[Ansteorra] Questions about crowns and crown tournaments
Kahn at West-Point.org
Fri Jul 20 10:56:27 PDT 2012
On 7/20/2012 12:45 AM, Patrick R wrote:
> Who would be hurt if someone with a same sex consort was allowed to compete?
We've already had one Don inform us that he would be. I've always
believed that those who are proposing a change should first at least
show that the change will cause no harm before the change is accepted.
Clearly, that's not the case for at least one who was actually willing
to speak up. Further, by using the word, "hurt," you dismiss anyone who
objects but for whom the reasons for their objection do not rise to the
level of "hurt." Perhaps you have a low threshold for pain, so "hurt"
seems appropriate, but for the many who have suffered great pain -
physical or emotional - "hurt" is a very high threshold indeed.
Consider the physical parallel and the big difference between what it
takes for a novice and a knight to say, "That hurt!" The same damage
was done, and for the knight it may well not have hurt, yet the blow was
still good enough to eliminate him or her from the tournament.
Similarly, while this proposed change might not "hurt" someone, it might
be just the blow needed in these trying times to eliminate him or her
from this game of ours.
> Other than Queen’s champion possibly being renamed for six months what other reason (besides historical) can anyone use to justify not opening the tournament to same sex couples?
Yes. We *will* lose good people, and not just for six months. But
then, it's possible you don't consider them to be "good" people because
their opinions differ from yours, so that might not matter to you. But
it *is* a valid answer to your question.
> I honestly want to learn why people believe what they believe. I may never change their opinion and they may not change mine but an
exchange of ideas can lead us to respect the opinions we do not agree with.
It *can* lead to respect, but it doesn't seem likely that it will.
Things were getting a bit uncomfortable until I pointed out that many
would not post their views because of the ridicule likely to ensue. I
do not say it's intentional, but the very questions you ask and the way
you ask them indicate that, internally, you trivialize and dismiss the
opinions that differ from yours on this topic. "Who would be hurt . . .
Other than Queen's champion possible being renamed for six months . . .
" These are not questions that attempt to show *respect* for views
other than your own, nor to honestly *learn* why people believe what
they believe; they seek to *dismiss* those views as invalid before
they're even spoken. That's *very* obvious to those who hold those
views, which discourages them from expressing themselves. Thus, by the
very nature of your questions, you're helping *prevent* the exchange of
ideas you claim to want.
I was made very aware of this in a private exchange, where I was
informed that, because of my opinion on this issue, I should probably
just leave the SCA. You will never hear from many, perhaps most,
opposing views on this issue for exactly that reason. Why would anyone
express an opinion here, when to express that opinion can lead to
disapprobation? I've expressed mine, and there are peers who have
expressed a strongly opposing view. What if I were seeking elevation to
the Peerage? Do you really expect me to believe that my views on this
would not be held against me? Or that voicing those opinions would not
lead me to be excluded in other ways? Even if the atmosphere had not
already been somewhat hostile, how many people do you really think are
willing to take that chance?
More information about the Ansteorra