The Glade 4.0

It's a good thing that some people chose not to follow "the ethics and accepted views of her field" when these practices were commonplace, eh? Glad someone didn't bar their way into practice for not following the common practices of the day, or tell them to pick a new job.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I don't recall seeing anything where it states she advocates any treatments differently based on her morality. If I missed it could you point it out?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

My assumption is that this was the offending bit:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, you don't need to pick a new job. This is not a matter of her beliefs not meshing with her chosen job at all; her beliefs do not in any way proscribe counselling others. What they proscribe is counselling others from the standpoint that homosexual activity is perfectly morally acceptable, which is not something that the college or her professors have any buisness determining.

Furthermore, to my knowledge any sort of "conversion therapy" is based on religious activity; i.e. "pray away the gay". Claiming that this "departs from accepted norms of psychological research" is suspicious because counsellors counsel; they are not researchers. Moreover, if she is insisting on using this as a replacement for counselling techniques then one wonders why she has no simply been failed.

The fact that she has not been failed indicates that she is not using such techniques as part of her counselling, rather that she simply thinks they are effective and has allowed others to know that she does. This is like a doctor who gives a blood transfusion and then tells the relatives "You might want to think about praying; his condition is serious." Claiming that this somehow is incompatible with the profession is absurd; indeed, people with views similar to hers may need a counsellor and there's no reason they should be limited to counsellors with political and moral views on homosexuality that match her professors'.



Has there? What research is there? To my knowledge the only thing that research has shown is that people do not conciously choose in a "I think I'll be gay" way, and that homosexual behaviors are present in other species as well. As far as I can tell, the evidence shows only that homosexuality is at least partly biological in nature, but we do not know that this is entirely the case, or what causes it, nor does it change the fact that acting on homosexual desires can still be immoral under certain moral systems.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What's even worse is that the people claiming she's departing from accepted norms are taking it upon themselves to claim she shouldn't be in other professions too:



This sounds to me like a lot of people that are creating "accepted norms" to push aside views they don't like, and would prefer those views stay out of teaching as well. I wonder why that might be?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You are forgetting that conversion therapy (or some version of it typically administered by a religious official) was the norm prior to modern psychology and biology. Homosexual behavior has historically been considered deviant with notable exceptions being: Rome, Greece and Pirates (yeah seriously, go read up on it).

Agreed.


And if a gay person comes to her for counselling because they are trying to come to terms with being gay? It seems pretty relevant to counselling teens and early adults to me.

Strawman. I hear that doctors don't do their own medical research either.

That's what the university is saying, either she fails or change her opinion to be an effective counsellor.

PS: Sorry if the above seems snarky/snippy. It's a PITA to play with that many quotes.

_________________

No, Hopwin, I'm not forgetting. I am calling into question the efficacy of people deciding who should be educated, or not, based on their beliefs, adherence to accepted views, race, creed or color. Think about it. Who gets to decide? If people can be refused education because they don't "adhere", shouldn't they then also be stripped of credentials of they hid their beliefs in order to appear to "adhere"? What if they later change their minds and don't "adhere"? Wouldn't you rather someone be upfront about their beliefs, than hide them because of the strictures on "adherence" are? What do you, honestly, think this young woman is going to take away from this?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Then she's somehow obligated to tell them that it's perfectly ok if they want to have gay sex? Why? If they don't like her answers they can see another counsellor.



Not a strawman. The cited portion was "departs from the accepted norms of psychological research".



That's the problem. They're saying she needs to change her personal opinion. They don't get to do that. She's not expressing a view contrary to anything that science has established with any certainty. They're basing their definition of "effective counsellor" on her adherence to their moral viewpoint. That's not scientifically or academically valid.

Maybve if she were going into a program specifically oriented on counselling gay people it would be, but unless there's information we haven't seen, that isn't the case.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And that right there is the only part that matters. Forcing her to be sympathetic is not right, but nor is the above quoted part of what she is doing.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

If your beliefs keep you from doing your job then you shouldn't be in the field. If you are a creationist you shouldn't be studying evolutionary biology and if you start turning in papers/giving speeches about how God created X, Y and Z then you should be drummed out of the program. My beliefs supersede scientific research? That's a pretty arrogant statement.


Because that's her job? If she has moral issues with it then she shouldn't be in the field to begin with.


Totally a strawman, what do you think counselling is?


What? This has nothing to do with her morality, she can believe whatever the hell she wants but when it comes to counselling she has to follow an effective treatment regimen.

_________________

Sure, but nobody is talking about that. We're talking about getting an education in the field. Maybe that education will change their mind.


