After a stupefying, yet oddly enlightening exchange with Edward T Haines (http://www.aleksandreia.com/2012/08/05/boy-scouts-in-the-news-again/#comments), in which I initially came to the conclusion that “Ed sure hates him some gayness,” I’ve subsequently taken into account Ed’s very advanced age – I believe he’s posted somewhere that he’s like 90 years old or something – and have changed my mind about Ed’s intentions! That’s his intentions, NOT the whacky way he makes an argument.
My own error was in apparently taking Ed’s arguments at face value, after all, he decides (in the above post) to defend the premise that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights” by pointing to (GULP!) yet ANOTHER widespread homosexual child-sex scandal!
REALLY Ed?! Sure, why not point to NAMBLA the world’s preeminent pedophile advocates being ENTIRELY comprised of. . .gay MEN! What else would the “North American Man Boy Love Association be comprised of?
See what I mean? It generally DOESN’T pay to point to examples that undermine your own premise as “proof” of that premise. It’s a flawed strategy that can (on rare occasions, like as in ALWAYS) make your own initial premise appear somewhat suspect.
Yes, what better way to prove that “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles” then by jumping up and down (or in Ed’s case panting heavily), “LOOK! Here’s yet another homosexual child-sex scandal. If THIS doesn’t finally and definitively prove that homosexuals are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles, I don’t know what will convince you homophobic jerks!”
I thought, at first that Ed was snarkily sliming gays, before I realized that at his advanced age, things like pointing to a gay child-sex scandal as “evidence” that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights” makes perfect sense, just as his pointing out significant performance disparities between males and females seems like a peachy way to “prove” that “There’s actually very little difference between male’s and female’s athletic abilities.”
Of course, and that would explain the widespread segregation of sporting events by gender and the widespread use of things like “lady’s tees” in GOLF, probably one of the least “athletic “sports” this side of Chess.
ANYWAY, I’ve noticed that a number of discussions have gotten pretty contentious around here and as always, I’m here to help.
Lance C. Johnson (LCJ) recently left in a huff after some contentious exchanges with DaDvocate (DaD) and maybe myself, but I think his main issues where with DaD, but I’m a self-centered jerk and am always “impressing the hell out of myself,” so much so, in fact, that when I DO look at some of my own self-congratulatory utterances, even I have to exclaim; “Whatta DICK!”
At any rate, LCJ seemed very sensitive (that means “AWARE” to all you bibliophiles out there) to insults against himself, virtually ANY “disagreement” by DaD was apparently an “insult” to LCJ, but he was not at all sensitive (AGAIN that’s “AWARE”) to the very overt insults he routinely heaped on DaD simply because DaD was religious and didn’t believe the same things LCJ did.
I note that ONLY to show that Ed’s condition may NOT be entirely due to the feebleness we normally associate with advanced age, as LCJ made some very similar (highly suspect) leaps of faith – assuming (WRONGLY), for instance, that the day of outrage in support of Chic-Fil-A was support for homophobia, AND NOT, what it actually was – widespread support for freedom of expression and against governmental over-reach!
OK, while that may NOT be as bad as Ed’s arguing “for” a position by actually presenting evidence to the reverse, it still sets up a premise so absurd that it stifles actual discussion.
Here’s what I’m humbly suggesting, when discussing topics on which there is widespread disagreement (and virtually every topic, aside from “Aren’t kittens cute,” seems to fit that bill) actual affirmative arguments should be made – various Appeals Fallacies (ie. Appeal to Authority, like “9 of 10 Cosmetologists believe in AGW is “fo real y’all”. . .please few, if any of those posting seem to know the actual difference between a Cosmetologist and a Climatologist), or derision, “Only an idiot would believe X, Y and Z,” SHOULD BE off limits. Present facts, or just paint yourself blue and grab an axe and broad sword and go on the berserker rampage.
Moreover, “offense” should NOT be permitted. When I take “offense” to another’s posts, I’m looking for a bullshit, “face-saving” way to end the debate. . .usually because I’m embarrassing myself. It’s the mental equivalent of coitus interuptus. . .and I know we all hate that.
Communication is the key to understanding. . .and while it may be painful attempting to communicate with a self-centered, highly impressed with himself jerk like myself, that doesn’t excuse making arguments AGAINST your own positions (as Ed and others have done here) and proclaim them to be “proofs” of what they serve to undermine.
Personally, I think a LOT of the anger and contentiousness around here is due to faith-based believers attempting to defend faiths they don’t even recognize as “faiths.”
You see, that puts DaD at a distinct advantage. He doesn’t feel compelled to defend his own faith – it’s something you either accept or you don’t. He KNOWS it’s a faith, but those who want to believe that AGW is “settled science” (no such thing) or that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights,” don’t want to accept that they’re espousing a “faith” just as much.
In fact, they’re much more dogmatic about their faiths – and they won’t accept dissent! They see those who disagree as out-and-out heretics.
