First :)

Firsty!

The key question is, did people subscribe before or after the controversy was discussed in the blogs (presumably it would be higher if students could subscribe now)?

Do you think she would let you throw it in her dumper . . . . or better yet, could I shove it up her nose like a straw (I am jewish so I have a small wee-wee).

No one wanted to get close to those man hands.

In honor of the good Professor, I am now teaching a course at my local community college entitled:

BUTT PIRATES OF THE 21ST CENTURY: SPIT OR SWALLOW?

The course counts toward the institution's humanities equirements.

perhaps she can offer classes on topics she is more suitable to teach, like clapping, ripping apart bread, crushing ice and/or skulls with bare hands.

"Queer theory"?

I think it should be illegal to display such gigantic hands publicly.

Please be careful, Lat. The good doctor may come down to Mott Street and bitch slap you with those man hands!

Proposed correction: The FIRST ROUND of bidding ended on Monday. So the administration's statement that the "registration process is ongoing" is true. Don't expect much more interest though.

Clients always vote in a way that affects the bottom line. And to any Dean, enrollment$ are more powerful than placards. I hope Dr. Li-ann Thio's connections in NYU Law start to THINK about who are their bottomline client$. They need to remember to THINK about who they recommend and support for employment. A lot of Universities need to do a better job at this.

wow, i hadn't noticed those hands in the previous posts on this woman. they are indeed humongous and manly. obviously a self-hating lesbian.

Honestly, stories like these make me glad not to block the ads on this site. The fact is, Thio has every right to espouse her views. Feel free. And anyone that physically threatens her or intimidates her by force should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But just the same, our resident pink republican can really push this issue and make people aware of this absolute travesty and sham. It worked, NYU voted with its feet, and NYU gets to subsidized an enlightened bigot and probably loses some serious donations in the process.

Good going NYU. Another reason I respect your student body but at the same time, am quite glad I did not matriculate at your [not so] fine institution.

Oooooooo

NYU and Dr. TTThio got served by Jill Fillipovic.

Withholding donations in protest is a pretty good idea actually.

Liberals- Supporting free speech, as long as it's not contrary to their beliefs and positions.

you do not agree with her then dont elect her class - fine. but why the hatred though.

Jill Filipovic at Feministe: what's your problem. someone with a different viewpoint so you go apesh*t. typical liberal looney

Sotomayor + Dr Li + 2 Double dildos = Epic vag/anal win

Good god look at those hands

Didn't Judge Judy get her degree from this school? That is pretty embarassing.

Can't NYU alums direct where their donation goes? I know I did. I don't see why anyone who donated to LRAP or the PILC auction before would stop contributing because of this. I can understand if alums are mad at the administration for this hire, but it doesn't make much sense to respond by taking $$$ away from public interest students.

Question: If the good doctor had expressed her views in a more tactful, PC manner, would there still be such uproar? Perhaps. I can only speculate though. I have to say though, that opinions stating that any person (be that person a violator of a statute prohibiting homosexuality, a thief or murderer) should be denied human rights, is highly suspect.

Lat are you bottom? Get in contact with me if you are. I think u r a qt ;)

24 - Add Lat as a friend on Facebook. He accepts friend requests from cute gay guys.

- Cute Gay Guy

4 - I don't think so. It seems there is now peer pressure not to sign up for this lady's classes.

Who. Cares.

Re: her huge hands, I think it's just a bad picture. They don't look so big on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqp3mLz4ko

ripping apart bread...

hilarious.

I love this story. Can't wait for the next twist in the plot!

"In comparison, Kenji Yoshino's Con Law classes got 230 primary bids PER SECTION."

So you're comparing the number of people who are registered in a required core curriculum class (i.e. Constitutional Law) with the number of people who are enrolled in an upper-level elective entitled "Constitutionalism in Asia" and declaring that to be a referendum on the issue?

That has the feel of an apples to apples comparison to you? Really?

i think 8 won this one

mysTTTTTTTTTTaL where r u girl

Lat has been writing a lot lately.

For crying out loud, what is this, a popularity contest? Let the poor woman be! Undersubscription in her class is likely due to the low popularity of her subject matter and it being an elective, whereas Kenji's class is required in the curriculum. This is like the 10th post on this poor woman, who is travelling all the way from another country to teach a subject that probably does not pay much money to attorneys in that subject area, if there are any.

Lat is a total azn qt!

First of all, PhDs should no longer be called Doctors. I'm sick and tired of calling my teaching assistant, who has a PhD in some obscure mideival sausage crafting study "Doctor" The term Doctor should only apply to medical and dental practitioners. PhDs should be called "FUDs" Like, Fud Li-Ann Thio.

Thank you 31. Why didn't any of the other intolerant, "witty" and insulting liberals commenting on this thread not see that.

You liberal hippies all suck. It will probably be an interesting class.

Emory Law. hahahahahhahahhahahahah

I love how Lat has created an Above the Law-based media campaign to repeatedly focus the spotlight on Prof. Thio's bigotry. Lat is a one-man P.R. machine. If Prof. Thio decides to stay in Singapore next semester, I propose that Lat is the Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps Dupert Murlat?

If I dont pass the GA bar I will usufruct ... in the ass. I guess this prof would be opposed to that, and so am I, so I guess that makes us friends.

I know I hate me too.

If I dont pass the GA bar I will be usufruct ... in the ass. I guess this prof would be opposed to that, and so am I, so I guess that makes us friends.

I know I hate me too.

17, exactly.

Unbelievable the double standard that these low-life liberals live by. Free speech and unlimited rights for all those who support thier own cause. All dissenting positions will be damned.

How blind are the liberal "elite?"

I for one could care less about her opinion. I in fact defend her rights to say whatever she pleases. I just am so pleased that the students are defending their rights not to pay their own dollars to listen to he, if they don't want to do so. Actually whether or not she has freedom of speech rights, depends on either the Singaporean Constitution, and if she lives in Thailand, then on that one. I do not believe she is protected by the US Constitution, first because she is not a US citizen and second because her views are contrary to the tolerance and anti- bias and group exclusion tenets which have been within US foreign policy over the current and three previous presidencies. This of course as it is now written is about protecting all people, children, women, ethnic minorities. Tempered speech is also encouraged by International Humanitarian practice and various International agency policies in order to protect all people.

I would totally take her class. As long as she promised not to touch me with those mitts, that is.

- studying for the f'n bar

typical liberal bigotry

17 +1

31 +1

The free speech (17, 44, etc.) comments are ridiculous. No one is arguing that this speech is not constitutionally protected, they are just saying that morality prevents it from being repeated in a public forum in modern, civilized society, and that the views are so wrong-headed as to be unsuitable for an institution of higher learnning. This should not be permitted the same way it should not be permitted to teach a class on the ways in which minorities are stupid, lazy, etc.

Fortunately, we live in a society where this is still some breathing room between what you are allowed to say and what you should say in public, and this speech clearly falls in to that gap. We think NYU should take action, not the police.

Actually, the controversy makes her classes seem totally interesting. Only boring NYU students would avoid it.

49=just another liberal nutjob.

49 here - I'm actually a registered Republican

How come no one else is commenting on Lat's azn qt status?

49, I for one am not making a free speech argument; we all know that her right to say these things is constitutionally protected. It's the liberal hypocrisy--liberals never miss a moment to accuse a conservative politician of silencing dissenting viewpoints and speech. Lo and behold, as soon as someone disagrees with an entrenched liberal idea, the liberals promote a don't listen, shut-the-dissenter out stance.

unsubscribe

These threads are getting old. The women is a b-tch. She has big hands. She is a bigot. The liberal point of view isn't that she doesn't have the right to say it, but that it has no place in a forum for higher education.

Let's move on so the cooky conservatives can go find another board to spew their super mega dittos.

Amazing how the flaming liberals will not allow any one to have a contrary view point from their own.

If liberals ran the world everyone would be forced to think and act just like they do.

49, you say "the views are so wrong-headed as to be unsuitable for an institution of higher learnning" and yet you don't see the problem with the liberal elite, of which you are obviously a member?

Give me a break.

Holy man-hands!

Its time to moveon.org from this stupid story.

The difference is that this is not an "entrenched liberal idea", like welfare or big government or redistribition of income or even abortion, this is a fundamental human right. Gays have just as much right to be gay as blacks have to be black or women do to be women, and when those rights are infringed, it transcends politics. Republicans are just as wrong for supporting this as Southern Democrats were for supporting Jim Crow. There's really no difference.

37 - why? I think you'll find that Doctor stems from the Latin "doctus" which just means "learned." (Learn-ed.) It doesn't mean "medical person who slices you up." And you will ALSO find that the US is an outlier, because Europe refers to all PhD's as Doctor. So, you know, bow to the global economy. Medicos used to be referred to as "barbers," after all, because people who cut you up did NOT have advanced degrees.

37 = Dentist

49 -

Laughably stupid rejoinder. "Morality prevents it from being repeated in a public forum"? WTF? Seriously, WTF is that? Are the morality police going to tape our mouths shut?

And as to your last point, nobody has even suggested the involvement of the police with respect to Thio's right to free speech. This is clearly an issue of academic freedom of expression, which apparently runs only to the left.

"The views are so wrong-headed as to be unsuitable for an institution of higher learning." Um, isn't that precisely the point of 17's post? It's your opinion that her views are wrong-headed, but your opinion is far from conclusive on this matter. In the name of "academic freedom," you liberals fight for the right of professors like Ward Churchill to preach anti-American hatred in institutions of higher learning. Yet, when a professor espouses a viewpoint that YOU find appalling, you demand she be silenced.

It's just another tale in the liberals' sordid history of double standards. Right, Elie "The Black Side" Mystttal?

/s Bigot "The White Side" Homophobe

59, you say "this is a fundamental human right. Gays have just as much right to be gay as blacks have to be black or women do to be women, and when those rights are infringed, it transcends politics."

How are rights infringed by a Professor's sincere beliefs? How is she transcending politics when she speaks what she believes?

I'm not understanding your argument.

If a topic such as homosexuality is off limits in an institutional of higher education then maybe we should restrict all controversial topics (i.e., abortion, immigration, etc) from being taught or discussed in every college/university in America.

