. :P
Homosexuality is consentual. Two (or more) people of age who love each other. It's just like a heterosexual couple/polygamy. Contesting adults. Pedophilia involves minors. People who are too young to consent, too young to know what love is, easily manipulated by adults.
Pedophilia absolutely should be treated with not only libido reducing hormones but psychological treatment as well, but if they act on there urges feed them to the wolfs. That child is changed for life. Of course they should still be treated but they should never be allowed back in society if they're a convicted child rapist.
You said that conversion therapy is immoral torture, but you seem to be in favor of making it mandatory for pedophiles.
You said that the way society treats homosexuals drives them to self-hatred, but the behavior you've shown here is no different.
You said that my comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia was garbage, but you seem quite content to imply that pedophiles are all child rapists.
I've seen you aggressively pursuing conservatives on SoH for their views on gay marriage. You're so self-righteous too, with long rants about how those who disagree with you are ignorant, hateful, evil bigots. You use big words about "tolerance" and "acceptance" and proclaim yourself a beacon of those values.
As I said. I acknowledge that pedophilia is a generic sexuality like homosexuality. I acknowledge that pedophiles who can control themselves and take proactive steps to control themselves via psychiatric means should have normal lives. Pedophiles who rape kids should serve life in prison with no parole however. They to should be allowed psychiatric assistance if they would like it. I'm.nkt saying treat them like subhumans like conservatives think with homosexuals, but they need to be removed from society.
You just categorically condemned an entire group of people to exactly the same social treatments you despise for no greater "sin" then the way they were born.
Carcano and Cowboy just accused *you* of standing against your own values. And they were absolutely correct in their assessment.
Just to be clear, convicted pedophiles should be given a painful death. Fuck sitting in prison getting three square meals a day for the rest of their lives.
Quick side question that has nothing to do with the topic, Jenna. Why do you spell torture, tourutre? I thought it was a mistake but you've misspelled it several times so there must be a reason.
Like I said before. Call me whatever you want. I know I'm being hypocritical but I hold no sympathy for pedophiles at all. You're literally defending people who have sex with fucking children.
The need help. Having sexual attractions to child is not normal nor does it give an evolutionary advantage. Homosexuality has an evolutionary advantage.
If normal is heterosexual reproduction, then no, pedophilia isn't normal. But I think you really have to stretch your definitions to call homosexuality normal and then exclude another completely natural variation like pedophilia.
It sounds a lot like when conservatives bend over backwards to explain why homosexuality is unforgivable.
Population control and the care of orphans. It's seen many times in nature. (Homosexuality) Pedophilia however is not seen in other species. I have no doubt that it is indeed a natural genetic occurrence, but pedophilia has no evolutionary advantage. It's abuse of children.
As soon as females mature, as in start their cycles, the males, usually older ones because they are the alpha, breeds with them. That's not called pedophilia. That's called nature.
And in the animal kingdom that's adulthood, however in human society it doesn't work that way. We live much longer almost all mammals you could mention in that example.
A 13 year old is not mature enough or ready for sexual relations. Hell 16 is isn't mature enough for pregnancy. 16 year old mother's often face major complications and their children are far more susceptible to birth defects.
He's right. Sexual normality in scientific terms is inherently based on natural selections. That means reproduction.
You've made a poor excuse for excluding pedophilia. And by the way, pedophilia has absolutely been observed in other species, including apes and such which we consider to be closest to us. The only reason it's less prevalent than homosexuality among most animals is because human females have concealed ovulation and lack typical social sexual signals like pheromones that control the sex drives of lesser species.
Because pedophiles have no choice in the way they're born or who they're attracted to. It would be wrong to hate someone for something they can't control.
The only problem I have is with child rapists. And there's a massive difference.
And I haven't stated that fifty times in my posts.
Pedophiles need to be monitored to make sure they don't abuse children. Not like nsa Child shit but check in's with shrinks. I never said they could control attraction, but they do control whether or not they take a kid. Child rapists deserve to be locked in a 6x8 for the rest of there lives.
Unless you think that all humans should be monitored to ensure they don't commit rape, then what you're suggesting is that we single people out for their innate sexual attractions and treat them like criminals who haven't had their chance yet.
I don't care. Pedophiles are vile and I cannot believe you're defending people who want to have sex with children. It's disgusting. Again I know they can't control it but it's fucking vile.
Cowboy why will you defending pedophiles but yet hate homosexuals?
Also to legally be a Pedophile and thus monitored they obviously had to have done something to a child. To think everyone should be monitored is rediculous but if you think legally classified pedophiles shouldn't be watched then you're fucking insane
They get a chance to hear a full speech and not just what the media takes out of context and they bail. They were probably worried that he would say something that proved the media's hype about him wrong and they knew they were not ready to handle that cognitive dissonance.
I think its very rude, and yea he may not be the best VP but it's something those kids won't hear again, but then again hey they're graduate students I mean if they don't wanna hear they don't have to if i were them id done the same because graduating from Notre Dame is a lot of work.
No, I'd rather them sit down and listen like adults. You don't have to like or agree with what he's saying, but you can at least show some respect. There is a time and a place for protesting, and this isn't one of them.
They have the right to leave, but it is disrespectful, immature and pointless. As a republican, if Joe Biden was speaking at my graduation ceremony I would be respectful and listen no matter how stupid I thought he was.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment