Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The End of Reasonable Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From this 2005 interview:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate. “Corporate Tax Loophole” and “Legalized Tax Fraud” (see article here) are phrases used by liberals and socialists to make it seem like taking completely legal advantage of tax law is somehow immoral or unethical. Like anyone utilizing tax deductions or laws to pay as little tax as possible, corporations are demonized for doing the same, as if it is somehow their moral obligation not to find ways to pay as little tax as possible.  They are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization when they use a term to describe something that is not what that term means.

Take the term “hate”.  The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.  Using their domination of the major media and entertainment market, and employing rabid gangs of “Social Justice Warriors”, anyone that simply disagrees with them and states their disagreement publicly is attacked as a “hater” or a “bigot”.  If you call an illegal immigrant “illegal”, you’re a racist – it doesn’t even matter the race of the immigrants in question.  If you express concerns about public bathrooms becoming gender neutral, you can be fired, like Curt Schilling.  In this way, honest debate is avoided and supplanted by emotionally charged false terminology that frames the debate in an entirely dishonest way.

Such as “tax cuts” “budget cuts” [corrected thanks to hrun].  With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes the budget” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax budget increase”.  Thus the debate is lost before it begins; the debate is never about actually cutting taxes the budget, but only about reducing the amount of increase.  Your “rights” can mean anything a leftist/progressive thinks you should get for free from the government, or provide you with whatever protections they think one ought to have.  Requiring a photo ID to vote becomes “racism” and “disenfranchisement”.  Refusing to force the public to pay for women’s contraceptives and abortions becomes a hate-filled “war on women” or being “against women’s rights” (while the real war on women, being conducted by Islamists worldwide, goes on unnoticed by leftists).  Performers boycott North Carolina for it’s “anti-LGBT” bathroom law, while the same performers gleefully perform in Dubai where homosexuals are executed.  Those who simply doubt a particular view held by many scientists are framed as “anti-science”.  The term “skepticism” now only applies if one ridicules that which it is politically correct to ridicule and dismiss; if you are skeptical of the wrong things, you are no longer a skeptic, you are a “denier”.

We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

“In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell.

 

 

Comments
F/N: In case you thought progressivist lawfare was a cooked up notion, notice what Glenn Reynolds has to say in USA today:
Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).” I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices. Here’s what’s happened so far. First, Schneiderman and reportedly Harris sought to investigate Exxon in part for making donations to groups and funding research by individuals who think “climate change” is either a hoax, or not a problem to the extent that people like Harris and Schneiderman say it is. This investigation, which smacks of Wisconsin’s discredited Putin-style legal assault on conservative groups and their contributors, was denounced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader as unconstitutional . . . . After Bader’s critique, Walker, the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general, subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s donor lists. The purpose of this subpoena is, it seems quite clear, to punish CEI by making people less willing to donate. This all takes place in the context of an unprecedented meeting by 20 state attorneys general aimed, environmental news site EcoWatch reports, at targeting entities that have “stymied attempts to combat global warming.” You don’t have to be paranoid to see a conspiracy here.
Lawfare is an act of war actually, tyrannical and violent abuse of the state power of the sword in defence of the civil peace of justice, to attack targetted individuals, groups, organisations and movements. yet another sign of the march of folly. Notice, TWENTY US State AG's were involved in a relevant meeting. This is directly parallel to the way groups conspired to out and attack or intimidate and threaten people who donated to campaigns or voted in favour of preserving under state laws the historic, biology-anchored conjugal understanding of marriage. All of these and many more are indicators of the march of folly that is now in progress. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
ZL, all that means is that you chose to attack SB and me. That's all. The facts above speak for themselves. You can be safely categorised as an idea and implementer hitman, in a strategic change context. In the online context, as a troll. BA77 suggests a very familiar identity resurfacing under another pseudonym. It is to be noted that you have yet again failed to deal with the substance on the table. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
ziggy
Given the timeline, and the fact that the number of frivolous complaints being heard by these commissions has decreased over the last several years, it would be extremely difficult to argue that SSM has resulted in a decrease in free speech. The worst you can say is that there was a “liberal” abuse of the commission system that was followed by a correction.