That is probably the stupidest comment I have heard. An institution of higher education is EXACTLY where you should have healthy diverse discourse about controversial issues.

54, 56. No one is saying that Dr. TTThio doesn't have a right to her views. Or that NYU doesn't have a right to hire her, etc.

However, she has expressed an opinion that the vast majority of NYU law students and alumni find repugnant. Furthermore, she has damaged the reputation of the institution by expressing said opinion in a manner utterly devoid of rogic, and with a comprete and utter disregard for the Engrish ranguage.

No one is suggesting she be silenced. But just as she has a right to her views, we have a right not to listen to them. And, as the OP notes so eloquently, we are voting with our feet and pocketbooks.

If NYU kicks the bitch out, it will not be in response to her views, but to the fact that it is not economically feasible to retain her.

Wait -- current or former NYU law students -- is Con Law in fact a required class? At my law school (Chicago, which is only a TTT if you're being a snarky little bitch) it was not. They had about 5 different con law classes, all of which were electives. And if it's a class you have to lottery into, it sounds to me like it would be an elective...

But I don't know. Maybe NYU does things all wonky. Anyone who can speak with authority?

My argument is essentially that I find it mind boggling that people see this as distinct from a Professor walking into a classroom and saying that black people are stupid. Obvioulsy, no one would think that Professor should be allowed to continue, not because he was breaking some law or, as we all unfortunately know, that he was not espousing a belief that a good many people agree with, but because it now considered fundamentally immoral to say that in public. You can think that black people are stupid are gay people are perverts in your own home all you want, but you simply should not be allowed to say it while standing in front of a classroom full of students, no matter how many of them agree with you.

65 - 56 here.

The students by all means have a right not to enroll in her class. However, just because a "Vast majority of NYU law students and alumni repugnant" does not mean that they can crucify her for here views.

She is the "minority" in this situation. Just because she is a "minority" (in regards to viewpoint) does not mean she should be shunned.

I encourage all NYU alumni to stop giving indefinitely. The country would do better if NYU were forced to shut down.

54, there's an obvious difference between silencing dissenting opinions and saying that some things are simply so bad that they shouldn't be said. For instance, there's a difference between saying it's wrong to silence someone for disagreeing about the best way to fix the economy, and saying that someone who advocates the murder of Jews doesn't deserve a podium from which to say it. I really hope you can see the blindingly apparent distinction.

I suspect that you can, in fact, see the difference but are too lazy to find a more incisive way to make your point. There may be a way to make it, but it's going to require a little more mental work from you.

62, you are retarded. nobody's saying that she should be silenced. rather, because apparently people find her views appalling, they have chosen not to take her classes - and that decision is what is being praised here. you always hear about 'voting with your feet' - well, that's what students are doing, or at least what they appear to be doing.

nobody's telling her to shut up. they're telling her in no uncertain terms that they don't agree with her, and they're telling the university that they won't continue to donate as long as professors with intolerant views are allowed to teach at their institution. dr. thio is free to say pretty much whatever she wants, especially in an academic context - but she has to be ready to live with the consequences of espousing her viewpoints. for her, that means nobody takes her classes, and she gets sharply criticized for her viewpoints. if she's okay with that (and it seems like she is), then by all means she can continue to verbalize her beliefs. for the university, that means alumni who don't agree with their allowing dr. thio to teach at nyu to exercise their right not to donate. if nyu is okay with that, then they can continue inviting professors like dr. thio, and they can continue to have disgusted alumni decline to donate to their institution.

for someone who called someone else out for a 'laughably stupid rejoinder' you sure did a great job of completely missing the point.

65's comment is wrong and racist, but I'm immature enough that I raughed.

I'm skipping a round of shuffleboard just to say that beardless, anonymous commenter #8 wins this thread... hands down.

However, "ripping apart phone books" would have conjured up slightly more hilarious imagery, and is probably not unrealistic.

I would have liked to bang out this post on my Blackberry, instead of interrupting leisure hour, but my fingers are too fat.

but she didn't say that in class, did she? I thought she said it in parliament, where one is definitely allowed to espouse whatever beliefs they'd like. If a congressman wants to stand up in congress and say blacks are stupid, he can do that and not be kicked out of congress. Whether or not he's reelected is another issue. And yes, his party (republican, no doubt), would likely call for his resignation, but he needn't give it if he doesn't want to.

I was repeatedly lectured during Con Law II that the purpose of affirmative action in higher education was not to institute a quota system, but rather to create a learning environment where a diversity of viewpoints would interact so as to broaden the scope of academic discourse.

It appears my reservations about the sincerity of this dogma were well-founded.

Perhaps the very professors who ascribe to the aforementioned school of thought on diversity are the biggest offenders of it. What percentage of your law school professors were liberals?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0713/p09s02-coop.html

The "much ado about nothing" here comes from the fact that Above the Law expresses great concern when a single, visiting law professor takes a conservative position on a contentious issue, but never bats an eye that nearly all the law professors at the top law schools are liberal, no small number of whom are on the feminist, post-modernist, multiculturalist fringe.

75 - great post

Human Rights law in Asia? Who cares? When I went to law school we studied real legal courses like civil procedure, real property, and antitrust.

Sincerely,
Partner Emeritus' brother, Ian Emeritus

Wow. Watch this video and tell me that this lady doesn't hate gays. This is one backwards lady. I like this line: "Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder." She also claims that science stating otherwise is not science at all, but pseudoscience. Never mind that you see homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. Asking rhetorically whether pedophilia also warrants protection under the law was really a nice tough. I’m sure gays love being equated with pedophiles. Stay classy, Dr. Thio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqp3mLz4ko

25,

I am an average to mediocre looking gay guy who is facebook friends with Lat. However, based on his picks for "hotties" of Davis Polk, I think he might think I'm attractive.

Fortunately, 75, the country is full of enough narrow minded bigots that we don't need to affirmatively admit them. To the contrary, their over population is the reason we need to admit people with views different from theirs.

First of all, NYU sucks.

Secondly, and more importantly, why should someone not be able to stand up anywhere they want, even in an "institution of higher learning," and say that gays are perverts?

59, if you truly believe that, why silence her. Blacks are told all the time by "supportive" whites to let conservatives present their points in academia and public forums so their theories and ideas can be debated and disproved. Indeed, it wasn't until white southerners were televised spraying peaceful protestors with firehoses and turning attack dogs on them did the rest of white America finally realize that meaningul legislation was required to protect the "human rights" of blacks. The good doctor argues in favor of criminalizing certain behavior (behavior that some would argue is malum in se). Still, she should be allowed, encouraged even, to present her views from the leftist liberals. If you truly believe your arguments in favor of gay rights have merit, then demonstrate that by respectful debate, not by summarily silencing those that disagree with you.

- 54

These darn liberals make me so mad! So mad I could write internet comments about them all day!

DEY TOOK UHR JOBS! DEYTOOKUHRJOBS!

78 - real property? where did you go to school, essex?

If only Thio and the conservative bigots who support her views were born gay or had a gay family member or close friend. We can dream, can't we. It takes a walk in someone else's shoes to see just how disgustingly intolerant and abhorrent of a person you are.

I would like to be pounded in the ass by a moderately attractive gay guy who has an ample supply of poppers and lube.

By this logic, conservative alums of any top law school should never ever donate, because the ideological slants of such law schools range from mainstream liberal to crazy liberal. Those law schools can instead solicit from their public interest grads who are making $50k-$60k per year. Good luck in meeting those fundraising goals.

71,

Before you open your mouth again, please review the dozens of posts on this running thread calling for Thio's teaching appointment to be rescinded based on the nature of her viewpoints.

To assert that "Nobody's telling her to shut up," when many, many are, and that the liberals' argument boils down to a withholding of alumni donations is disingenuous at best.

Too many posts have made it all too clear that liberals' main beef with Thio is her teaching of a dissenting viewpoint about homosexuality in the classroom.

Yes, I know, 67. You think every social injustice perceived by liberals is the equivalent of segregation. One track mind you "progressives" have.

But here's a litle something about segregation for you: how many whites escape from our failing public schools, and how many blacks do? What is the proportion of whites who have abortions versus the proportion of blacks?

Your "progressive" policies have kept 15 million blacks from being born at all, and have kept many more millions from getting even a minimally adequate education.

Talk about human rights violations.

Well - let's be clear about one thing - now there is only a top 4 - the ever exalted HYS and Columbia. NYU, which has always been a top 5 pretender (can you spell I-V-Y) can no longer stake claim, quite baselessly, to being at the very top. This entire debacle has fortified the belief around one truth: NYU was never playing in the same league as the other four before, am nowhere close to playing in the same league as the others now, and will NEVER even be able to catch so much as a whiff of the other four moving forward.

76 is absolutely correct. You don't hear conservative students flipping out, threatening boycotts of classes & donations every time a law school hires a professor who is against gun rights (against 2nd Amendment rights), against immigration enforcement (violating federal law), for quotas in affirmative action (against SCOTUS precedent), etc. And, unlike the gay rights issues which are largely unsettled, 2nd Amendment rights, immigration laws, and quotas in affirmative action are now firmly settled issues.

Integration was only part of the answer for blacks. The main solution to eliminate the need for race-conscious admissions policies and hiring practices is to tell blacks that if they don't fix their dysfunctional subculture that encourages and embrasses anti-intellectualism, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and black-on-black violence.

- Obviously Not the Poverty-Pimping Jigga Man

I would think that people involved with the law would be a bit more educated in the matters of homosexuality and not react to gay men and women like a 5th grade boy on the playground.

Even conservative legend Barry Goldwater supported gay rights. It seems he was ahead of his time and some of you are quite behind the times.

embrasses = embraces

92 - Very good point. Then again, perhaps conservatives should start flipping out. Might draw some public attention to "who's teaching Johnny, Esq."

I miss Reagan more and more with each passing day.

