The Opine Editorials

Luigi, its up to you choose the strongest of Searc...

2012-06-03T21:19:32.351-04:00

Luigi, its up to you choose the strongest of Search's arguments.

Please copy and paste the entirety of the argument Search poses that you find of any worth.

I'll keep Search's suggestions in this thread for no longer than until Tuesday.

The 800lb Gorilla has been taken down - mainly (but not exclusively) due to [name witheld]'s failure to justify witholding the protections of marriage from adults who are raising their own biological children.

On Lawn has no doubt that he could "check my work" - whatever that means - but I have my doubts. If he was so confident, he would have addressed my arguments when I posted them here, rather than deleting them.

I must be posting some powerful arguments if he is in such a hurry to delete them!

Search / Luigi, is that what either of you want as...

2012-06-03T15:31:59.444-04:00

Search / Luigi, is that what either of you want as your best shot?

Are you sure that is the best Search can do?

You should check out this article by op-ed ... much about how folks who resort to name-calling are showing themselves to be idiots. He writes:

op-ed: When someone starts throwing around terms like "anti-gay," what they are telling me is that they are at the very least idiots and at worst, dishonest and manipulative.

And now you're throwing around the words "amateur" and "ignorant" ... what are you telling us about yourself?

Hey, for everyone else, Yes... I do see that Luig...

2012-06-03T10:29:58.783-04:00

Hey, for everyone else,

Yes... I do see that Luigi coincidentally created his account the same time that Search was banned, and shows an unusual interest in that one banned commenter rather than any other of the comments generated here since his departure.

We can give the benefit of the (much) doubt here. Because at the end of the day if it is Search, the problem is still him.

http://xkcd.com/1027/

And if it isn't perhaps he could use the help.

The thing I've learned in discussing hot topic...

2012-06-03T10:22:12.088-04:00

The thing I've learned in discussing hot topics on the internet for over a decade is that everyone thinks everything has flaws.

Let me put it another way.

When I was a teenager, I had to deal with what I thought was a very illogical Mother. I would scrutinize every piece of advice she gave me, and find exactly where it was wrong.

It didn't take very long, however, to learn she was much smarter than I gave credit for. And that she was right. While her reasoning and evidence didn't jump through hoops that I demanded, she was right, and her reasoning was sound.

Search came here recently and gave us what he though were logical guidelines to reasoning.

The problem is every single one of them were wrong.

There are, of course, many different standards for different discourses. There are ethical arguments, formally logical arguments, and scientific explanations. But Search's didn't adhere strictly to any of them, there were more of an untutored and mixed up combination of all of them, with some elements he made up on his own.

The arbitrary nature of his reasoning -- or even more basically the principles that he accepted for his reasoning -- lead him to major self-contradictions and gross errors in logic.

They were pointed out to him often, and he chose to ignore them. After literally hundreds of comments, he could not even go back and show where he was right and we were wrong on any point.

I honestly have no more interest in wasting the time to even check his work over there. But after such a track record, I have no doubt I could.

He's an amateur who's even admitted his own ignorance in dealing with us, we've had to school him in many of the subjects he wielded for his arguments.

The worst of which was when he claimed to make a utilitarian moral case, but at the end of the day it never rose above a selfish little cry for hedonistic pleasure seeking.

But lets look at it this way. If you are impressed with anything in his essay, go ahead and copy the most compelling argument from it here into this thread. Just one, so let it be the strongest one.

Lets see if it can withstand any scrutiny. If it can, we'll lift the ban on him. If it can't then his ban simply continues to be justified.

Look, at some point you have to draw a finish line. At some point you have to say if you really think you have a point go try to convince others of it because you've not convinced anyone here that you can formulate an argument to the same standards that we have here.

Just read a great take on this 800lb gorilla thing ... shows the flaws in this essay.

Too bad you guys at Opine don't run a clinic. ...

2012-06-01T16:24:14.380-04:00

Too bad you guys at Opine don't run a clinic. I'd sign up. :)

The question can be asked do the origins of marria...

2012-06-01T14:52:26.519-04:00

The question can be asked do the origins of marriage root themselves in a female mating choice that the male will be a provider of her children or is it rooted in an inner homophobia?

Which one is it? Both? Neither?

Actually, we all have all of them to one degree or...

2012-06-01T12:38:18.302-04:00

Actually, we all have all of them to one degree or another under different circumstances.

A psychologists job is (if I can risk boiling it down from my own untutored perspective) to simply help someone overcome any and all of them that seem that a patient feels is so strong as to threaten themselves or others.

Rob, I think the point of Op-Ed's post is much...

2012-06-01T12:34:36.884-04:00

Rob, I think the point of Op-Ed's post is much in line with yours, if I understand it right.

But as I often say, the opposite of using the term "liberal" as a pejorative is not to come up with a "right wing" pejorative.

I realize that homosexuality is considered a mental disorder by many, but claiming homophobia is a similar disorder is not the opposite of that.

The opposite is to put accusations aside and deal with the reasoning rather than the psychology.

Its that way that we don't become the monster we are fighting.