No doubt you think all those frivolous complaints were coincidences. No doubt you think I don't have other examples. No doubt you think it has nothing to do with so-called "gay marriage." No doubt you think that parental rights have not been affected. No doubt you think I have no examples of same. While you are busy denying and rationalizing all these affects of same sex marriage, lets put another one out there for you to dismiss: (2013) "The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior. Bill Whatcott's pamphlets (from 2001) using the word "sodomites," and criticizing the Gay Agenda in public schools, were deemed to incite hatred against homosexual people. The ruling requires Whatcott to pay a fine to two homosexuals who claimed to be offended, plus six-figure loser-pays legal costs." There you go, ziggy. The Bible is hate speech. No doubt you think it has nothing to do with gay marriage. No doubt you think I am running out of examples. Here we go, ziggy. One more, just for fun. Saturday, April 12, 2014 Canada Holds American at Border for Being Christian The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was tipped off by homosexualists that Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was bound from Chicago to the Regina airport en route to speak at the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association (SPLA) conference in Weyburn. When LaBarbera's plane landed Thursday night, customs officials detained him for several hours while they rifled through his luggage, books, paperwork, cellphone, computer files, and interrogated him about his Christian beliefs and alleged "hatred of gays" until 1am Friday morning. Later that afternoon, LaBarbera was allowed a hearing to appeal the detention, which he won, and then proceeded to Weyburn (where angry homosexualists stood ready to "greet" him)." Great stuff, don't you think, ziggy. No doubt you think this has nothing to do with gay marriage. No doubt you think this has nothing to do with the gay lobby's long-term agenda. No doubt you think I am a "hater" for producing this evidence. I'll stop for now. Well, no, I will add one more just for fun. Since you understand that I can fill cyberspace with examples, I will just provide summaries of the updates rather than provide the whole story--now that you know that I could if I wanted to. Here we go, ziggy UPDATE 4/16/14: LaBarbera later arrested for presence at university, jailed for a day, and finally booted from Canada (see article excerpts at bottom) You don't really need the whole article, do you? No doubt you don't think I could provide it if II wanted to. OK, I will really stop for now. No wait, maybe it's time to start discussing, in detail, the erosion of parental rights. No doubt you think I can't provide numerous examples. OK. I will really stop for now.StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
ziggy lorenc = William Spearshake = banned trollbornagain77
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
StephenB, thank you for providing this. I am responding on my phone with slow wifi so I can't do adequate research on this. However, I can provide some background on Canadian human rights commissions. They were originally established with the best of intentions and were intended to be non-judicial commissions that would hear complaints about abuses such as discrimination in employment without tying up the courts. Sadly, they were taken to rediculous extremes early this century with rulings against journalists and others for writing articles (or giving speeches) about Islam, or gay pride parade, etc. Subsequently there was significant public backlash as well as court rulings that have resulted in the gradual reining in of these commissions over the last decade or so. Given the timeline, and the fact that the number of frivolous complaints being heard by these commissions has decreased over the last several years, it would be extremely difficult to argue that SSM has resulted in a decrease in free speech. The worst you can say is that there was a "liberal" abuse of the commission system that was followed by a correction.ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
ziggy
Based on the headlines alone, absolutely. Do you have links to the actual articles?