93 here - apologies for my incomplete post. Still, I think the point I was making is clear. If any white legislator stood up in Congress and respectuflly said that "he/she thought affirmative action was an outdated, useless concept that not only doesn't help improve the situation of blacks but arguably worsens it," said legislator would be "forced" to resign from his/her party (that includes a Republican legislator)

94 -

When it comes to being juvenile, I'd say that the pro-homosexual community on this blog has a near-monopoly. Or did you not notice all the repulsive jokes about Thio's looks, private life, and raping or otherwise crudely humiliating her?

Jill Filipovic can go fuck herself. What a load of crap - gay rights advocates preach tolerance but when someone comes along with a contrarian view, all hell breaks loose. If I was still at NYU, I would take this class, not b/c the subject matter interests me, but to show that I support 100% a professor that doesn't subscribe to the politically correct views about gay rights. I am so fucking tired of the hypocritical gay rights lobby.

Next time NYU sends me a letter asking for money, I will donate double to it to make up for useless fucks like Jill Filipovic.

93/98: That's obviously correct -- the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, etc. would be screaming charges of racism and discrimination until the legislator went into Don Imus apology-mode and completely recanted. That's largely because the member of those two groups are products of an antiquated "us vs. them" view of race relations where everything is zero sum, and anyone who challenges blacks to better themselves (ex, Bill Cosby) is somehow doing a disservice to black people.

I would like to be pounded in the ass by a moderately attractive gay guy who has an ample supply of poppers and lube.

89, there is a difference between saying that nyu shouldn't let a homophobe teach at their institution and saying that thio shouldn't be able to espouse her viewpoints at all. nowhere in a call for an offer rescission is an implication that she shouldn't be allowed to say what she wants; they're saying that because of what she believes, nyu shouldn' t be giving her a PLATFORM to espouse those beliefs from. there's a big difference there.

it's like if you were fired from your job at a law firm because it came out that you were a member of the KKK. the people calling for your head aren't saying you aren't ALLOWED to be in the KKK; rather, they're saying that being in the KKK is a bad thing, and your employer shouldn't legitimize your membership in the KKK by allowing you to continue as an employee. similarly, thio is allowed to say what she wants, and nobody disputes that; the criticism is that being a bigot is a bad thing, and nyu is legitimizing her viewpoint by offering her a job to teach at their institution. the calls for offer rescission are calls for nyu not to legitimize her views, not for thio to shut up.

whether you believe that line of reasoning is valid is indeed a separate and arguable issue (see also the cls/ahmedenijad brouhaha), but if you can't see the difference between straight up silencing the professor and merely calling on the school not to give her a platform, then there's no help for you.

100: Indeed, it's a total double standard that totally relies on some amorphous concept of human rights and empathy, which of course perfectly corresponds to the liberal viewpoint. Minority rights and gay rights -- of course, that's freedom of speech we like! But, religious rights, political diversity -- that's outrageous, and anyone advocating those points of view should be shunned, ignored, and boycotted until they leave us alone and restore our school to 100% PC liberal beliefs again.

What ever happened to interacting with the other side in the effort of learning about their standpoint, having a dialogue, and perhaps coming to some middle ground? Seems as if liberals only want to do this when it's conservative kowtowing to them. For example, Democrats compromising with Bush = sellouts, but Republicans compromising with Obama = becoming enlightened, and ensuring the future viability of their party. Give me a break.

Michael Jackson was an icon to the black community.

Really? What color are his children?

I thought he despised his blackness and wanted to be white? Or was that just a "skin condition?"

- Zero Sum

I agree with 91. This entire matter has done nothing but highlight the gulf in quality between some of the other institutions and NYU.

103 - See 75.

I guess it has to be the right kind of diversity.

104: The opposite is also true. From the conservative viewpoint, Republicans compromising with Obama = sellouts, and Democrats compromising with Bush = becoming enlightened. Just look at how quickly people who concede things to Obama get attacked on Republican talk radio by Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity, etc. Don't act like it's just a liberal mindset, Republicans in Congress are arguably worse about it than the Democrats.

The problem with your "coming to a middle ground" ideal is that it falls apart when one side is not willing to listen. You tell me the next time someone like Rush Limbaugh gives a viewpoint that is not his own the time of day, and I'll be sure to tune in.

103: Your point is reasonable enough, but comparing someone who doesn't believe in the legalization of gay sex with someone who's a member of the KKK is a pretty ridiculous comparison. A more apt comparison would be with someone extremely pro-life or someone extremely anti-affirmative action. However much you might disagree with her, she's not advocating violence and hate crimes against homosexuals.

Moreover, it's a personal belief of hers and there's no indication that gay rights is a part of her Human Rights course or that she would be unfair / close-minded in teaching about gay rights. I've had extremely left-wing professors who managed to be fairly even-handed in teaching about controversial subjects, and those who weren't able to do so -- where it substantially affected the quality of class. If she ends up being incapable of conducting class fairly and respectfully, that's another story, but it's a little premature to bust out the torches and pitchforks against her, just because she doesn't share all the PC liberal beliefs.

I agree with 103. Now I want you to provide me with oral pleasure. Now.

I think the real divide here is that those of us against her see espousing criminalizing gay sex as exactly equivalent to membership in the KKK. Everything after those the views on whether those are or aren't equivalent diverge is just masturbatory argument from a different set of basic assumptions

I think the real divide here is that those of us against her see espousing criminalizing gay sex as exactly equivalent to membership in the KKK. Everything after the views on whether those are or aren't equivalent diverge is just masturbatory argument from a different set of basic assumptions

109, 103 here. fair enough. i'm not saying that the people calling for her head are necessarily in the right - i'm just saying that it's frankly retarded for anyone to see "nyu, please don't offer her a job" and immediately jump to "damn liberals want to shut her up!" i used the KKK only because it's an institution that i think most of us can agree is bad, purely for rhetorical purposes; i very much doubt that dr. thio is going to be burning rainbow flags anytime soon.

110 - no.

Yes.

I think many of the commenters on this threa aren't necessarily saying their pro or con when it comes to the Dr.'s remarks. People are just a bit put off by the liberal hypocrisy.

Liberas = free speech proponents so long as your speech falls in line with typical liberal ideology.

113: Sure, and it would have been a lot less objectionable for NYU not to offer her the position in the first place because they felt her views on balance were incompatible with their law school's standards. But, the fact that they have offered her the job (they have deemed her acceptable from a scholarship, etc. perspective) means that rescinding the offer now would be the product of improper pressure (caving into protesters).

And 115 hit the nail on the head. Most conservatives aren't as virulent on the subject of homosexual sex as she is. The mainstream conservative position is more like -- do whatever you want in your bedroom, in private, but please don't flaunt things in public, just as we wouldn't want straight couples going overboard with PDA. That having been said, it's very disturbing to see someone with very ideological beliefs (either left or right) be so relentlessly attacked. This doesn't happen with ultra-liberal professors (who don't believe in enforcing US law re: immigration, who don't believe in any war, who believe we should commit eco-terrorism acts, etc.). In the academy, ultra-left beliefs are mainstream whereas ultra-right beliefs are a target of persecution -- it's an unfair double standard, and goes against the tenets of academic free speech.

I am a Liberal and I am pounding Ralph Macchio in the ass while I type this.

“Diversity is not a license for perversity.”

Dr. Thio, your views, Ma'am, are perverse. Perversity is not a license to preach to NYU's diversity. You reap what you sow.

116 +1

"Diversity" on college campuses = left and lefter

So much for rigorous debate of dissenting viewpoints.

116 is absolutely correct. I went to a certain top 10 law school that was a party to a US Supreme Court case involving certain race-conscious admissions policies. I was very much ostracized by the majority of my peers because I, a black man, dared to say in public that I did not side with the university's position. My opinion was neither disrespectul nor visceral; still, I was clearly treated with a certain contempt by the majority of the law school's student body and even some of the faculty. Liberals are pretty much given free reign (encourage even) to voice whatever opinions they hold (even those that are borderline treason)

Has anyone confirmed the sex of Dr. Hands?

120 -

That sounds completely typical. Sorry you had to go through that. Unfortunately, I'm sure you'll have plenty more such experiences among progressives.

This whole brouhaha has revealed what the concept of "diversity" in higher education really means: Quotas for purportedly "protected" classes.

The proffered reason for the benefits of affirmative-action based diversity - diversity of ideas - is just a front, and we all know it.

78 here - one correction:

Partner Emeritus' illegitimate brother Ian.

I would love to be caressed softly by those gentle, safe hands.

Who thought it didn't mean favoritism for protected classes? Who actually even "proffers" any other reason these days?

Laugh out loud at 92 for taking a bunch of outrageously complex and unsettled issues and instantly settling them. Thanks buddy. Send a memo to the Supreme Court so they can knock all those out in a few days and move on to some new stuff. "No more gun control- violates the 2nd amendment. OK, moving on. Affirmative action- never allowed under any circumstances, because we've issues a couple opinions in the past which restrict its application in some situations." Hilarious. Kill yourself 92

123: Yes, diversity of ideas / experiences = diversity of LIBERAL ideas / experiences, and moreover, superficial diversity based on race, sex, sexual orientation. In other words, white liberals, black liberals, male liberals, female liberals, heterosexual liberals, homosexual liberals, etc.

And yes, there are conservative homosexuals, especially with respect to fiscal policy -- the Republican party needs to and hopefully will do a better job of building a coalition that includes them. Again, remember that the mainstream conservative position on gay marriage / gay rights, includes civil unions, so it's not as if there isn't room for compromise on the issue.

EVERYONE INTO THE PILE!

127: Wow, you really didn't read, did you? Did you not catch the word QUOTAS in affirmative action? Please point out where I said "Affirmative action- never allowed under any circumstances, because we've issues a couple opinions in the past which restrict its application in some situations." You liberals just love the straw man argument, don't you?

Ellie ask her if she like fish sticks ...

Mystal, I want to put my engorged liberal cock in between your moobs and thrust until you receive every ounce of my liberal truth.

Comment removed by moderator.

I find the intolerant tolerant argument a bit weak. Yes, liberals espouse tolerance. But they're not hypocrites if they don't accept intolerant viewpoints.

I find the intolerant tolerant argument a bit weak. Yes, liberals espouse tolerance. But they're not hypocrites if they don't accept intolerant viewpoints.