Why? What do one's beliefs have to to with precluding them from studying a subject?


How? By whom?


It would be if someone had actually made it.

Would you mind answering my questions?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'll answer your question with another. What is the purpose of getting a degree in a field Vindi?


You are free to belief whatever you want. If you are a surgeon and believe that someone's internal organs are just meat-flaps that hide the angels that keep you alive that is perfectly fine so long as you still perform surgeries that follow medical standards.

As I said above you can believe whatever the hell you want but when you are treating someone you use a course of treatment that will actually help them.

She wants to be a counsellor obviously but she is bringing her personal beliefs into her treatment recommendations and advocating treatment that has been proven not only ineffective but harmful to the participants.

_________________

I agree with Vindi that beliefs should have nothing to do with getting a degree. The degree should be based on knowledge of the subject material. You can believe the world is 6,000 years old, but if you write that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago on your evolutionary biology test, you fail.

I definately agree with Hopwin, though, on practice. Licensure should depend on practicing within the norm of your discipline. So don't take a job as a doctor if you think you can pray out the illness.

Except that her beliefs are not keeping her from doing her job. Her job is to counsel people. Her job is not to counsel people that homosexual activity is perfectly acceptable.



Except that is not her job. Her job is to counsel; if the requirement is that she counsel based on a specific moral viewpoint then her professors, the licensing agency, counselling association, or all three, bhave overstepped their bounds in telling her what her job is.

This is not at all comparable to your example about doctors; a doctor who uses prayer is not actually a doctor; he's a faith healer. Moreoever, every doctor does not treat the same condition in exactly the same way; hence second opinions and various different treatments. She has a certain opinion on how people with issues over homosexuality (whether their own or anyone else's) should be handled. Saying this opinion is out of bounds is entirely a moral judgement; even if she's recommending that people try faith-based approaches to dealing with homosexuality. She's still counselling them.

It is not her job as a counsellor to tell people that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable; it's her job to counsel them to the best of her ability. If a person with a gay relative comes to her with concerns over the morals and well-being of a gay relative, or a gay person comes to her worried about his or her own status, why is it her job to tell them that it's perfectly ok to act on homosexual feelings? Trying to say she must do that isn't just imposing certain morals on her, it's imposing certain morals on her clients, and there is no reason that the moral judgement of "homosexual activity is perfectly acceptable" should be imposed on anyone any more than "homosexual activity is bad" should be.

She, as a counsellor has no authority, regardless of what she counsells she is not imposing her views on anyone. The only way imposition happens is if she is forced to counsel a certain viewpoint.


Totally a strawman, what do you think counselling is?[/quote]

My undergrad is in psychology. Counselling is definitely not research. What, exactly, is the strawman here?



What exactly is an "effective treatment regimen"? What is the "effect" trying to be achieved?

This is simply defining "effective" as "in keeping with the moral position that homosexual activity is perfectly acceptable". That's not the goal of counselling. The goal of counselling is to give the person some emotional and mental support. A person who deeply belives homosexuality is wrong will get no support from being lectured on why it's really okay. The authorities are simply defining "effective" as "promoting the viewpoint we agree with."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

To learn about the field, additionally it shows that you've studied at the institution; completed their curriculum.

Who gets to decide who gets to be educated, and what race, creed, color, beliefs and adherences are acceptable?


Sounds good to me.


No disagreement there.


You think that's all shes taking away from this experience?



Why? What do one's beliefs have to to with precluding them from studying a subject?



How? By whom?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

DE, what do you think counselling is?

I surrender. What is she taking away from going to school for counselling?

The purpose of a degree is to prove that you have gained a certain proficiency in a subject. If you come away from the program with a view that is 180 degrees off the curriculum then you didn't demonstrate a proficiency.


You should ask Khross who should be responsible for kicking people out of a program they cannot comprehend.

_________________

Well, to be fair, right now I'm all about asking Dashel and Mookhow to kick you the hell out of this thread on those grounds.

_________________

I already explained this. What do you think it is?

Apparently you have nothing intelligent to say since you've decided to resort to the "pretend your opponent said nothing so you don't have to respond to it" tactic.



Bullshit. If I take a Black Studies program and come away with the view that it's all a load of horseshit, and blacks really do not suffer significant discrimination in this country anymore, that doesn't mean I haven't demonstrated proficiency in the subject. It means I'm not buying a viewpoint that's being pushed under the guise of "proficiency".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You have not contributed anything that contradicts my assertions. You admit she is unqualified to counsel on the subject of homosexuality. You admit her chosen methodology is wrong/ineffective for this group. You admit that the data exists to disprove the theory she gave a speech on.
Despite all of this, you don't think this disqualifies her from job because the gays can go find another counsellor. Got it.