I am temporarily having trouble with those two links, so here is another one of many. I just copied from the link. - From "'Hate speech' penalties tossed by appeals court" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 12/8/09 "A Canadian administrative judge's demand for a $5,000 penalty and a written apology from a man who criticized homosexuality in a letter to his local newspaper has been overturned on appeal, but experts on such "hate speech" disputes say the case is not a complete victory for free speech. The judgment was announced this week by the Alliance Defense Fund in the case of [Christian pastor] Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition, which had been determined by the Alberta, Canada, Human Rights Commission to have violated a "hate speech" law. Boissoin wrote the letter to the "Red Deer Advocate" in central Alberta criticizing those who "in any way support[s] the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s." [Click here to read the entire letter.] A University of Calgary professor, Darren Lund, reported Boissoin to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, accusing him of breaking the national human rights law. The commission ruled in Lund's favor, ordering the $5,000 payment and written apology from Boissoin, as well as instructions to Boissoin not to express his beliefs further. On appeal, Justice E.C. Wilson said the commission didn't acknowledge the actual law, which states, "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject." Wilson said the commission went too far, basing its decision on assumptions and granting relief to Lund that it did not have the authority to provide. "The remedies … are without legal foundation or beyond the authority granted," Wilson wrote, citing the commission's orders that Boissoin "cease and desist" his statements, issue the apology and pay Lund. Bull told WND the reversal is important in that homosexual activists will not be able to cite it as a precedent for damages when someone expresses an opinion opposing homosexuality, but the case is not a complete victory. "Stephen Boissoin was in litigation for four years," he said. "If anyone is tempted to write a letter to the editor, that right is now chilled." "Homosexuals got exactly what they wanted. In the marketplace of ideas, one side has now been censored," he said. "This [situation] is exactly what homosexual activists have in mind," he said. The appeals court ruling did not strike down the "hate speech" law, but it sets limits for its use. The Alberta ruling means "hate speech" laws cannot be used to silence religious expression or public debate simply because someone takes offense. Such a provision would, in fact, violate the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, the ADF said."StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
KF -- "I add that actual ad homs distract attention from the issues by playing shoot at the messenger instead of dealing with the issue — no fair and truthful description of my arguments can reasonably conclude that I and others dodged the issues in a festival of bigotry and hate tantamount to KKK racism . . . which is a standard tactic that was used above to attack me and others esp SB." Yet SB and I and Clavdivs and Origene and Mr. Murray and Eugen are able to debate each other In a reasonably civil fashion, even though there is little that we all agree on. You, on the other hand, have a long history of being incapable of accepting that someone might disagree with you on anything. Whenever this happens, you resort to lecturing, patronizing, sermonizing name calling and massive cut-and-pasta orgasms that would put BA77 to shame. Nobody has to take my word for it. All they have to do is read your comments throughout this thread and they can make up their own mind. And I am not the only one who has pointed this out to you. Clavdivs and Origene, have said the same thing. I realize that these are harsh words, but sometimes harsh words are necessary.ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
RICO-style games, not good: http://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-ag-targets-90-conservative-groups-climate-change-racketeering-suit/kairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
StephenB -- " Would you acknowledge that the following examples qualify as [violatiins of] free speech in Canada:" Based on the headlines alone, absolutely. Do you have links to the actual articles?ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Klaudius I'm not researcher on this subject so I cannot provide measurable for optimum. We have to use common sense sometimes. In your past comments I accepted your reasonable points without demanding deep PhD research of terminology on the subject. If we go that way we would be splitting hairs and be stuck on couple of simple terms for months. I have other stuff to do, too. There certainly is the optimum or most favorable or best posible environment for development of a child not to mention the only one that can reproduce. What would you guess first? Yes, that is male/female for sure. I don't know too many (rather any) people who need more clarification on this.Eugen
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
ziggy
Are you serious? You will provide me with with examples of free speech violations only if I agree in advance that they are free speech violations? I have to give you credit for an approach to winning a debate that I have never thought of. Well played young man, well played.