Good God. The names of the courses listed in the post, standing alone, are proof positive that law school should be 2 years at the most (possibly 1 year).

Comment removed by moderator.

136

Much agreed. 1 year of core courses + 1 year as a lawyer intern and that should be enough.

I will never use most of the classes I took. 3 years of law school is mainly about giving lots of money so law professors can have easy lives.

136 - I don't know, without that proposed 4th year of law school not everyone may have the time to take "Constitutionalism in Asia". What does that Asia Constitution look like anyway? And what about South America's Rules of Evidence?

134

In other words, liberals espouse tolerance for ideas they find tolerable. Tolerance as a principle has to be based on something objective, not merely the political persuasion of one group.

134-135: The definition of tolerance is being respectful of practices / group memberships that you don't personally agree with. Otherwise, to say that "liberals espouse tolerance" means absolutely nothing -- just that liberals are respectful toward practices / groups that they already agree with?

And, intolerance is subjective -- liberals find people against gay rights intolerant, but conservatives find people against religious rights, free speech rights in colleges (think speech codes) intolerant.

Obviously, there should be limits to what we entertain as a serious idea. But in an institution that supposedly embodies the principles of liberal education, one of which is surely the free and open exchange of ideas (orthodox and heterodox), the limits should be much less strict than what we otherwise accept in public speech.

We would have to toss out at least most of the greatest books in our civilization if we tolerated only slight deviations from the current liberal platform (or, for that matter, any current political platform).

142: Agreed, and again, it's not as if she's being hired to teach a course on gay rights. She's presumably had other contributions to human rights apart from her fringe views on gay rights, that would make her a valuable contributor to that area (certainly, NYU didn't hire her based on her gay rights views). Just because someone has extreme views on one subject doesn't mean that person can't very effectively teach about another subject, or that the person doesn't have other views worthy of sharing. If we immediately disqualified anyone from being a teacher who had views outside the mainstream of society, all the ultra-liberal profs would be out of jobs as well.

Obama throws like a liberal.

63 (probably the good doc herself) says:

"How are rights infringed by a Professor's sincere beliefs? How is she transcending politics when she speaks what she believes?

Answer - she is not speaking what she believes. She is professing to be against the LBGT agenda, whereas her prior writings and speeches show that's not really her concern. She thinks pounding people in the ass is grody, grody, icky, icky - so grody and icky that it should be illegal. Now when the light is shined on her beliefs, she switches over to the "I'm against agenda bullying." How is that "sincere"? It's not.

hey click on jill's name in the story above

then scroll down and click on her flickr page

look at her company. Males that would be dead in any other country.

1) She moves like Ray Charles. Someone tech savy should throw a pair of dark shades on her and set this video to “What I Say?”

2) She makes moronic arguments that she dresses up with $20 words. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqp3mLz4ko at 3:15, where she argues that repealing the anti-homosexual sodomy law would qualify as progressive if parliament seeks to “ape the sexual libertine ethos of the wild, wild west.” What the hell does that mean? First of all, it would still be REGRESSIVE to adopt a morality of a bygone era. Second, does she mean Singapore’s wild, wild west? The movie Will Smith and Kevin Klein? Or is she really suggesting that there was a sexual libertine ethos in THE wild, wild west (i.e., the American wild west). Perhaps she's confusing it with 18th century France. Fucking idiot sounds like she read a bit too much into Brokeback Mountain.

3) She lies and misrepresents the evidence. See part http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUDYo29gNNg&feature=related at 1.17, where she claims that oral sex is an efficient method of transmitting HIV. We all know you can’t really get the HIV from a BJ.

Here's the problem with Thio: Of course it's acceptable in the free market of ideas (and is certainly so in the academic context) to have serious moral issues with homosexuality. Few would argue (I hope) that any scholar at any university who finds homosexuals icky should be given the boot. The issue HERE is Thio's language and reasoning. She says that homosexuals have a "gender identity disorder." She demeans and denigrates homosexuals and those who support them. She makes poor analogies. She is vitriolic for no apparent reason. She is petty. She is obnoxious. And on and on. Her tone is chiefly why she is not fit to teach at a top American law school.

148

At my "top ten" law school, there were a number of liberal professors who fit your description (use "poor analogies," "vitriolic for no apparent reason," "petty," and "obnoxious"). Somehow the administration considered them fit to teach.

But I have to agree sincerely that your standard is fine, so lone as it is applied across the board.

Tone?! Her tone disqualifies her for the job?

Good to know political correctness is alive and well.

Maybe if she uses jazz hands and speaks with a lisp her tone will be sufficiently softened for your sensitive palate.

149,

148 here. Glad we can agree on something. Care to clarify your example, though? On what topics were these liberal professors guilty of such sins?

I will also be ending my contributions to NYU.

I think it is a sad day when a law school cannot even stand up for basic human rights.

I thought I was taught about legal (and moral) integrity at NYU, which did not include "professors" openly and proudly maligning other human beings.

Jazz hands!?! Her? My God, imagine the carnage!!!

152: Exactly, only conservatives, white males, Christians, Bush supporters, Republicans, pro-lifers, those against affirmative action should be openly and proudly maligned by professors. Did you go to NYU or have you been so indoctrinated in the crazy PC liberal environment there that all the professors' "open and proud maligning" of conservatives didn't even register?

i am a transgender woman.

li-ann (peaches)

148, I'm not 149, but some examples from my own experience including liberal professors repeatedly taking shots at Bush throughout the 2004 election cycle (in classes having nothing to do with politics either), actually spending huge chunks of class after the election decrying his victory, overtly grading based on ideology (i.e. writing a paper with the conservative POV would get you a B-, but revising the paper and taking the liberal POV would get you an A), harshly attacking anyone who took a position against affirmative action, abortion, or gay rights during those discussions in ConLaw, etc.

Why must the "gay rights" debate always be on the narrow grounds of opposition from the religious/ inchoate cultural sentiments and pro-gay rights advocating biology or about the social effects of homosexuality?

Isn't there a far sensible grounds for compromise, i.e., that gays are evolutionary duds and thus unequal?

Why must the "gay rights" debate always be on the narrow grounds of opposition from the religious/ inchoate cultural sentiments and pro-gay rights advocating biology or about the social effects of homosexuality?

Isn't there a far more sensible grounds for compromise, i.e., that gays are evolutionary duds and thus unequal?

her views are those of someone who got fifth based on a first date by some dude who never called her back

"I find the intolerant tolerant argument a bit weak. Yes, liberals espouse tolerance. But they're not hypocrites if they don't accept intolerant viewpoints."

No one is asking liberals to accept anything; liberals are being asked to merely listen and be sincerely openminded and not get on a boycott rage whenever someone has an opinion to express that is contrary to their opinon. Liberals are incapable of this type of tolerance.

Wow, lots of demands for tolerance from a profession that prosecutes thousands of people every day.

Anti-gays are secret gays. Everyone knows that! Remember American Beauty and how the dad wanted to slam Kevin P in the? Allan Ballz tells it like it jizz. And True Blood Rules.

161, tolerate my nutz on your chin... and then try to tell me where my cock is.

I am guessing these people ending their contributions to NYU Law never made a contribution in the first place. The school seems to be in a tough spot. How were they supposed to know this nut gave this speech? The students did it the right way. 5 people signed up for her class. It will probably get cancelled and the professor will have to use her huge thumb to hitchhike back to Singapore. Problem solved. Cutting donations to the school only hurts the students and your alma mater. (The place that gave you the ability to make enough to give donations. enough with the self rightous bs. Admit it. You are a cheapskate and you will just use this episode as an excuse not to give.

"I do not believe she is protected by the US Constitution, first because she is not a US citizen"

BWAHAHAHA. I'm sure, however, that as a dedicated liberal, you think that illegal aliens should have full Constitutional rights, correct?

165,

As a left totalitarian, I cannot not let you use that term. They are "undocumented" aliens. Of course, they are undocumented because they are illegal, but no matter.

nice ralph macchio reference

Ex-gay Singaporean here requesting that you intolerant liberals please leave Li-ann alone!

She fought against the repeal of Section 377A, a seldom enforced law making homosexual conduct (aka buggery) punishable by up to two years in prison (and that's Singaporean prison, where we don't just get to reenact michael jackson videos all day long) so that I think twice before driving my "disco stick" the wrong way down the Hershey Highway. (Incidentally, you may be interested to know that, as a former british colony, we drive on the left side of the street here, which some of you would think of as the "wrong side" of the street, but we certainly do not drive the "wrong way" and it's certainly not a "Hershey Highway" on which we are driving.)

In fact, I wish Li-ann were still in Parliament so she could fight just as hard for 377B, a fabulous new law that would make "shoving a straw up your nose to drink champaign" an offense punishable by two years imprisonment...because I did that this past weekend and I got brain freeze like a mofo, and I think I may have caught Hep C from the bloody straw I used....

162,

Anti-conservatives are conservatives. Everyone knows that! That's why the black chick in True Blood hates vampires...

This video is great. She claims that the act does not discriminate in differentiating between heterosexual sodomy (legal) and homosexual sodomy (illegal). The reason why the differentiation is valid? To her, it is nondiscriminatory because it would cover a straight man experimenting with same-sex sodomy, as well as a gay man engaging in homosexual sodomy. So apparently the law is not discriminatory against men because it punishes all men that engage in same-sex sodomy, whether they are gay or just experimenting. This argument actually made sense in her head. She then goes on to list a number of health concerns with sodomy, such as anal tearing and the transmission of AIDS. Apparently, in her world this magically doesn’t happen with male sodomy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUDYo29gNNg&feature=related

It is not discriminatory because “it would cover a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy.” Clearly, this lady is one of the greatest legal minds of our time.

For god's sake there have been about 10 posts on TTThio and not a single one evinces actual journalism. Will someone at ths blog please do some factual reporting on the situation with those enormous hands?

162 and 169, what are vampire rights like in Singapore since the discovery of TruBlood?

Having a professor that believes in traditional notions of marriage is one thing. Having one that analogizes gays to pedophiles is another.

All Gays molest children. That is what I was taught. That is what I believe.

