Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Grist for the solipsist.
  2. Well there you go, the “best case (straw man) argument against gay marriage is unsustainable.” Who’d have thought that straw man arguments were so weak.
  3. Why the “H” sound in Greek is just a diacritical mark at the start of the word.
  4. The real question is why liberals self label as the “reality based party”.
  5. A first question here … try this experiment. Go to a gym with a heavy bag. Start punching. See how much and how hard you have to punch … until you get a quarter inch cut on your knuckles. Then consider that bag was man and the damage you just did to it. Now … requite for me how you can figure the laceration on his hands were trivial.
  6. Don’t try this at home.
  7. Headscarves.
  8. Well, you are correct, you are not supposed to say that. Uhm, so don’t.
  9. Almost solipsism. Let’s see, what might “agnostic about the existence of the world” mean? Solipsism would be the akin to “atheism over existence” what then is agnosticism?
  10. Mr Scalzi started this, I’d have thought “Feminist Philospher’s” would see the problem, but they didn’t. Here’s a hint … the problem is equating victory/winning/success with money and power and with not merely happiness.
  11. “I don’t know” is often followed by “but I can google.”
  12. “What I said” … in contrast with our President who has the advantage of having said the opposite as well.
  13. I’m unclear on why the disgust. Isn’t that just a chance for testing and witness?
  14. The quicksand’s viscosity just lowered for Ms Warren, see here and here.
  15. Dating with a bucket of sand with fleas.
  16. A song to finish.

8 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. 2.Well there you go, the “best case (straw man) argument against gay marriage is unsustainable.” Who’d have thought that straw man arguments were so weak.

    Actually I find it better than what you think of as an innovative argument against SSM. Note your argument doesn’t even say SSM is a cause but a ‘symptom’ of some larger problem…which begs the question of why bother opposing SSM? If it doesn’t cause anything then opposing it won’t solve anything and if something else is the cause then you should just solve that and leave SSM alone.

    At least this argument places SSM as a cause of something bad and tries to find a plausible mechanism for why it will cause something bad. If you have a better argument to submit for domolition then please do so.

    More to the point, the argument cited here is basically THE argument made by most serious anti-SSM advocates on places like First Things (although side arguments are mounted by quacks and a much weaker argument mounted on religious freedom grounds). If it’s such a weak straw man argument then what does that say about the anti-SSM side in general?

  2. 13.I’m unclear on why the disgust. Isn’t that just a chance for testing and witness?

    Not sure if you mislinked here but the bill under discussion does illustrate the lack of honesty in the debate by the anti-SSM side. Consider the headline element of the bill and story, Pelosi is opposed to a bill that would prevent military chaplains from being ordered to perform SSM. But read deeper and you discover the current policy already allows chaplains to refuse to perform ceremonies that conflict with their denominational beliefs (which is, of course, necessary otherwise you’d run into issues like Catholic priests having to perform marriages that are not allowed by the Catholic church but are permitted in others ). What they are really trying to pass is the second section which says no SSM-type ceremony might be performed on Federal property, even if all participants are totally voluntary. In other words freedom of religion is not good enough, freedom of religion must be allowed only for those who agree with those who oppose SSM.

  3. Boonton,

    which begs the question of why bother opposing SSM?

    Review for me my position on marriage … or shall I remind you … that marriage customs should be decided locally.

    If it’s such a weak straw man argument then what does that say about the anti-SSM side in general?

    Odd that. You haven’t proposed any argument for your defense when asked, to whit: show me that narrative vision of society in which marriage is contractual that is realistic, i.e., sustainable.

    And the argument directly on marriage isn’t “gosh that gay marriage will break straight marriage” it’s that marriage is a institution which is troubled (and necessary) how will this help? When a boat is sinking you don’t worry about the paint job.

  4. Odd that. You haven’t proposed any argument for your defense when asked, to whit: show me that narrative vision of society in which marriage is contractual that is realistic, i.e., sustainable.

    Well you may want to check out Canada, France and the US.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=31&c=ca&c=fr&c=us&l=en

    Note that Canada has had SSM since 2005, yet TFR is stable. France doesn’t have SSM but has an extensive civil union type setup (called PACs) that many couples both gay and straight use, although legal marriage is strictly heterosexual but is used by a minority of couples and the US has a mix of SSM in some jurisidictions, anti-SSM in others and civil unions in many more.

    By your argument, France should be ahead of us in TFR as you have argued that SSM is a ‘symptom’ of an anti-marriage culture as indicated by TFR below 2.0. The US should be under France but over Canada.

    Granted Canada is lowest, yet there seems to have been no decline pre-2005 which you argue is the ‘lead in’ to SSM.

    And the argument directly on marriage isn’t “gosh that gay marriage will break straight marriage” it’s that marriage is a institution which is troubled (and necessary) how will this help? When a boat is sinking you don’t worry about the paint job.

    Good, you’re trying to make an argument here, but how is this applicable to the anti-SSM crowd? Yes a paint job won’t help a sinking boat, and if some chap insisted on painting the boat while it was taking on water you’d no doubt try to convince him to stop….yet at the end of the day if this was really the case you’d quickly forget about the eccentric boat painter and start running off to turn on the pumps and try to prevent the ship from sinking.

    Yet that isn’t what anti-SSM advocates do. They don’t sit there and say we don’t care about SSM, we need tougher divorce standards, premarital counseling, enhanced tax credits for child raising, automatic income subsidies for married couples with newborn babies so one can spend time at home. Nope none of this, they insist that fighting SSM is very important to saving marriage.

    At this point, then, the analogy would be trying to argue that the guy painting the boat as it’s taking on water is somehow causing the boat to sink. Or that the guy whose painting the boat can somehow stop the boat from sinking if only he’d get away from painting…. How would that translate into the SSM issue? Either the argument that you cite as a ‘straw man’, that by having SSM heterosexual marriages would be harmed (i.e. causing the boat to sink) or those who seek out SSM could somehow save many doomed heterosexual marriages if only they would focus on them. Both arguments seem like a very steep uphill battle to me.

    Of course whether or not the boat is really sinking is another story.

  5. Boonton,

    Yet that isn’t what anti-SSM advocates do. They don’t sit there and say we don’t care about SSM, we need tougher divorce standards, premarital counseling, enhanced tax credits for child raising, automatic income subsidies for married couples with newborn babies so one can spend time at home.

    Actually they do. The people who stand against SSM are for all those things … well I don’t know about the tax code => behavior things.

    Of course whether or not the boat is really sinking is another story.

    Reality party indeed.

  6. Actually they do. The people who stand against SSM are for all those things … well I don’t know about the tax code => behavior things.

    No they don’t, they explicitly state that fighting SSM is, in their opinion, the most important thing to do in the fight to defend traditional marriage. Why do you not pay them the respect of taking them at their words?

  7. Boonton,
    Who is “they?” I’ve never heard a sermon, for example, stating that it is important. Have you?

  8. OK, do you think the SSM debate has been mostly conducted through sermons? I think it’s mostly through those who speak and write about the issue of SSM. I provided one prime example, the First Thoughts blog. I suppose you can find ample anti-SSM arguments on other sites like NRO. In addition those supporting various anti-SSM petitions, proposals, ballots, court cases and so on have plenty of public statements and pieces on the record to consult. If you think I’m looking in the wrong places, please let me know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>