OK, I have a soft heart (In spite of all those reports that I am a hater). Would you acknowledge that the following examples qualify as free speech in Canada: 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against HomosexualityStephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
StephenB: No one who understands the natural law would make such an error. They appealed to natural law. StephenB: they merely showed their ignorance of the natural moral law, which is based on reason–not faith. They appealed to reason. ziggy lorenc: re you serious? You will provide me with with examples of free speech violations only if I agree in advance that they are free speech violations? I have to give you credit for an approach to winning a debate that I have never thought of. Well played young man, well played. Indeed! We are in the presence of a master.Zachriel
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
ZL, the irony is actually yours. I started from addressing the worldview level problem, went to dealing with a major paper, pointed out dynamics and known sources for cultural marxist tactics that are at work. I have discussed the worldview level issues and how these give rise to characteristic problems with evo mat pointed out since Plato. I discussed the natural law roots of rights and of marriage, which ground why nominalist word magic under false colour of law cannot turn a pig's snout into a silk purse. BTW, evo mat scientism is self refuting and if adherence to such is driving your notion of evidence, that is part of the corruption and clouding of thought at work. Likewise, I add that actual ad homs distract attention from the issues by playing shoot at the messenger instead of dealing with the issue -- no fair and truthful description of my arguments can reasonably conclude that I and others dodged the issues in a festival of bigotry and hate tantamount to KKK racism . . . which is a standard tactic that was used above to attack me and others esp SB. I also took time to outline standard change dynamics i/l/o the issue of ideas and implementers hitmen and to point to why you need sound people to get sound strategic level change -- where evolutionary materialism is inherently self falsifying so is unsound and undermining of soundness: ex falso, quodlibet. I pointed out that turnspeech is a propaganda tactic, in fact one of the key forms of Hitler's big lie (too big not to be true) stratagem. In fact in the classic text describing the big lie it was projected unto the british. Others have provided more evidence starting with testimonies of the victims. And more, but what seems to have triggered distract, distort, denigrate, polarise etc is pointing out the radical agendas and tactics at work. You are actually simply further demonstrating that my concern is justified. Not that such will make a dime's difference to those determined on business as usual headed for the cliff. The sweet south wind is blowing. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS
I have no axe to grind either way on gay marriage.
All leftists have an ax to grind with respect to gay marriage, yourself included. No one is neutral on the issue, yourself included. The very fact that you don't admit the biased nature of your second-hand resources makes the point.
I just know sound, reliable, unbiased research when I see it because that is my professional training.
If you are professionally trained, as I am, you should know that you cannot make a final judgment on any empirical study without making an unfiltered investigation.
The Witherspoon paper you cited does not cite any evidence for its conclusions … it consists purely of assertions.
I found this the following in five seconds: Five years ago in Alberta, Canada, a former pastor and head of a Christian organization, Stephen Boissoin, sent a letter to a local paper on the issue of sexual orientation. Two weeks later a gay teen was beaten up, and the pastor was charged with violating human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt - despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise. UPDATE 3/18/13: Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada UPDATE 4/12/14: American Christian Arrested for Speaking at Canadian University UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding' UPDATE 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin UPDATE 6/20/15: Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Wedding Chapel UPDATE 12/10/09: Famous Canadian Hate Speech Ruling Reversed UPDATE 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality Feel free to follow up at your leisure. Just follow the links from the Wetherspoon report. Be sure and tell me if you think it represents right-wing extremism. There is plenty more where that came from. When you return, you can rationalize all if it, even as you continue to claim that you have "no ax to grind."
This is why the courts and a majority of the US population, including Christians, now support gay marriage — they are not fooled by the ridiculously biased and methdologically flawed “research” like the papers you’ve cited.