Fangbangers!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEhG5DKmkHQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRroHluo7gg&feature=related

15 = closeted pole smoker

Li-ann Thio is a member of the Fellowship of the Sun

not sure why it is news that nobody is taking her class. only liberals care about human rights and they are all pro gay. if she was teaching a real class im sure it would be full

Did anyone else notice Obama's mom jeans at the All-Star game?

if you are man in my home country of singapore and you want to have sex with a man legally, do ask I did. gender reassignment surgery is legal and affordable. my only regret is that the surgeons could do nothing to reduce the size of my hands.

li-ann (peaches)

if you are man in my home country of singapore and you want to have sex with a man legally, do as I did. gender reassignment surgery is legal and affordable. my only regret is that the surgeons could do nothing to reduce the size of my hands.

li-ann (peaches)

(oops, so sorry for the typo. it happens all the time with my man sausage fingers. xoxo)

To everyone who says these stories are uninteresting:

Don't read them!

And definitely don't comment on them. If you comment on them, that just encourages Lat & Co. to write more in the same vein.

(Personally I find this story fascinating.)

76 - I think that pun in the title is intentional; ATL is raising the possibility that it has built a mountain out of a molehill.

Let's be real - the odds of Jill donating to NYU law were nil already.

I'm sure they're weeping over their loss.

153, you slay me. I just laughed so hard I spewed soda out of my nose.

Look at the "Most Commented" stories box on the right. Stories #1, #3, and #5 are all about Thio.

I'm betting that we will be seeing a lot more about her on ATL. She is obviously good for traffic.

186: The odds of someone ultra-left, who's doing public interest (the type of person most likely to be viscerally offended by this whole fiasco) donating a lot of money is very low anyway. The average starting public interest salaries are what, in the $50,000 to $60,000 range, right? Counting loans (even w/ loan forgiveness), not as if the public interest crowd is going to have a lot of disposable income any time soon after graduation. In other words, not exactly a lot of dollars NYU is giving up with that crowd.

Maybe her classes will just be converted into a series of independent studies.

189 - Don't forget that some of us go into Biglaw.

- Gay in the V5

109 - I agree with you that a lot of ATL commenters are trying deny her a platform merely because they disagree with her. Personally, I think she is a bigot, and I think it's perfectly fair to call her that. But I don't think that is enough of a reason to rescind her invitation unless her bigotry impairs her ability to do her job.

That's where her speech to parliament comes in (please read/watch it if you haven't) - because it raises questions not only about whether she's a bigot but whether she's qualified to teach human rights law. She refused to listen to scientific studies, not because they were methodologically flawed, but because she felt the field was politicized. Convenient for her as a politician, but inexcusable for her as a professor. Likewise, she lumped pedophiles in with the gay rights movement, and she doesn't seem to know much about HIV transmission. How ignorant does she have to be not to know that one is riskier than vaginal sex, while the other is safer, or to know that there are these things called condoms that greatly lower risk? Maybe she has explanations for why her speech was so factually deficient, but she hasn't bothered to explain, at least not publicly.

Also, I know you said her human rights class might not cover it, but sexual orientation and gender identity are pretty current issues in human rights law. One can disagree about whether these should be human rights or whether the should be front and center in any class, but a professor certainly needs to be able to address the subject intelligently. Based on her speech, I'm not sure she has even a lay understanding of the subject.

Finally, I agree the KKK comparison is largely inapposite, but your statement about violence isn't quite right. Thio wants the state to use violence (arresting and incarcerating) against gays committing sodomy. She's better than the KKK in that they would take the law into their own hands if, for instance, they saw a white woman and a black man together. But Thio does want a sort of violence.

120 - I'm curious if you were given a hard time because you were black and opposed (that form of) affirmative action. I find it eerily racist when people (always white in my experience) criticize Clarence Thomas for opposing affirmative action as though a black man should just not feel that way.

192: Good response, though I'm not totally convinced on the violence point. I think a comparison would be calling someone who supports the nation's current immigration laws "violent" because they're advocating the arrest and incarceration illegal immigrants for breaking the law. Of course, whether or not that law is "right" is another question entirely -- I'd agree on illegal immigration laws, but disagree on the homosexual sex laws Thio is backing. Nevertheless, unless Thio is advocating raids into peoples' homes to identify and prosecute such behavior (I haven't read all her material, and I really hope she isn't), I still don't think I would call her stance "violent." Nevertheless, I see your point.

And FWIW, here are the links to Thio's courses with descriptions of their content on NYU website:
Human Rights Law in Asia: http://its.law.nyu.edu/courses/description.cfm?id=7062
Constitutionalism in Asia Seminar: http://its.law.nyu.edu/courses/description.cfm?id=6571

Especially, with the Human Rights description, seems like she has a brevity problem...

Is it really that controversial to think homosexuality is wrong?

Singapore OK lah.

156 - PSA - you went to a shitty, shitty law school. HTH.

Can we get Elie back please?

Diversity of opinion is dead at NYU. Any opinion not in line with the LGBT cultural imperialists cannot be tolerated. Shame on moderate students for not signing up for Dr. Thio's class, and shame on any alumni who contribute to this school. Let it go bankrupt. It already is intellectually bankrupt.

These posts on Dr. Thio have really opened my eyes to the intolerance of the gay activitists, something I have long suspected. Now it is clear this is the norm and no other way is tolerated in the gay community. The name of the game is to create an atmosphere of intolerance and fear for anyone who would dare disagree with the LGBT agenda for gay marriage, gay adoption, unnatural gay sex acts, gay promiscuity, the gay educaction agenda for public schools, funding for gay groups, and so forth. Utter a contrary word and your job and family's financial security will be in jeopardy. We have made tremendous progress over the past generation in reducing discrimination against gays and increasing tolerance. But push too hard on absolutist demands for all rights and the backlash is inevitable. For all the talk of how gays are "hard wired" that way and must be given all imaginable rights they desire, gays would do well to keep in mind how the 95 percent heterosexual majority is biologically hard wired to view gay behavior and sex, and realize that an absolutist gay rights agenda is bound to fail.

200th! Fangbangers!

"The odds of someone ultra-left, who's doing public interest (the type of person most likely to be viscerally offended by this whole fiasco) donating a lot of money is very low anyway"
RESPONSE: I know for a fact that multiple NYU Law alumnus who are partners in large law firms have wrote similar letters to the school

"Diversity of opinion is dead at NYU. Any opinion not in line with the LGBT cultural imperialists cannot be tolerated."
RESPONSE: NYU recently hired Richard Epstein, whose opinions on the law are VERY diverse as compared to the typical legal academic. Epstein is well-known for his arguments against anti-discrimination laws.

171

co-signed

How is True Blood relevant? I don't get it.

203: Who do you think the vampires in True Blood represent? This is one of the more politicized, left-wing shows out there.

Maybe 230 people signed up for Con Law (a required course) with Prof. Yoshino because he's a known, good professor teaching a class they HAVE to take instead of course with Dr. Thio who is unknown teaching courses no one but an LLM would care about: Human Rights Law in Asia or Constitutionalism in Asia. There are probably only 5 people at NYU who would take either of these classes if they were taught by someone else anyway. EVERYONE takes Con Law.

What now, claiming victory because the sun came up?

54 - I think we could all agree that both sides in any argument here in the US, liberal or conservative or any shade in-between does this move. I've seen many conservatives shout down/not want to listen to the liberal viewpoint and many liberals shout down/not want to listen to the conservative viewpoint.

People, regardless of political backing, tend to not want to hear conflicting opinions.

And this is really almost a much ado about nothing scenario. The only issue I had, and it's a small one since I'm a practicing attorney and not a student (nor alumnus) of NYU Law, is that a school, any school, probably shouldn't invite a visiting professor for human rights if that professor has argued against human rights.

Am I the only one who thinks that if you disagree with her views than you SHOULD take her class? Stop being pussies NYU Law Students, if you don't like her views challenge her and hone the very skills you went to law school to learn.

Am I the only one who thinks that if you disagree with her views than you SHOULD take her class? Stop being pussies NYU Law Students, if you don't like her views challenge her and hone the very skills you went to law school to learn.

It's the liberal hypocrisy--liberals never miss a moment to accuse a conservative politician of silencing dissenting viewpoints and speech.
__________________________________________

Lat's a liberal now? Isn't this post #3,256,175 by LAT on the subject of fellow conservative Dr. Li-ann Thio? Isn't this then just another internecine battle between CONSERVATIVES on your inability to live the "moral values" you vaunt, just like your battles over Mary Cheney, Ted Haggard, Bristol Palin, et al?

She's right about the marketplace of ideas.
I side with free sodomy for everyone, but there's room for disagreement. Everyone needs to quit being such big homos about this whole thing.

I think Lat's more of a log cabin conservative.

"Oh, and NYU Law? The next time you send me an email or a letter asking for financial support, you're going to receive a note back from me explaining that I'm donating to the NRA instead, and will be doing so for the foreseeable future. I would love to be a more involved graduate, but I'm not going to give a penny to an institution that invites people like THE LIBERAL DUMASSES THEY EMPLOY to teach. That will hold true long after THEY is no longer teaching at the law school."

90: you don't really think that those 15 million black fetuses that the liberals aborted would have helped improved the situation had the lived, do you? Hmmm, lemme think...how would the additional head count have effected the economic, social and educational status of their families? I'm sure it would have improved the state of the school system, though, huh? I mean, what's a few more...

OH! Wait! Maybe the donwannabe mom "chose" abortion in order to improve her own situation and that of her future family.

But no, that can't be it. You must be right - the liberals are ruining America with their progressive policies.

Asshole.

Can't believe 119 posts go by and no one addressed THIS BS. Maybe my visceral reaction caused me to miss it.

How can you all be missing a point that is so obvious. It's not freedom of speech!
Problem with Thio is she is a "human rights" lawyer that doesn't recognize a human right.

To all the "liberals are hypocrites" ppl:

When I hear people who are decried as "liberals" (whatever that means now) say to "tolerate" other viewpoints, they are not necessarily talking about sponsoring or supporting people with whom they disagree.

