Author Topic: Woman Fired for Being a Female. (Read 2170 times)

lukster · « **Reply #60 on:** August 24, 2006, 04:55:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
And that, sir, is a classic Ad-Hominem argument.

Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_Association

Hardly, it's called minimizing risk. When it comes to your own children, if you have any, I bet you felt you couldn't be too careful. Let others enjoy the same protectiveness towards their offspring. Of course the caring and responsible ones will regardless of what you or I think.

Seagoon · « **Reply #61 on:** August 24, 2006, 04:58:56 PM »

I had hoped to stay out of the argument from here on in, but I feel like I need to hop in to clarify one thing.

We do not forbid men from working in the nursery because we suspect that any of them are or might be Child Molesters (unless they have a previous conviction for that particular offense). We forbid men to work in the nursery because it is a simple expedient that reduces the possibility of child molestation to almost zero. In doing this, no one's rights are affected or infringed. No one, male or female, has a right to work as an unpaid volunteer in our nursery and as the duly elected governing body of the church the session has a right to determine who will and who won't be allowed to serve there.

If someone in the church thinks the policy is "sexist" they have a right to speak to the elders of the church, and even to file a formal complaint. In fact, if their complaint is formally denied by the session, they can actually appeal the decision to the regional presbytery and if they win the appeal the decision can actually be overturned at that level, or if the decision of the church is sustained at that level they can actually carry the appeal to the General Assembly and have it heard by the Standing Judicial Commission of the entire denomination. If the GA sustains the original decision of the Session, they are still in no way "trapped." They can easily transfer their membership to another church where men are free to volunteer to work in the nursery and thus gain the long coveted right to change other people's children's dirty diapers.

In any event, you can call me "assinine" as much as you wish, my thinking here is driven by reality and the desire to do all that I can to keep our youngest members safe. I find it amazing that in a country discussing the not so singular case of John Mark Karr ad infinitum that the decision of a small church not to put men in a nursery when we don't need to and are under no obligation biblical or civil to do so would be considered unreasonable.

But then again, you'll recall I guessed such a decision would produce similar outrage. :insert old rolleyes smiley here:

- SEAGOON

lukster · « **Reply #62 on:** August 24, 2006, 05:05:00 PM »

It's a prudent policy. Call me an ad homenimist if you will but I think anyone objecting to this either never had kids or has some ulterior motive for attacking this policy.

Elfie · « **Reply #63 on:** August 24, 2006, 05:54:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
It's a prudent policy. Call me an ad homenimist if you will but I think anyone objecting to this either never had kids or has some ulterior motive for attacking this policy.

When you consider the fact that men are turned on by what they see, being in a nursery is a needless temptation for many. Personally, if I was a member of Seagoon's congregation I would thank him for 1) looking out for all the childrens safety, 2) For making it impossible for me to serve in a position that would require changing dirty diapers and listening to 20 screaming babies.

I have 3 children now, the youngest just got potty trained. She still wears a diaper at night but during the day she uses the toilet. I cant begin to explain the joy I feel at the thought of NEVER having to change a *loaded* diaper again.

Chairboy · « **Reply #64 on:** August 24, 2006, 06:17:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
When it comes to your own children, if you have any, I bet you felt you couldn't be too careful. Let others enjoy the same protectiveness towards their offspring. Of course the caring and responsible ones will regardless of what you or I think.

Fantastic, another ad hominem! If I didn't know better, I'd think you were deliberately staging demonstrations. I have two children, for your information.

When it comes to my children, I use judgement based on the situation, not stereotypes or hysterical hand wringing.

Chairboy · « **Reply #65 on:** August 24, 2006, 06:19:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Call me an ad homenimist if you will but I think anyone objecting to this either never had kids or has some ulterior motive for attacking this policy.

Well, since I _do_ have children, it seems clear that you're now calling me a child molester. Is there an alternative interpretation of what you just wrote?

lukster · « **Reply #66 on:** August 24, 2006, 06:24:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, since I _do_ have children, it seems clear that you're now calling me a child molester. Is there an alternative interpretation of what you just wrote?

One alternative would be that you enjoy criticizing religion or christianity in particular. I am not calling you a child molestor but I think you knew that.

Elfie · « **Reply #67 on:** August 24, 2006, 06:33:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
One alternative would be that you enjoy criticizing religion or christianity in particular. I am not calling you a child molestor but I think you knew that.

No offense intended Chairboy......you do seem to take joy in your responses to some of the threads here that deal with Christianity and its views. Again, no offense intended, just an observation.

Chairboy · « **Reply #68 on:** August 24, 2006, 06:41:02 PM »

Well, "no offense", but my opinions on the "No men allowed in daycare" would be no different if it was at a business, government office, or some sort of "atheist church" (whatever that might look like). It _DOES NOT MATTER_.

This is why this is classic ad-hominem and completely unsupportable. Please argue the matter on the basis of facts.

Elfie · « **Reply #69 on:** August 24, 2006, 08:03:39 PM »

Wasn't talking about just this thread Chairboy. I was also as polite as I could possibly be considering I only have text to communicate with.

I dont understand why *no male attendants allowed in the nursery* has you so up in arms anyways. It's not like you go to church, much less Seagoon's church.

I don't think there is a church I have ever been to that had anything but females tending to the little ones. I also dont see a problem with it.

You are arguing for something that the vast majority of men dont want. Dont get me wrong, babies are all cute and cuddly and are fun to hold, until they drop a land mine in their diaper or start bawling.

There has been many times with my daughters that I couldnt get them to calm down but there mother could very quickly. Mothers have that special touch when it comes to comforting the little ones.

Chairboy · « **Reply #70 on:** August 24, 2006, 08:09:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
I dont understand why *no male attendants allowed in the nursery* has you so up in arms anyways. It's not like you go to church, much less Seagoon's church.

I don't go to church, but I'd fight to the death to protect your right to attend.

I think pretty poorly of someone who ONLY cares about rights and justice that apply directly to them, I sure hope you don't fall in this category and I certainly hope you don't think that I do.

Elfie · « **Reply #71 on:** August 24, 2006, 08:37:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I don't go to church, but I'd fight to the death to protect your right to attend.

I think pretty poorly of someone who ONLY cares about rights and justice that apply directly to them, I sure hope you don't fall in this category and I certainly hope you don't think that I do.

My only point about you not attending church was......this issue doesnt affect you. I'm pretty surprised that an Atheist is so upset by descions made by a church for reasons that only protect the little ones.

No male here is upset because they cant tend the little ones in Seagoon's church. (With the exception of you, no offense, just saying.) So you really dont need to go to bat for a *right* none of us want anyways.

It isnt a *right* to be able to tend babies in a nursery. Volunteering at anything is a priviledge imo, NOT a right. I have never seen a paid employee in a church nursery, unless the pastor is visiting the nursery. Everyone tending the littles ones was a volunteer, w/o exception.

Churches are private institutions and as such, can make their own rules in regards to who can/cant tend the babies, teach sunday school etc etc. Many (if not all) of those descions are based on that particular churches beliefs.....not mine, not yours, not luksters, not even Skuzzy's.

Chairboy · « **Reply #72 on:** August 24, 2006, 08:44:19 PM »

Elfie, my opinion stands whether it's a church or a business. It's up to you to decide if you understand that or not.

I said it in my original post, and I'll say it now. The reasoning behind Seagoon's church's policy is asinine. Nobody has been able to refute that yet, the best y'all can come up with is "Chairboy doesn't go to church, so he doesn't get an opinion on this". The fact that my opinion has nothing to do with the church seems opaque to you, hence the ad hominem links. Have you read the definitions I posted?

Here's a challenge, actually read the link and tell me why the "No men in the nursery" rule is not ad hominem, or agree with me that it is. Leave my atheism out of the picture and try arguing the facts. I'm being straight with you, I ask you to return the favor.

Elfie · « **Reply #73 on:** August 24, 2006, 09:05:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Elfie, my opinion stands whether it's a church or a business. It's up to you to decide if you understand that or not.

I said it in my original post, and I'll say it now. The reasoning behind Seagoon's church's policy is asinine. Nobody has been able to refute that yet, the best y'all can come up with is "Chairboy doesn't go to church, so he doesn't get an opinion on this". The fact that my opinion has nothing to do with the church seems opaque to you, hence the ad hominem links. Have you read the definitions I posted?

Here's a challenge, actually read the link and tell me why the "No men in the nursery" rule is not ad hominem, or agree with me that it is. Leave my atheism out of the picture and try arguing the facts. I'm being straight with you, I ask you to return the favor.

I am being straight with you.

Buisiness or church, both are private and can make their own rules to a degree. Really not much different than this bbs, HTC makes the rules, we abide by them. If we dont like the rules, we can find another bbs to post on.

This link showing child molestation rates is, imo, reason enough to not allow men to work in nurseries.

http://www.stopchildmolestation.org/pages/study3.html

That article was linked before in this thread. I did read your link, and dont agree that Seagoon's rule is ad hominem. Seagoon's rule is intended to reduce the risk of molestation as much as humanly possible. It is a FACT that men are far, far more likely to be the perpetrators of sexual molestation. Women are perpetrators also, but they are very rare in comparison to the numbers of male perpetrators. Nothing at all asinine about that.

I never said you dont get an opinion on this.

You are taking up a fight for a *right* that the vast majority of us men dont want anyways. /shrug.

lukster · « **Reply #74 on:** August 24, 2006, 09:10:00 PM »

You're just being stubborn Chairboy. If you really insist I'll try to find you a church that will let you work their nursery. I'm sure there's one somewhere. Hope you get baby poop all over ya.