LOL Widespread ignorance hardly counts as a solid reference. A majority of Americans don't know the difference between a normal marriage and a so-called same sex marriage.Indeed, you don't know the difference. Thus, your opinion on the subject is hardly relevant. In the final analysis, empirical methods about SSM and children can be questioned, but the rational arguments against SSM cannot. No one has refuted or even addressed my arguments (I am not referring here to any empirical reports or testimonies)StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
StephenB -- "When I have time, I will provide the evidence if and only if you promise that it does, indeed, represent a free speech violation." Are you serious? You will provide me with with examples of free speech violations only if I agree in advance that they are free speech violations? I have to give you credit for an approach to winning a debate that I have never thought of. Well played young man, well played. :)ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
KF -- "Zl, that’s attack the man not dealing with the issue, which you and others have consistently maintained." It is astounding that you don't see the irony in this statement. Well, not that astounding. KF -- "Remember, you are the folks who have to defend assertions that ALL objections to your agenda are motivated by hate and bigotry equivalent to the KKK.." Why do I have to defend assertions that I have never made? You really are not making any sense. KF -- "The shrill projections alone reveal that the analysis you wish to dismiss is fundamentally correct." Again with the abuse. You really need some help. Please seek it, for your own good.ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
kairosfocus ZL, you obviously have not seriously read the thread above, starting with actual testimonies of victims. Frankly, the behaviour above gives abundant reason to point to the widespread effect of the breakdowns highlighted. Right, you finally get around to presenting some "evidence". And what is it? I tiny, statistically irrelevant handful of anecdotes. You've got 25+ countries with years and years of experience of legal gay marriage, and this is the only evidence you can scrape together to support your fear-mongering. Hilarious!CLAVDIVS
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
StephenB — “If you can’t speak freely without being taken to court at your own expense by the government, which includes the burden of paying for your attorney, or of being forced to recant, or for tweeting your opinions, then you don’t have free speech.”
I’m curious, can you provide any examples of Canadians being taken to court by the government for voicing their objection to SSM? Or are you just making crap up?
When I have time, I will provide the evidence if and only if you promise that it does, indeed, represent a free speech violation. I am not going to all that trouble if you just pull another one of your. "I don't believe it" or "that doesn't count" stunts. I don't appreciate providing answers to all your questions while you dodge all of mine. SB: “Meanwhile, you have not responded to my report on the testimony of children harmed by living with same-sex couples.”
What’s to comment on? The fact that some same sex parents can be as poor at parenting as some opposite sex parents? Why should that be surprising?
As poor? You had better reread the report. Poor parenting from heterosexual adults do not produce results like that.StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Clavdivs, operational definitions are not the only valid ones. Verificationism collapsed in self referential incoherence a half century past. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS
The methodological flaws in the paper are so horrendous that the sample size is irrelevant anyway.
Why don't you just admit that you do not know the sample size. It is my understanding that it began at 15,000 and was pared down to 3000 in order to manage the difficulties of addressing multiple and inconsistent variables. To leave it at the large number would be an indication that he was not sympathetic to these vairables. It appears that his critics tried to make something else out of it to keep their pro-gay narrative alive.
Basically Regnerus only sampled children who stated their biological parents did not remain together for their entire childhood. He then picked out the ones who said a parent had a homosexual relationship of any sort for any duration (including perhaps a weekend fling). And then he compared the results of this subgroup to children of married, straight couples who raised their kids for a full 18 years.
