Girgis and company would actualy do better to stick to social science research than rely on their bizarre metaphysical argument that marriage is a thing that exists in nature like a flower or a tree. It’s interesting that he accuses the pro-SSM side of shutting down the debate with the bigot charge, because his argument rests on the (circular) premise that two people of the same-sex cannot be married because two people of the same-sex cannot be married.
Two people of the same sex, can not 'have sex', i.e. copulate hence can never consider the potential of creating human life between the two of them. You know how bees pollinate male and female flowers. It's a behavior that requires a penis and a vagina for human beings. Gay couples have strong friendships, but their love can never procreate, that's why marriage matter distinctly from other relationship as a matter of public policy. Nothing personal, it's just the realities of it all. That's biology, not a bizarre metaphysical argument. It's rationally based, check your DNA.
Now for years I've been a target by Fannie, and her friends with personal attacks. Cruel, the equivalent of bullying, even harassment. It's completely unwarranted and yes I admit painfully hurtful. Feel better, that yes, emotionally those taunts do get to me. I try to avoid them, but yeah Fannie knows what she is doing. Words, unlike stones, always hit their target.
Renee Aste, Lowell Massachusetts
Fannie's hurtful commentary is a reflection of how she feels about herself; not an accurate portrayal of your own character. Think about it: would you rather be the target of such vitriol, or be the person who has so little kindness that he/she could behave in so hurtful a manner? I've been targeted by her bullying, too. I'd rather be the bullied, than live with myself as the bully. Press on Renee! For what it's worth, I appreciate your work at Opine.
ReplyDeletePS., ever read "The Anatomy of Peace" by the Arbinger Institute? I found it interesting for understanding why we/others treat others the way we do--for good or ill. You come away understanding Peace on both a personal level and a societal one. Just food for thought.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Verbal abuse is verbal abuse. It is made to dehumanize another, and wear them down. For years it's just another version of 'mean girls', it's upsetting that grown educated women have degraded themselves to middle school behavior.
ReplyDeleteWe need men more then ever to be good husbands and fathers, they matter not only for the children, but for women as well. What's wrong with that value? Nothing.
I totally agree. Verbal abuse is totally unacceptable; but, in the case of Fannie, for example, I can't change what she says/thinks about me; I can only change how I view her or myself. I can choose peace. I can hold my peace. I can choose not to let others' verbal abuse invade my peace.
ReplyDeleteAnd I completely agree with what you say about men/fathers/husbands.
Just from what you quoted from Fannie...
ReplyDeletetheir bizarre metaphysical argument that marriage is a thing that exists in nature like a flower or a tree.
I've noticed that what Fannie has problems understanding, she calls "bizarre". It has no real reflection on if an argument is really bizarre or extraordinary, but it is to her.
That, as DoE notes, is a reflection on her not the argument.
You are right, that is bullying. It is as much as a self admission that she doesn't understand, doesn't want to try to understand, so she uses the same kind of bullying that someone would do to a kid from another culture that looks "bizarre".
Girgis's point is simple and understandable, marriage is defined through observation just like trees and flowers. It is not defined by social whims.
She also errs in confusing social observation with "metaphysics".
Rather par for the course, I'm sorry to say.
When Fannie says, "It’s interesting that he accuses the pro-SSM side of shutting down the debate with the bigot charge" she begins a slight of hand.
ReplyDeleteOne would expect that the suspicion arisen at the account is leading to an accusation of hypocrisy, or some other argument that would undermine Girgis's claim. Instead she as much as changes the subject to an entirely different set of logic altogether, "his argument rests on the (circular) premise that two people of the same-sex cannot be married because two people of the same-sex cannot be married."
That someone's arguments are wrong because they are bigoted is an entirely different matter -- albeit a humanitarian matter -- then the use of circular logic.
Worse is that the circular logic is again her misunderstanding of Girgis's point.
You see, in any proof one expects there to be a hypothesis which is then born again by the conclusion. In an article of persuasion one expects that what the author sets out to persuade is clearly wrought in the conclusion.
But for Fannie, such a simple matter is simply restating the premise as the conclusion, ignoring the work in between.
So shorter version of Fannie,
"I don't understand what you are saying, and I'm not going to acknowledge you said it anyway".
Typical disingenuous Fannie.
Fannie is fraud feminist. Her sole purpose is to hurt others, under the claim she cares about women rights. She doesn't give a cr*p (sorry) about the needs of women. It's clear biological fathers protect daughters and stand in as healthy role models for their sons on how to respect women (their mother). If Fannie was a true feminist, she would understand what marriage does and how it benefits society. I think she does understands. Being that she's a complete fraud, she's just behaves like a condescending jerk attacking people.
ReplyDeleteOh no, she going say something bad about me!
Whew that felt good to say.
Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts
Hey Renee,
ReplyDeleteI've often said I'm a feminist as long as feminist means equally valuing the rights and responsibilities of women with men.
As soon as feminism is a sort of reverse discrimination to set women above men, I'm no longer on board. Unfortunately, the practice of many people who fly that banner is to subordinate men's rights and responsibilities.
What you will notice when you read the comments many sites supposedly dedicated to "equality" is an obvious glee in personally attacking people who don't share their views. They clearly enjoy the dehumanization and the feeling of superiority it gives them.
ReplyDeleteThe strange thing is that this is the very thing they condemn in others, and which they think separates them from the "ignorant" side of humanity---the need to find some segment of the population who they can see as less than human and who thus make them feel superior. They condemn it when it's done against racial minorities, or women, or gays, but when it's done against people who don't view things their way, then it's perfectly OK, I guess because those people are really subhuman.
So what they demonstrate in the glee they have in attacking people who disagree with them (and the use of profanities to refer to them) is that they are just as gullible as the rest of humanity to the vices they think they are so immune to.