Take a black studies course, CSU offers several dozen. None of the four I was required to take were "oh noz the poor black folks are being abused by the whites!" Pick another, relevant example based on scientific research. Something like, if I take a math course and walk away think 1 + 2 = 5 then I am qualified to teach math.

_________________

I've admitted none of those things. You're simply making them up; in fact you're basing them on your own assumption that refusing to counsel that homosexuality is moral is somehow an admission of being unqualified. I cartainly have not admitted that her methods are wrong, or that and data exists to disprove her speech. I've admitted that some data exists that leans in that direction, but even in that case it certainly is anything but conclusive. We don't even know where exactly the line is between "gay" and "bisexual".

As a matter of fact, every one of your assertions has been put down because every one of them assumes that there is some reason that the only "effective" method of counselling on homosexuality is to say that it's perfectly acceptable, which is simply the moral judgement of the professors and such involved here.

As a matter of fact, they have overstepped their bounds if they ahve said such a thing, and the real issue is whether professors, a licensing agency, or this ACA should be allowed to continue as professional regulators, certifiers, or associations if they are presuming to go beyond the realm of counselling in order to use the weight of state authority to dictate morals in such a fashion.



I did pick a relevant example. You're the one picking the relevant example. You have not shown that refusing to counsel that homosexuality is perfectly moral is in any way equivalent to saying that 1+2=5.

All you're doing at this point is proclaiming victory based on your own initial assumptions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

/boggle

Diamondeye, you are a very intelligent person. You've proven this time and time again. In this case you refuse to accede to the logic that if you refuse to treat people in a medical capacity with effective treatments then you should not be treating people. I do not understand why, nor do I care. Apparently we can go back and forth ad naseum with you insisting that whatever morality baggage you keep dragging into the debate (since nowhere is it referenced in the article) trumps scientific research and me on the opposite side.

In other words. I am done and I am claiming last word

PS: No take backs.

_________________

Psychologists are generally not medical professionals. Psychiatry is the branch of medicine you seek.

_________________

1) Counsellors are not medical personnel
2) There's nothing "ineffective" about telling people that homosexual behavior is not acceptable unless we define "acceptable" as meaning the person coming to the realization that it is acceptable. That is not the goal of counselling; the purpose is not to promote any one moral viewpoint and there is no reason all counsellors should hold that one viewpoint. This is the authorities in the case using their control of education and liscensing to dictate morals through counsellors (and in at least one case, expressing the view that tachers should be used to push a certain moral viewpoint as well)
3) You have yet to cite any actual scientific research. There's been only your personal recollection. In any case, if any scientific research defines "effective" in terms of people coming to the realization that homosexuality is acceptable, or in terms of homosexuals coming to think their own proclivities are necessarily moral, then it is not actually scientific research. Science does not decide "should" questions; it decides "is" questions. Scientific research might eliminate a premise used to consider homosexuality immoral but it cannot attack the moral position itself.
4) I am not dragging any personal moral baggage in at all; I personally do not think that homosexuality is unaaceptable from a moral standpoint. I had a very long go-round with Bery about this on more than one occasion. I did wonder, however, how long it would take for someone to resort to that argument.

I just disagree with the idea that there is any obligation by anyone to recognize homosexual activity as inherently morally ok. Entirely too many homosexuals try to argue that such an attitude is "ant-gay bigotry" when in fact it is not. Believing that a person's personal life activities are immorl is not inherently discriminatory against them. I ahve seen gay people actually demand that they be accepted, as opposed to merely tolerated. This is overstepping the bounds of what a person in a free society has any right to expect. You have a right to be tolerated; i.e. allowed to go about your buisness. You do not have a right to others' approval.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I'm not talking about why she chose to pursue this academic interest, I'm talking about the experience she is currently having, the ramifications she is experiencing for stating her beliefs.


Then I guess that would show in one's academics, no?


I see no evidence of not comprehending the subject matter. I can unequivocally state that if Khross were teaching economics and the student somehow left the course with a view that Keynes put forth valid economic model, but satisfactorily met the academic requirements, that person's beliefs would not be held against them. A school's purpose is to educate, not tell people what beliefs to have.

Why should a person who believes in the creationism not be allowed to study evolutionary biology?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

College to student: Moral absolutism has no place in our profession, and as such you must attend these seminars to teach you about an opposing absolute moral viewpoint.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine