Subject:
|
Re: A Lego display fund raiser
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 20:39:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
429 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tony Hedglen writes:
> Still my point is your jumping in a debate with no knowledge of what is
> happing. You do not have a history of being a member of Michlug and having
> to deal with issues, which I’m referring to. So you’re starting a debate out
> of ignorance. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE MICHLUG “LOGO”. This is about something
> that you’re not aware of. I was accusing Larry of dictating what the club
> can or cannot do. Not on what he thinks about using the Michlug “logo”.
Then you undeniably don't realize what I'm debating, either. Once again, I
couldn't care less about MICHLUG per se; I'm discussing the problem of implicit
endorsement by a club, not all of whose members share the same attitudes,
interests, or agenda.
> Ether you don’t have the full facts or your just jumping into a debate just
> to be argumentative. My other point is if somebody doesn’t like to do
> something then don’t do it.
I understand that. What I am saying is that even if a club member
individually doesn't like and chooses not to do it, that individual may still
object to the club AS A WHOLE endorsing a particular group. Again, this has
nothing necessarily to do with MICHLUG; the same would hold true of the
Rotarians, The Girl Scouts, or The Hair Club. That is, individual club members
may choose not to support an endorsement, and they may still object to the
club's endorsement of a particular group or agenda. Can you see that I am
yet again moving this away from specific debate about MICHLUG and into a debate
about the duty of clubs to their members?
> Hopefully I have made my two points clear. So I don’t have to debate on
> something that is not an issue of my concern.
Agreed. If you don't like a debate about the nature of club involvement,
then by all means don't feel pressured to participate.
> I also wanted to comment on the KKK thing. You’re pretty much asking me
> which is more acceptable to society, good or evil?
You're missing the point. I'm stating that members of any club may object to
that club's endorsement of a particular group or agenda that the individual
club members find objectionable. The good or evil of it is of rhetorical
significance but is actually irrelevant. If a club member desires the club not
to endorse an organization, why should that club member be censured?
> So the question is why would someone be ashamed of
> supporting something good?
Because not all of society necessarily accepts the same notions of "good"
organizations, nor can all members of a club reasonably be expected to hold the
same notions of goodness.
> We are doing something for a good
> purpose not for a bad one. So the last point is that Larry is debating on
> something according to his own feelings, Not on the issue as a whole.
Fair enough, but do you understand now that I'm not debating your MICHLUG
situation, but rather the larger issue of the problems of club-based
endorsement?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Lego display fund raiser
|
| Okay Dave, Now let’s talk about freedom. Clubs in the United States are FREE to do what they wish. If the club is a private club then it should be FREE to endorse what ever it chooses. If the club wants to reject members it has every right to do so. (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Lego display fund raiser
|
| Still my point is your jumping in a debate with no knowledge of what is happing. You do not have a history of being a member of Michlug and having to deal with issues, which I’m referring to. So you’re starting a debate out of ignorance. THIS IS NOT (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