Thanks Renee. Have a good week.

2012-06-01T12:17:11.405-04:00

Thanks Renee. Have a good week.

Disagreement is not hate. Can it turn into hate? Y...

2012-06-01T11:51:28.326-04:00

Disagreement is not hate. Can it turn into hate? Yes, it can on both sides.

Enjoy your charity run, hope the weather is good.

With over 400 recognized disorders by the APA, we ...

2012-06-01T11:46:52.983-04:00

With over 400 recognized disorders by the APA, we all have a few I assume.

Sorry, Rob. Comments generally must be relevant a...

2012-06-01T11:34:39.814-04:00

Sorry, Rob. Comments generally must be relevant and link-only comments in particular.

The purpose of this blog is to discuss the rational case for marriage, not to drum up traffic for others' blogs. Once spammers start seeing this blog as a traffic driver the signal-to-noise ratio will make it impossible for us to serve our actual purpose.

Rob: That's a series of posts on why...

2012-06-01T11:23:27.319-04:00
Rob: That's a series of posts on why we so often regard opponents of marriage equality as having a pscyhological disorder.

No, it's just blogspam and has been deleted for violating our relevance requirement. Not one of those articles deals with marriage. They are all just examples of Rob calling people "homophobes" and then claiming that "homophobia" is a "pscyhological disorder." Ergo, Rob calls someone a "homophobe" is supposed to mean they have a mental disorder.

Unfortunately for Rob, as I covered in the article, what comes out of Rob's mouth doesn't really tell us anything about anybody but Rob. What is Rob telling us about himself?

For starters, Rob's articles tell us that "homophobes" have a "pscyhological disorder." Rob then summarizes his own posts by saying his articles make the point that "opponents of marriage equality" have a "pscyhological disorder." This leap requires the unwritten premise that all "opponents of marriage equality" are "homophobes." All this really tells us is that Rob thinks "opponents of marriage equality" are "homophobes." This is not rational, yet it is the argument Rob chooses to make here. So either Rob prefers irrational arguments or he doesn't know any rational ones.

because, don't you know, gays are waaaaay to self-absorbed and hedonistic to care at all about society

And yet here's Rob, not talking about what his efforts will do for others but instead telling us what it does for him and "gays" generally. Way to disprove the whole "self-absorbed" thing. I'm not sure who other than Rob sees riding a bicycle as a "gay" vs. not "gay" thing.

...you don't merely disagree with the rational argument for marriage equality, but claim it's never spoken. That blindness itself bespeaks some sort of issue that blocks you from hearing what you wish not to hear.

Perhaps I don't "hear" it because Rob is not here making it. Instead Rob is making his irrational "homophobe" case.

I'll refer to you to attorney Ted Olson's opening argument...

Actually, I don't need to follow that link because I already know Rob doesn't believe it. If he believed it, then he'd be here making the same argument as Ted. The fact Rob is instead making his "homophobe" argument tells us Rob puts more stock in that than in anything Ted Olson has to say.

Hi Renee, just to clarify, I wasn't disputing ...

2012-06-01T10:19:37.751-04:00
Hi Renee, just to clarify, I wasn't disputing op ed's point that opponents of marriage equality are often called homophobic -- I was trying to explain why, because I assume you'd like to understand, even if you don't agree.

Personally, as much as I've done it in the links above, I don't always ascribe opposition to homophobia or hate. For instance here:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/no-h8

And now I really must sign off. Hopefully I won't find myself biking through one of those small towns where the local pastor wants to round up gays behind electrified fences, or whose "flesh" believes gays should all be killed, or who have 4-years signing hymns in church about "homos" going to hell (just to give examples from the last couple weeks)

That's a series of posts on why we so often re...

2012-06-01T10:12:33.970-04:00
That's a series of posts on why we so often regard opponents of marriage equality as having a pscyhological disorder.

Unfortunately, I won't be around for the next 10 days to see your replies. I'm flying to SF in a few hours to launch on a week-long 540-mile bike to raise money for charity -- exactly the sort of thing many "anti-gay" folk insist that a homosexual like me simply doesn't have the character to do (because, don't you know, gays are waaaaay to self-absorbed and hedonistic to care at all about society).

Do all those who oppose marriage equality have such homophobic views.
But homophobia rears its head again in this very post, where you don't merely disagree with the rational argument for marriage equality, but claim it's never spoken. That blindness itself bespeaks some sort of issue that blocks you from hearing what you wish not to hear. I'll refer to you to attorney Ted Olson's opening argument in the Prop 8 trial here: http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Perry-Vol-1-1-11-10.pdf

Thanks Rob for proving op-ed's point.

2012-06-01T10:05:38.684-04:00
Thanks Rob for proving op-ed's point.

2012-06-01T10:00:40.345-04:00
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2012-06-01T09:59:49.772-04:00
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2012-06-01T09:59:24.019-04:00
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2012-06-01T09:58:56.728-04:00
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2012-06-01T09:58:28.170-04:00
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2012-06-01T09:57:41.670-04:00
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.