Most likely, that was not the issue with the sample size and most likely the AMA report is skewed, especially on that last alleged statistic. What I am trying to tell you is that I don't accept their word anymore than you accept the word of the authors who gave us the Witherspoon report. The difference is this: I have aspect to all portions of the latter. Neither of us has access to Regnerus' detailed report. If you do, then pass it along to me. I have every confidence that I can make sense of it. I cannot make sense out of what the gay lobby and its sympathizers say about it. Too many contradictions. Once they claimed that the sample size was too small, they lost all credibility with me.StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Zl, that's attack the man not dealing with the issue, which you and others have consistently maintained. Remember, you are the folks who have to defend assertions that ALL objections to your agenda are motivated by hate and bigotry equivalent to the KKK, that there is no evidence that there is a problem with the agenda and more. The shrill projections alone reveal that the analysis you wish to dismiss is fundamentally correct. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Eugen Operationally (i.e. measurably) define optimal.CLAVDIVS
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
KF -- "ZL, you obviously have not seriously read the thread above..." You obviously have not taken heed of the many appeals that have been made in this thread for you to stop lecturing, patronizing and sermonizing. When you post a comment that does not do this, I will respond. Until then, you are best to be ignored.ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Eugen, and for those who will have to deal with the broken-backed wreckage of our civilisation at the foot of the cliff. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Claudius I don't understand... What family environment could be more optimal than mother/father? If you have something on your mind please give in your own words. Only mother/father combo can give children complete role models. Beside that, male and female have different but complementary skill preferences which are still important but probably more so in the past when humans were living closer to nature.Eugen
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
StephenB -- "If you can’t speak freely without being taken to court at your own expense by the government, which includes the burden of paying for your attorney, or of being forced to recant, or for tweeting your opinions, then you don’t have free speech." I'm curious, can you provide any examples of Canadians being taken to court by the government for voicing their objection to SSM? Or are you just making crap up? StephenB -- "I won’t respond to your other three comments since they are all dismissed on the basis of fantasy." i agree. Your examples should be dismissed on the basis of fantasy. It is refreshing that you would admit it. "Meanwhile, you have not responded to my report on the testimony of children harmed by living with same-sex couples." What's to comment on? The fact that some same sex parents can be as poor at parenting as some opposite sex parents? Why should that be surprising?ziggy lorenc
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
StephenB CLAVDIVS, you are a riot. You think that any evidence against you, no matter how well established, consists of a right-wing hit piece and all claims that serve your purpose, no matter how biased, come from disinterested, well respected sources with no ax to grind. Nope. I have no axe to grind either way on gay marriage. I just know sound, reliable, unbiased research when I see it because that is my professional training. The Witherspoon paper you cited does not cite any evidence for its conclusions ... it consists purely of assertions. This is why the courts and a majority of the US population, including Christians, now support gay marriage -- they are not fooled by the ridiculously biased and methdologically flawed "research" like the papers you've cited.CLAVDIVS
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS
Oh, you mean this evidence-free, right-wing propaganda attack piece?
CLAVDIVS, you are a riot. You think that any evidence against you, no matter how well established, consists of a right-wing hit piece and all claims that serve your purpose, no matter how biased, come from disinterested, well respected sources with no ax to grind.StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
StephenB you mean the many members and sympathizers of the gay-lobby machine that maligns and slanders anyone who disagrees with them and misrepresents the methodology of perfectly good empirical study in order to flee from its well-warranted conclusios. Hilarious. Regnerus' study is garbage. Regnerus himself admitted, under oath, that "any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent" and that the "exact source of group differences” are unknown. You have been avoiding our discussion about that very same methodology. No I haven't -- you missed my response @ 509. The methodological flaws in the paper are so horrendous that the sample size is irrelevant anyway. Basically Regnerus only sampled children who stated their biological parents did not remain together for their entire childhood. He then picked out the ones who said a parent had a homosexual relationship of any sort for any duration (including perhaps a weekend fling). And then he compared the results of this subgroup to children of married, straight couples who raised their kids for a full 18 years. This is statistical nonsense - he's comparing stable vs unstable households, not gay vs straight. The criticism by the AMA, et al, about sample size was likely because Regnerus sampled only two families where the gay parents remained together for the childrens' entire upbringing ... and the result: children of those two families flourished, according to Regnerus.CLAVDIVS
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
StephenB: I can’t imagine any law of nature that would forbid interracial marriage Zachriel
Whether or not you can imagine it, centuries of people held the belief that the mixing of races was an obvious affront to natural law.
No one who understands the natural law would make such an error. There are some, mostly in the southern United States, whose misguided appeals were based on a ridiculous interpretation of the bible, but they merely showed their ignorance of the natural moral law, which is based on reason--not faith.StephenB
May 3, 2016
May
05
May
3
03
2016
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 27

Leave a Reply