"I don't agree with you so I am going to criminalize who you are and throw you in jail" (A la Thio) is very different from "I don't agree with you so I think you should not teach at my school and I will not take your class (A la her opponents). They are not proposing legislation to criminalize Prof. Tho's actions. See the difference?

Would Regent or UVA hire a proponent of criminalizing all guns to teach Con Law? Would they hire Al Sharpton to teach legal ethics? And what would happen if they tried? The uproar would be huge. Would such an uproar mean that they are intolerant? No, it just means that they don't want to elevate the people who are the antithesis of what they believe to the position of teaching in their institution.

Also, your argument is severely undercut by the fact that the "Liberals" running NYU hired and are standing behind Dr. Thio.

-Registered R (voted for Regan, H.W. Bush and Dole, skipped W, was going to vote for McCain until he picked Palin) who is sad to see how intellectually bankrupt the party is today.

there are probably only 2 or 3 people who are actually interested in the subject of her classes. students don't take classes that don't directly relate to common areas of practice unless: 1) they are genuinely interested in the subject matter, 2) they really like the professor, or 3) the professor is known to be an easy grader. even if her stance on sodomy laws was unknown, her enrolment would be limited to the folks in category 1 (because students wouldn't know her an like her and she wouldn't have a grading reputation).

208 hit the nail on the head.

If you don't like her, take the class, and debate her. This is not a fifth grade student council election. I just checked ABRA, and the disparate class registration noted in the article is embarrassing to me. I cannot believe I attend a place where people shun others with different views.

I wonder if they let Tax LL.M.'s take human rights classes? I may have to place a bid on it next round for kicks . . .

2-1-4 J U S T D O M I N A T E D T H I S P O S T

Those are man hands even I would like to be finger banged by!

I'm against gay marriage, and I'm humiliated this woman is somehow speaking for us.

Maybe NYU hired her so that they wouldn't have to argue with people who disagree. It's a lot easier to win a debate when you can just laugh at the absurdity of the other side's cartoon villain .

our bloackade is perfectly legal!

214 is totally right.

People, it's not just THAT she is advancing a different view - it's that the view advocates the limitation of rights of a particular group of people and takes moral issue with the actions and existence of that particular group and has supported legislation criminalizing the gays (whether it is enforced is irrelevant). This isn't merely, "oh, I think rich people should be taxed more" or "socialized medicine is not a good idea because..." She is advocating for the limitation of rights!!!! Ironically, she has been appointed to teach a course on HUMAN rights - WTF?!

Further, I don't know what this rant about freedom of speech is providing - Some of you make it sound like she has a right to voice her intellectually bankrupt opinion, as if it were protected or something. I certainly hope that none of you think the Constitution some how grants her this right b/c those wishing to silence her, up to now, have been PRIVATE ACTORS!

Registered R (voted for Regan, H.W. Bush and Dole, skipped W, was going to vote for McCain until he picked Palin) who is sad to see how intellectually bankrupt the party is today.
__________________________________________

Exactly. Confused at how it is "liberals" who are hypocrites, when conservatives have yet to register for a fellow conservative's class.

Am I the only who thinks if you like her you should take her class?

214 nailed it. Of course, this harks back to some of the comments previously about how NYU Law is not much of an institution anymore and a million miles away from top 5 (or is it now top 4) material.

223 - Clearly a troll - please don't feed it.

223 - Roxana

17 - Nobody is opposing Dr. Thio's right to free speech. She is free to speak in opposition to homosexuality. However, she is not only opposing homosexuality, she is advocating criminalization of homosexuality. NYU students and alumni are opposing her with their feet and their pocketbooks. She still has the right to free speech, it's just that nobody will be listening.

192, the same way that people want to use "violence," and have the state arrest people who commit murder? The point is, your only disagreement is on what the state should use its power to stop people from doing. No one thinks that the state shouldn't have this power at all.

8 got it! Clapping class LOL

221, your post makes no sense. Proposing to raise taxes on the rich surely is "limiting their rights." It limits their right to keep more of their money and not to have the fruits of their labor expropriated. Again, your side has no problem with the limitation of rights, you just disagree in this particular case (homosexual sodomy) on what particular rights should be limited.

230:

You will need to have a better basis for your argument then "the gov't making me pay more taxes" is equivalent to "gov't will restrict the right of consenting adults to have the right to privacy in their own homes" before people will take you seriously

231, how is it not? The fact that you value gay sex while you don't value low taxes doesn't mean that they're objectively different.

Whew! Finally! NOW you are all on the right debate - an educator/professor of Human Rights should also be an advocate.

What people like 230 illustrate is that it is impossible to debate with people like 230 because they simple cabin the argument differently than those to whom they are debating with.

To the "LIBRALZ", the arguments (generally) is about a fundamental HUMAN right, not even really a constitutional right. It just happened to be a human right the constitution used to allow states to infringe on. Now, the law has been corrected and adjusted.

The conservatives see "gay icky behavior" on the other hand as some kind of distorted privilege that they only have because the crazy liberal justices on the court allowed it.

Regardless of your view of homosexuality, it is not up for debate whether it should be criminalized or not. Just as it is not up for debate whether miscegenation should be criminalized or not. Its just not. Singapore is basically the South Africa of the modern world when it comes to equal rights, and that comes as absolutely no surprise.

What is potentially up for debate, and which we can have fair discourse on what is the extent of rights homosexuals may be entitled to relative to their peers as it goes to a fundamental question of why does the gov't give benefits to marriage in the first place--is it because we find the family unit stable and conducive to a more civilized society (in which case, gays should be allowed) or because we need to breed (in which case, the gov't should be doing fertility testing of all couples and remove marriage benefits if they do not have kids in a certain time). Of course it could be both, in which case the gov't should take away the tax benefit for purely being married and basically give larger deductions for the first 3 kids or something along those lines.

Anyway, I digress and Thio has man hands

231, nobody said they're "equivalent." It's just that "property rights" are still rights, but liberals love to impose restrictions on them (see Kelo) while claiming that other rights should not be limited. Nice straw man argument though.

31 = Authoritative win

Some people love the numbers, even if it means perverting (no pun intended) them

Her profile pic was taken right before she ripped that book in half with her bare hands!

She's criticized for her characterization of gay activism? In the last GLAAD quote I read in the newspaper about gay marriage, they addressed "gay, lesbian, transgendered, bisexual and persons with HIV."

Then again, I don't follow the gay (bowel) movement as closely as Malik Graves-Pryor

234, I declare that you're a communist for supporting high taxes and wealth redistribution. This is not up for debate in a civilized society. Also, anyone who supports gun control is a nazi fascist. This is not up for debate either.

- 230

"17 - Nobody is opposing Dr. Thio's right to free speech."

Oh yes they are.

Now that a more civilized way to oppose her has turned up, people are falling back on this. You guys have spent the last week tossing personal attack after personal attack on her (and not just her views) and not just saying she's a bigot. This has crossed occasionally into (if people were to take it seriously) into actual threats. Demanding NYU revoke her invitation to teach doesn't involve any constitutional or legal rights, but it does belie claims by the left to be interested in open debate and free speech as a general matter. Given my time there, I'd also be surprised if there's not pressure to avoid this woman's class (not just people expressing their feelings).

The left is "in favor of free speech, but . . ." - they are not by itself in favor of free speech, much less open debate. The problem with that is that your side tries so thoroughly to stomp down opposing viewpoints, that the perception and understanding of anything besides your viewpoint becomes borderline cartoonish. The spectrum of legitimate and reasonable debate, from your side's point of view, gets narrowed down to a realm far more limited than the extremes of this woman (who may genuinely be beyond the pale) that when you cry out about this legitimate concern, people on the right have lost sympathy for you.

I'm actually sympathetic to the idea this woman is too out there and shouldn't be teaching at NYU. Then I remember how much you guys howled about people far less extreme than your saying she is; I remember leftists (along with the professor's support) calling a friend of mine a racist in class who didn't have a bigoted bone in his body; I remember the Scalia incident; I remember my constitutional law professor explaining Civil War politics as "now the roles back then for Republicans and Democrats were reversed--conservatives supported slavery and liberals opposed it;" I remember how it's generally understood among Fed Soc and rightwing groups that you better not mention anything about being a conservative when you write your personal statement for journals at NYU -- I remember all of that, then look at what you're saying about this woman, and realize I may need to adjust the claims and outcries on a curve.

God hates fa(n)gs

214 - So you don't think someone who opposes some mainstream view of a specific field has something valuable to say about the limitations of that mainstream view? An anti-gun proponent wouldn't make a better argument of the "well-regulated" 2nd Am caveat (setting aside any expertise that person may have in the breadth of Con Law scholarship)? Or Al Sharpton wouldn't provide insight into the flaws of current ethical scrutiny paradigms?

Or are experts just supposed to be sheep? Say what's been said before?

Proof that puerile law students, indoctrinated from infancy in political correctness, would rather stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la" than to listen to someone who disagrees with them. Actually engaging with disagreement might force people to think and articulate the basis for their disagreement. We wouldn't want that, except of course on an anonymous law blog.

For anyone who wishes to engage in some, ahem, nose drinking with Dr. TTThio, she wants to hear from you:

li-ann.thio@nyu.edu
(212) 998-6019

I am very frustrated with these snide comments from conservatives. "Libs love free speech until they disagree." Sorry, no.

A liberal view:

You (Dr. Thio) have the right to say anything you want. I may not like it but you have that right.

I then have the right to disregard, mock, etc...but I do not have the right to make you stop saying it.

I ALSO have the right not to support what you say, with money, time or effort. Nor do you have the right to force me to listen to your lunatic ramblings (the mockery has already started!).

That's it. That's the bottom line. Mocking, refusing to listen, arguing, refusing to fund IS NOT a violation of her right to free speech.

THAT's why what OUTlaw has done here is awesome. They are being reasonable, rational and spending their time using their free speech to counter her free speech. Don't look now, but I'm pretty sure that's what the framers had in mind from the beginning.

However, I do understand that it is easier to discount an entire group if you make them sound crazy, so continue, I'm simply hoping this message reaches an ear or two.

So, if I summarise the two competing views, would it be fair to say that it seems like they both converge on one conclusion: NYU law is complete rubbish for having been stupid enough to invite her in the first place and this says a lot more about NYU law as an institution than it does about Thio and whether we give a rat's ass about her views on homosexuals?

Her speech in the Singapore parliament (in terms of its frenzied pacing) reminded me of the scene in the film, Old School, where Will Ferrell must debate James Carville.

People need to put themselves into the shoes of a gay law student who has to bear with a professor that thinks and in fact advocates that he is a criminal just for being gay.

Just like a murderer has to bear with the fact that everyone thinks he's a criminal just for being a murderer? 248, your logic sucks. I don't support criminalizing gay sodomy, but I don't think it's an unreasonable position. And no one is advocating criminalizing being gay. They're advocating criminalizing homosexual conduct. A heterosexual who engages in homosexual sodomy would also be a criminal.

248: Is this the infamous Obama / Sotomayor empathy argument?

Well, we also can't hire anyone who believes in immigration law enforcement because then you'd have to put yourself into the shoes of an illegal immigrant student who has to bear with a professor that thinks and in fact advocates that he is a criminal just for being an illegal immigrant. Also, we can't hire anyone who believes in drug law enforcement because then you'd have to put yourself into the shoes of an pot smoking student who has to bear with a professor that thinks and in fact advocates that he is a criminal just for being an illegal drug user.

What ever happened to respecting the sovereignty of other nations to set forth the rules that conform with their sense of morality? Funny how liberals don't mention a peep out of human rights laws they don't like in the Middle East (because we can offend Muslims!), but feel free to pick on Singapore?

And lastly, she's not advocating criminalizing homosexual sex -- it's already criminalized and has been for a long time. She's advocating that the law shouldn't be changed -- i.e. that the benefits for changing it are outweighed by the social costs. While I don't particular agree with her stance, I wouldn't call it violent. Again, she's not advocating the the cops commit raids into peoples' houses to stamp out the behavior. You people with the violence line need to give it a rest.

249, Sir,

I hope you're not just being a trorr. Your argument, infringes upon my (Ri-ann TTThio's) proprietary farracious rogic. Especiarry that part where I ignore that the whore point of being heterosexuar is that heterosexuars engage in heterosexuar intercourse (incruding sodomy) and not in homosexuar sodomy.

Arthough, you wirr arso notice, that I did not seek to criminarize transexuar sodomy, because I must act in preserving my own interest as a transexuar street warker who reries on transexuar sodomy to support myserf when not teaching at NYU Raw Schoor.

Sincerery,

Ri-ann TTThio

PS. Me so horny. Who wants to be fisted by my manhands? Rat?

I think that 250 agrees with her stance.

'You have to respect every person's view as long as it agrees with ours.'

Liberal hypocrites.

The conservatives sticking up for this lady should actually watch her speeches. Maybe after seeing her equate homosexuality with pedophilia and make nonsensical arguments about how the law doesn't discriminate because it punishes both gay males that engage in homosexual sodomy and straight males that experiment with homosexual sodomy, you'll still defend her. In that case, your prejudices are so strong that there is really no point in debating any of this with you. However, I would hope that most conservatives would realize what a whack job this lady is upon seeing her speeches. A nice touch was her throwing out the possibility that Singapore might find a way to legislate against lesbianism as well.

Bitch still be crazy.

252: Yes, not agreeing with an extremely crappy empathy / "but it'll make people feel bad!" argument equals agreeing with Thio's similarly crappy argument. You must have cruised through the LSAT!

254: Yes, she's a whack-job when it comes to gay rights, but:

(1) NYU hired her (that's a reflection on them as much as it is a reflection upon her)

(2) She undoubtedly has valuable contributions to human rights other than her thoughts on gay rights (otherwise, NYU wouldn't have hired her)

(3) It's more about liberals going batshit crazy about protesting, boycotting, etc. her than it is about the validity of Thio's views (which most conservatives don't agree with anyway). How many rapid ultra-left anti-American faculty members are there at NYU? You don't hear about similar conservative movements every time a new professor is hired who has radical left views.

250 - Homosexual sodomy alone has NOT been criminalized for a long time. The law until 2007 criminalized sodomy, plain and simple. There was no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. She is advocating the continuance of a facially discriminatory law and the justifiability of distinguishing between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. She is a bigot advocating discriminatory laws targeting homosexuals. Her arguments as to why the distinction between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy are not discriminatory are intellectually bankrupt and laughable.

Just admit it 250/256, you agree with her stance. It's ok, we all know.

258, don't call me raughabre! Arr you riberars want to do is burry and discriminate against me. And how come no one take me up on my offer of manhand fisting? This is prejudice! Arthouse gets to fist people all the time!

258, don't call me raughabre! Arr you riberars want to do is burry and discriminate against me. And how come no one take me up on my offer of manhand fisting? This is prejudice! Arthouse gets to fist people all the time!

-Ri-ann

The fact that Con Law is an elective at Chicago says a lot. Our beloved leader (as we will soon be required to call him) used to teach there. That explains why he does not understand HOW the Constitution works or WHY we even bother with it.

We're too stupid to know what to do with our money - we need to give it all to the government and let them redistribute it in their wisdom.

The Democratis Party should establish a motto "DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO"

Small example: Mr. Obama is against school vouchers that would allow some inner city students to get away from the horrible conditions in which they find themselves. Obama's little darlings have gone to the most exclusive of private schools, in Chicago and now DC.

"DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO"

how does this relate to Dr. Thio? Simple - liberals can dish it out, they just can't take it.

262's post is an incoherent mess.

All the people criticizing the outrage expressed by liberals need to give me a fucking break. Act like you don't remember after 9/11 when conservatives went on a witch hunt for professors that held un-American views, despite the fact that many of them taught subjects such as engineering. Not a day went by without Fox News airing some piece on an un-American professor who usually taught a course that was completely unrelated to his views on America. Somehow I can't see an engineering professor telling his students "as you can see, you can calculate the wind flow by f(x) = death to America." This isn't true for Dr. Thio, who is teaching a course on human rights, despite the fact that she is fundamentally opposed to granting human rights to an entire group of people and, worse yet, can't even put together a coherent argument in support of her opposition.

Exactry right, 262, no one stirr has vorunteered to take my fist. These riberals rike Erie Mystar can dish it out arr over Above The Raw, but none of them want my manhands up their anuses. It makes me cry.

-Ri-ann

264, are you suggesting that conservative outrage might be disingenuous?

264, you are assuming the truth of your premises before making your conclusions. A lot of people don't agree that the "granting of human rights" includes the right to boink another guy. If it's not a human right, there's no problem in restricting it.

264: I can only think of two profs that conservatives went after in the immediate post 9-11 days. Ward Churchill with his "Little Eichmanns" comment (who was later done in by his own plagarism), and Sami Al-Arian, who was later arrested by the DOJ for supporting extremist / terrorist groups. Both seem pretty justified to me. And, if you don't think profs teaching courses having nothing to do with political science or current events can't / haven't injected their political beliefs into their classes, then you just haven't been to most universities.

And given Thio's cultural perspective being from Singapore, human rights don't include gay rights. Whether that's correct is another story, but just because she has a different view on human rights doesn't mean she is incapable of providing other valuable perspectives in the field of human rights (sans her stances on gay rights). If we followed your rule, then we could never have anyone teaching political science, history, government, etc. who came from any country not as "enlightened' as the United States. The heck with cultural exchange -- if you don't believe exactly what we do or better, you're incapable of contributing to the dialogue on a subject. That sounds like it'll make for a great exchange of ideas -- liberal and more liberal.

Yes, 264, you shourd be ashame for yourserf. I put together very coherent argument. And stirr no one want manhand fisty. I am so ronery. And who here care about my feerings? Nobody!

-Ri-ann

Do conservatives really not see the irony in having a bigot teach a course on human rights?

This boils down to deviants trying to force thier deviant behavior upon the rest of society. And so help us if we don't defend their "right" to stick their privates in other people's bottoms.

I love it when the "enlightened" amongst us stoop to making fun of someone's accent.

No wonder this "profession" is in the crapper - it is full of a$$holes

270: As much as liberals really don't see the irony in having ultra-leftists who believe in not enforcing immigration & drug laws teach Criminal Law and having ultra-leftists who believe in quotas in AA, absolutely no 2nd Amendment rights, speech codes in public universities, unrestricted abortion teach ConLaw.

268 - So in the 1980s, it would have been perfectly acceptable for a vehement supporter of Apartheid from South Africa to teach a course on human rights in Africa because of his unique experience? Also, I stated that it was worse yet that her arguments are incoherent. Watch her speeches in front of Parliament on YouTube. I could understand the argument that her different views might provide a valuable teaching platform if she backed her views up by anything other than animosity, but she doesn't. Her arguments are intellectually unsound and I fail to see how animosity provides a valuable teaching platform.

All one has to do is read the comments from both sides of this debate as posted above.

The "liberal" posts are in general mean spirited, if not downright vicious. It is as if they see the irony in opposing this woman on free speech issues, so they attack the size of her hands, the way she speaks, etc.

You "liberals" remind me of children......if you don't get your own way all the time, you have hissy fits and resort to name calling.

I am sorry, but to some people (like Dr. Thio) homo behavior is morally wrong. And no matter how hard you stomp your feet or how long you hold your breath, there are some of us who are never going to accept your behavior as anything other than immoral.

274: Most blacks don't equate gay rights with the struggle for civil rights. In fact, many find that to be an offensive comparison. Try again.

And yes, her arguments are mediocre at best, very offensive at worst, but again, she's not being hired to teach a course on gay rights. And clearly, if NYU hired her, she has something to offer in other areas of human rights.

213 - aka Progressive Racism on Full Display

Thank you for your candid comments on what abortion represents. In your view, the elimination of 15 million black lives by abortion is fully justified because, undeniably in your view, those children would have had horrible lives and the mothers themselves are better off not bearing the children.

You put on full display the arrogance, brutal callousness, and racism of progressive thinking. Progressives like you believe with full confidence that children born into poverty or broken families are destined for horrible lives, and that therefore their lives can be tossed away without a second thought.