Interestingly enough, when I got up this morning I’d received an email from an adjunct professor of Statistical Analysis on the subject of gays and pedophilia. He’d seen how I went after Ed for, what I thought was snarkily sliming gays, and mentioned that the statistics may not bear out my presumption (one I’d taken on FAITH for years) that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights.” He made clear that I and others were falsely over-inflating the number of homosexuals in society to rationalize that premise. That will have to be looked into in its own right, but it highlights how each of us (even ME) can fall prey to “faith-based thinking.”
I will say, that I (of course) took that challenge to my own faith much better than most. No charges of heresy to my former classmate, no angry outbursts, I. . .Godammit! I just can’t seem to help myself from tooting my own f*cking horn. AGAIN, I’ll say it (about me). . .Whatta DICK!
I quite enjoyed that post!
THANKS JE!
I’m trying to add some much needed self-effacing (half-assed modesty) to my normally boorish routine. Sure, I’m STILL a dick, but I’m trying to be a more humorous, user-friendly kind of dick.
So far, the results look pretty good. . .fingers crossed.
I’d say you are doing well – nothing takes the edge off as well as some self directed humor.
And I don’t care WHAT Ayn Rand has to say about that.
LOL.
when I DO look at some of my own self-congratulatory utterances, even I have to exclaim; “Whatta DICK!”
Same here. Sometimes I’m intentionally a dick. Other times I surprose myself.
Some of the exchanges here can be a bit weird.
I know that some liberals are passionate about their own views, so passionate, in fact, that some take another’s passion for their own views as “insult” or even “heresy”. . .or worse still, they get flustered and start making arguments AGAINST their stated position (like Ed did above) and get offended when called on that!
I felt bad for Ed, because he’s been on such an unfortunate roll lately. One recent exchange pretty much covers it;
“Ed, you TWICE claimed you didn’t say what you very clearly DID.”
“While I respect my elders, I HAVE TO call you on such things. You should take that as “constructive criticism.”
“You claimed you DIDN’T diagnose James Holmes as a schizophrenic after you very clearly DID. (“I suspect that he has schizophrenia and this disease played a major role in his actions.”)
“Then you claimed you didn’t link female spousal killings to self-defense, when AGAIN, you very clearly DID. . .in your own words! “…In the case of marital violence, data appear to find that many such cases are based in cause as a form of self defense. Women in abusive relationships are very frequently (i.e., almost always?) subjected to not only physical violence but mental denigration and separation from any form of assistance or family. If they finally opt to escape, they often see murdering the abuser as the only safe escape route. Given lack of access to weapons and strength, poison seems a viable choice to them.”
“In other words I’m not spanking you Ed, you keep hitting yourself (with your own words) and then blaming me for simply reminding you of your own previously uttered words. In THAT regard, I’m not being “obtuse” at all. . .and neither are you, I’m afraid, though it would be a little better if you’d been so. (JMK)
.
.
Believe me, I KNOW that I can be a dick. . .and I’m often a real pain in the ass, as well, BUT why are so many so-called “liberals” unable/unwilling to make actual affirmative arguments for what they claim to believe in?
I find it as endlessly amusing as anyone when someone argues AGAINST their original position, mistakenly believing they’re arguing FOR it, like Ed’s, proving that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights,” by offering up yet ANOTHER homosexual child-sex scandal as “evidence!
JMK,
You really need to stop shouting into empty barrels in order to hear the echo and praise yourself. Try reading something, anything. In closing out discussion with you, I might point out that, as further evidence that you make up your mind what others say and then argue with what you believe them to have said, you continue to speak of my age as being in the 90s despite my having earlier today mentioned it as 70. I have earned those 70 years and feel no need to defend them or my status. I am still able to build a house (including framing, roofing, siding, ceramic floors, wallboarding, taping of the wallboards, plumbing and electrical. I am also still able to dig a 45 foot long trench in the stones of the Poconos in order to install a “french drain.”. I can run over three miles at a stretch. I am even, unlike you apparently, able to read rather complex books on science, philosophy, medicine and other subjects and understand what I have read. Yes, I remember that you once read Nietsche’s work. You might want to consider trying out at least one other philosopher just to see what they say. May I suggest Aristotle?
Jesus Ed, don’t you know anyone over 60 should be seen and not heard?
Sally, I was the one who guffawed at a comment my commanding general made in his retirement speech (the only one there to do so). While I very much respected him (the general), I find it virtually impossible to remain silent when I hear idiocy being spouted out loud. I guess that his comments are JMK’s sort of lame attempt at some sort of humor (ala Limbaugh’s school of humor and commentary) but I fail to get the joke and see only inanity.
There’s NO humor in this reply….ONLY two kinds of people would make such a virulently anti-gay argument: “CLAIMING” that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights,” while pointing to yet another homosexual child-sex scandal, a moron (including someone suffering from advanced senility, ergo my initial consideration of age as a possible factor) OR a rabid, vehement “homophobe.”
That bothers a LOT of people Ed.
