<p>2 tired-
Huh?</p>
<p>Meh, just ignore him. It's a euphemistic line used by the conservative right to condemn homosexuality and all other "corrupt lifestyles." When translated, it basically says that by supporting or accepting gays, lesbians, and all other sexual and moral "deviants," one is denying the truth --that some things are incontestably wrong-- in order to make everyone happy. Just another poor soul who has nothing better to do than to come in here and preach doom and gloom for no particular reason.</p>
<p>Halrandir-
Thank you for clarifying. Silly me. I didn't think people were still so narrow-minded.</p>
<p>wildcat were you a recruit? or just trying to walk on (i'm a recruit and you're scaring me now lol)</p>
<p>Oh, they can be. It's just unusual to see them hanging out around the Vassar forum, of all places!</p>
<p>If you all are so "tolerant" and "accepting", then where is the tolerance to conservatism? </p>
<p>Is your idea of tolerance to be tolerant only of those whose perspectives of "open-mindedness" match yours (e.g., me)? </p>
<p>Your tolerant of gay folks; so am I. They are just as valuable as any other person. However, I understand that to "accept" everything and every way of life easily slips into condoning and agreeing with everything. ANd if you agree with everything and disagree with nothing, then you effectually deny any notion of truth. </p>
<p>How about FGM in Eastern Africa, for example? I've met tribal peoples who practice such things, and I can tell you that as nice as they are, it's hard just to "accept" their practice of scraping out half the reproductive systems of teenage girls. </p>
<p>Truth is actually very bold--it calls some things right andother things wrong. Overall "acceptance" stands in direct opposition to it.</p>
<p>Does that clear things up for you, Jym?</p>
<p>By the way, the angry responses were a bit misplaced; I am not trying to battle, just discourse. Thanks.
--2tired</p>
<p>I don't know why you are picking on me, but if you are trying to compare "tolerance" to brutality, I fail to see the point.</p>
<p>I was responding to your post:
"2 tired-Huh?" and "Halrandir- Thank you for clarifying. Silly me. I didn't think people were still so narrow-minded."</p>
<p>These were your responses to my post, which was something like:
"to be "accepting" of all lifestyles is to deny the existence of truth"</p>
<p>I was not trying to compare to tolerance to brutality--not at all</p>
<p>To re-reiterate, </p>
<p>-complete "tolerance" seems to be synonymous with condonement (as in, saying such-and-such is acceptable)
-Truth is categorically definied as labelling somethings wrong, but others right
-if you condone everything, you are living out the idea that there is no right and wrong--No truth
-I think most people here would agree that theirs such a thing as truth, but when people aim for this idea of overall "tolerance", (even if they, in their minds, believe there is such a thing as truth) they end up living their lives as though truth doesn't exist</p>
<p>Thanks for trying to understand my thoughts Jym. I hope that this time my conveyance was a bit more clear. </p>
<p>--2tired</p>
<p>
[quote]
Truth is categorically definied as labelling somethings wrong, but others right
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not agree with this definition of "truth", but I appreciate the gentler tone of your last post. As I do not see any point in getting into a further discussion about this, I will just wish you well.</p>
<p>I agree, I'm not sure why you were addressing to Jym, seeing as my responses were the more scathing of those on this page. And the anger and everything that they were written with were misplaced and I apologize; I remember those two days, and they were certainly not my two most shining moments.</p>
<p>The one major problem with arguing this issue seems to be popping up in this discussion as well, and that is the difference between the definitions we give to homosexuality, bisexuality, and so forth. You seem to define homosexuality as a lifestyle or "way of life," to use your own words. I define it as a personality characteristic that either one is born with or one develops as one grows up. This difference in viewing homosexuality is what makes it impossible for me to argue for the acceptance of gays and the rest since one would first have to argue which definition is correct.</p>
<p>I gotcha. The reason I was addressing Jym was because he initially inquired about my vague claim ("to "accept" all ways of life is to deny the existence of truth") with "2 tired-Huh?" </p>
<p>Thanks for the exchange of ideas. I'm glad I was able to have this conversation--and I'm sorry you "see no point" in it, Jym. </p>
<p>Peace, 2tired</p>
<p>Thank you for understanding that this is not a conversation I wish to pursue. Once again, I wish you well . Oh, by the way, I am not a "he".</p>
<p>like, a lot of gay people on a campus really wouldnt bother me at all but i see your point that it kinda sucks that sometimes you would go to a party and not know who u can or cant hit on... i heard from someone that its really hard for girls though...apparently u cant really get a boyfriend unless u r a guy...</p>
<p>Vassar is a great school. There are gays, but its a significant minority of the guys, perhaps 20%. There are not that many lesbians, compared to a school like Smith. The reality is that every urban school has gays. You would be surprised how many gays schools like Harvard and Columbia have. If you are straight, it doesn't impact your life. Vassar is an edgy, artsy school which is more like an urban school than a small, rural liberal arts college. If you want a jock school, consider Middlebury, where over 50% of the Class of 2008 were captains of teams.</p>
<p>My concern is there would be no straight boys for the straight girls among us....</p>
<p>I'm not tolerant of conservatives. I think their opinions are mostly idiotic or hateful. That is one of the reasons I came to Vassar. I do not agree with the majority of Vassar students that universal open-mindedness is the ideal. </p>
<p>Gay people are really not a problem on campus for a straight guy. A few can be a bit in-your-face, but the lack of Republicans more than makes up for this! Plus, Vassar has good looking girls and many of them. Unless gays bug you, Vassar should be fine. And if gays do bug you, Vassar may not be the right place for you. (I'm a straight guy.)</p>
<p>Edit: In response to the post before me: The quality of people, I believe, makes up for the slight lack of availability, but it's really not that big a problem. Come to Vassar!</p>