First, most abortions occur not from dire necessity - like extreme poverty - but out of convenience. No small number of black abortions have been performed on black women of means. Second, many human beings are born into poverty or to broken families and do not have horrible lives. Third, there is such a thing as adoption, and if most states didn't have skewed adoption laws, there would be little difficulty in finding parents for unwanted children.

Moreover, to adopt the progressive tone for a moment, there really is nothing more racist than saying that it's just fine to dispose of 15 million unborn black Americans because we can safely assume that those black mothers were living in wretched misery or would have been unfit parents.

Finally, it's very telling that you didn't even try to dispute the fact that many millions of black Americans have been deprived of a decent education by being denied alternatives to the government school system.

I am so glad that the worldly law students at NYU "voted" with their feet.

Their 22, 23 years on this Earth has given them so much wisdom!

278: Well, someone of them are wise Latina women with the richness of their experiences, which would more often than not reach a better conclusion on whether to take Thio's class than a white male would who hasn’t lived that life. Did you forget to consider that subgroup?

274, the repeal of apartheid has been a disaster. Blacks were better off under apartheid in SA than they are today.

Jesse Jackson used to say that abortion was the genocide of the black race.

Then he decided that he had more important issues to tackle, like trying to find a white doctor to blame for Michael Jackson's overdose.

I thought gays were supposed to be witty. Yet all they can do here is mock her accent.

What a shocker--libecrats are racist.

More ass than sass by the delegation from gaytown today.

279

You are right!

Hopefully the world will soon be run by the "wise" latinas and HOPE.

That should get the job done.

Now, I have to go and investigate why Sarah Palin killed Micheal Jackson.

How about a class entitled: The Wonders of My First Abortion; that memorable day when I murdered my own baby

I don't know why we can't compare the oppression of African Americans, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. to men who want to hold each other weiners and women with bad haircuts.

The pain and anguish is the same!

282, thank you for arerting me to the serious offense of gays mocking my accent. Diversity is not a ricense for perversity and these homosexuars need to be put in jair for mocking me. Terr me which number comments these riberar gays are on and I wirr send Singapore porice to arrest them.

Many thanks,

Ri-ann

PS. My alterego is a libertarian conservative, straight Asian man. So much for YOUR stereotypes.

Oooooh, you showed us NYU Law Students! You got us again!

When will we learn that YOU, students with no practical work experience, with (probably) very little real world experience, with very little future job prospects, that YOU know what is best for humanity!

Thank you for setting us straight! (well, not literally, because that would be anti-gay, and we all know that it is a fundamental right of one's humanity to put their weiner wherever they want, whether it be in another man's rear end, a light socket, in a loaf or warm, crusty french bread, IT IS MY RIGHT!!!!!)

Sincerely,
The rest of the world

umm... yeah it is a right to put your weiner wherever you want, as long as it is not against the rights of the other person. That is the nature of the right to privacy - for the govt not to intrude. I thought republicans were for smaller, less intrusive govt?

Conservatives - sorry the world is passing you by. One day in the not too distant future, gays will have the same equal rights as all other individuals. Your children and grandchildren will look at you in the same way that you look at that old, racist relative we all have. Progress happens, whether you like it or not.

Fast Fact: In Iran, there are no gays. FYI.

Ah Number 1 Mysterious Libertarian Conservative Asian Man (#282)

I'm sensing some self hatred?

Time for the Oprah couch?/Or do you just need to GET REAL with Dr. Phil??

289, Western society won't exist in 2 generations. I don't know what you're laughing about.

#288...um, no you don't have a right to put Mr. Winky wherever Mr. Winky wants to go as long as there is consent.

Some people still find adultery immoral.

Apparently not in your "if it feels good and everyone consents then just do it" world.

to 293:

There is no right to do immoral things? Some people find war immoral, but Congress still has right to declare war.

So are republicans for smaller, less intrusive govt or not??

291. No self-hatred. Just a case of why-the-f*** can't she learn English? It's an official language in Singapore (notice how her medically / logically / factually absurd argument before Parliament was in English).

She's a native English speaker, who went to Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard, but speaks and writes like my FOB parents (if they were high on 'shrooms). She's a disgrace to the NYU community.

294
yes, I believe that is what Republicans are in favor of, but you should confirm with a Republican

"Rights" cannot operate outside of morals

It is when they do that society falls apart

Take this example:

You are married and have an affair with a consenting partner

What "right" allows you to do this? Just because you won't get arrested/prosecuted for it does not make it a "right"

Another example, according to US law I have a "right" to kill my unborn children

Now, in my world, I have absolutley no "right" to do such a thing

Even your example - war - just because Congress voted for war does not make it morally right

However, one might argue that sometimes war is an evil necessity (to get rid of a Hitler or a Saddam)

I think you are confusing the laws of man and the laws of humanity

295 - FOB?
So is it parental hatred?

My parents were born into an English speaking country, yet they still have accents and use some words unique to their culture. I would not say that is screwed up. Full disclosure - I have not heard Dr. Thio speak, but I will go out on a limb and guess that English (the Queen's English) is not her first language.

On that note, I believe that certain Carribean countries are native English speakers, but I have a hard time understanding our Jamacian and Bahamian neighbors, so go figure, must just be a dialect thing.

I'm from the Midwest and we sometimes can't understand you New Yorkers. And Bostonians for that matter. See, that's what makes the world go round (that and Dr. Thio's giant hands spinning the globe)

296: That sounds correct to me. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you morally should. In fact, we've significantly distanced our legal system from moral norms, but that doesn't mean legal behavior = "right" behavior. Again, the example of adultery is perfect. It used to be, but no longer is illegal to cheat on your spouse with another who consents (i.e. not rape, sexual assault, but consensual) but you shouldn't because you owe a moral duty to your spouse to be faithful.

Just because the law doesn't make it illegal to be a jerk or unfaithful doesn't mean that behavior should be approved by society. How this applies to homosexual sex is obviously ambiguous however. Again, most conservatives don't agree with Thio and have no problem with homosexual sex practiced in private.

289

Progress does occasionally happen, but not usually when "progressives" are involved.

297. Okay. You need to hear her speak (try this on for size, starting around the one minute mark):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUDYo29gNNg

And for the record, parental angst has nothing to do with my detest for TTThio. She's a moronic, bigoted, and (judging by her youtube performance) probably on 'shrooms. None of those apply to my parents.

300

Ok, what does FOB mean?

Cheating on your spouse is immoral because you are breaking a promise. But will a conservative please explain to me how sodomy is "immoral."

And even if it is immoral (even though it isn't), the fact that it something is immoral doesn't mean that it should be illegal.

300 - Well, I watched about 60 seconds starting at minute one, as you suggested. I think she stated biological facts. She did so in a critical way, and her moral and legal conclusions can be disputed, but her description of what happens during sodomy is scientifically correct.

301. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_off_the_boat

303. Her biological "facts" aren't, well, facts.

Furthermore. OMG MANHANDSS!!!!

303 = someone who has never had anal.

305. I heartiry concur. I give 303 big preasure with manhand fisty fisty.

-Ri-ann

just say no to fangbangers!!! join the fellowship of the sun.

Go NYU students! Booooooo NYU for inviting the bigot professor.

NYU students might like to ask Dr Thio, as an NMP and a lawyer with strong moral views, whether it's also "perverse" to have one of your former clients (and former friends) detained without trial for 17 years because he refuses to admit to trumped-up charges of being a communist stooge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Zahari

...or to bully the judges you appointed into awarding astronomical defamation damages against another attorney who just happens to be one of your leading political critics, and to do it so blatantly that the Privy Council describe it as "a grievous injustice".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Benjamin_Jeyaretnam

If we could get her on record criticising this sort of behaviour, it would be of great interest to the Singaporean government...

@301

FOB = freight on board

I'm totally gonna pass the bar.

hey 212:

"THE LIBERAL DUMASSES THEY EMPLOY to teach. That will hold true long after THEY is no longer teaching at the law school."

Really? DumBass? You want to make a point by stealing someone's line and then utterly destroying its grammatical correctness? "THEY is" knowing that you're one of the first ones to go in this kind of economy and aren't expecting you to get another job soon because you're too busy huntin' and exercisin' those 2nd Amendment rights.

293 - it's no one's business where people want to do it and how, if it is consensual.

If you think others' intimate acts are your business, you must think you are God. Wake up. Take care of your own life and stay out of others' pants, you perv. Stop calling others immoral when you can't take your mind out of others' gutters long enough to go living your own life.

also, heterosexual marriage is a declining institution filled with adulterous individuals. Sorry to wake you up to that.

312 - LOL. So because there is an adultery problem among married couples now, we should not care about inviting homosexuals to marry when the vast majority of them don't believe in the idea of sexual fidelity at all? How will that help us strengthen and preserve marriage?

But this isn't really about helping marriage, is it? It's about obtaining society's approval for homosexuality.

If you cared first about marriage, you would start by talking about what marriage is and why it is important for society, and not just say it's no one's business who does what to whom in their own homes.

I still don't get what makes homosexual sex so much worse than adulterous sex? Especially in light of the amount of adulterous sex that is homosexual? Someone please enlighten me.

314: It's not worse, no one says it's worse. It's more "disgusting" maybe (given biological inclinations), but from a moral standpoint they are identical.

I guess the analogy is this: stealing $100 worth of candy from a baby is morally identical to stealing $100 through a wire fraud scheme, right? Deal with one problem at a time. Just because we don't have the resources or moral fortitude to deal with adultery at the moment isn't a reason to legalize sodomy or rape.

-315

I guess the analogy is this: stealing $100 worth of candy from a baby is morally identical to stealing $100 through a wire fraud scheme, right? Deal with one problem at a time. Just because we don't have the resources or moral fortitude to deal with adultery at the moment isn't a reason to legalize sodomy or rape.

-315

To know how hateful and self-righteous she is go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqp3mLz4ko

Her hateful speech at the Singapore parliament.

Let's all sign up for the class then dropped en masse!

To know how hateful and self-righteous she is go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqp3mLz4ko

Her hateful speech at the Singapore parliament.

Let's all sign up for the class then dropped en masse!

No offense, 315, but that's the worst analogy ever.

No offense, 320, but no one likes you.