The fact that you see nothing at all wrong this accidentally on purpose undermining your own stated premise. . .a clever way of arguing the REVERSE (that gays are much more likely to be pedophiles), appears to be a a lack of remorse either due to your being virulently anti-gay OR an innate inability to admit you made an error. [Actually, according to at least one Adjunct Professor of Statistical Analysis, your REAL premise, that gays ARE more likely to be pedophiles, might well be correct. . .that DOES bear looking into]
BUT the latter doesn’t seem to be the case, as you seem to have agreed when with me I brought your own diagnosis of James Holmes up (schizophrenia), after you claimed just ONE POST BELOW that diagnosis that you “didn’t make such a diagnosis.” So, it doesn’t appear to be any reluctance to admit when you’re wrong, so hmmmmm…..that leaves only the homophobia angle.
Without expressing my personal opinion either way on whether or not Mr. Haines was presenting a logical fallacy in the prior post, let us suppose that he admits to having done so (if for no other reason than to get you to stop harassing him). Then what? Is it your thesis that gays commit more sexual of abuse of minors than straights do?
“Without expressing my personal opinion either way on whether or not Mr. Haines was presenting a logical fallacy in the prior post…” (MS)
.
.
There is NO “opinion” on that whatsoever. . .and it was NOT a mere “logical fallacy,” like “Appealing to the Man” (ie. Einstein said…”) it appears to be a shrewd and calculated “reversed argument” – where one states a premise, then highlights an incident that undermines that initial premise. Ben Franklin was a master at that.
I (who’ve always taken it on faith that “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles”) found that strategy (even more than the premise) to be outrageous.
I WOULD NOT have found a straight up argument against that premise nearly so offensive.
In FACT, as I noted, when contacted by a former classmate, now an Adjunct Professor of Statistical Analysis at Dartmouth, I took absolutely NO offense to his view that; “….(he) mentioned that the statistics may not bear out my presumption (one I’d taken on FAITH for years) that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights.” He made clear that I and others were falsely over-inflating the number of homosexuals in society (premising an equitable distribution of gays and straights) to rationalize that premise. That will have to be looked into in its own right, but it highlights how each of us (even ME) can fall prey to “faith-based thinking.”
I have a Safety Engineering degree and a M.S. in Mathematics (I used to preface all my queries to people with, “Oh yeah, how many semesters of calculus have you taken,” obnoxiously implying that anyone unable to master differential equations (“DiffyQ”) probably couldn’t make a well-thought out argument either. . .I KNOW, I can be a real DICK sometimes, right?!)
I find my former classmate’s thesis interesting, because, as he notes, it DOES appear that we’re all basing the premise that “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles,” on a non-existent (that is FALSE premise of an) equal distribution of gays and straights in society.
My current estimates of the percentage of gays is the generally accepted 2%, but I’m willing to go to 5% to take into account bisexuals and others in “denial.”
As my associate notes, even if just 25% of the pedophilic acts are perpetrated as man-on-boy, then indeed gays would apparently be somewhere on the order of 5X more likely to be pedophiles than straights.
I think that requires more study and more numbers crunching. Let the data take us wherever it may.
.
.
.
“Let us suppose that he admits to having done so (if for no other reason than to get you to stop harassing him). . .” (MS)
.
.
Helping another person see the inherent error in making such statements (using a gay child sex scandal to highlight how “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles”) is NOT “harassing,” but actually “assisting.”
Maybe I’m just TOO helpful sometimes.
.
.
.
.
.
“Then what? Is it your thesis that gays commit more sexual of abuse of minors than straights do?”
.
.
As I’ve said from the start, I’ve taken it on faith (like most others) that “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles,” but given that the two most widespread pedophile scandals in recent history the Catholic Church scandals and now these Boy Scout allegations (highlighted here by Ed), BOTH being exclusively man-on-boy scandals, my former classmate’s exegesis seems somewhat more compelling.
I DO NOT accept ANYONE’S directing the data, on ANYTHING. ANY faith-based thinking on ANY issue is up for being viciously attacked!
I stand by my lifelong mantra – “We must GO wherever the data/numbers lead us. Unt we must nevah deviate from der numbahs.”
I currently hold to my initial “faith-based” view on the matter (“gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles,”), but will, of course, GO wherever the data leads down the line.
Okay. Fair enough. Thank you for the honest response.
“Okay. Fair enough. Thank you for the honest response.” (MS)
.
.
I don’t intend to be annoying Sally, but, as I’ve acknowledged, I can be a real jackass sometimes.
I had no intention of following up on this charge UNTIL Ed insisted on showing no remorse for (apparently) misspeaking – which is no big deal, UNLESS a person continues to defend such a reverse argument, as that leaves that person’s motives somewhat suspect.
Wouldn’t have pointing out an actual heterosexual child sex scandal have better illustrated the point Ed wanted to make?
So, didn’t highlighting a homosexual child sex scandal undermine that premise?
I suppose a realistic look at the actual numbers would be enlightening, no matter which premise they’d support.
Ed, I’ve spent a LOT of time here trying to help you out.
I know you don’t want that help, but you apparently DO need it.
In your latest posting, you chose yet ANOTHER widespread homosexual pedophile scandal (the Boy Scouts) to defend the idea that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights.”
I’m sure you can understand my outrage over that, can’t you? That backhanded slap at homosexuals by you was totally uncalled for and almost certainly malicious.
I mean why not defend race-based preferences by comparing to the segregated water fountains of those 7 Southern States, or defend gun control by alluding to Hitler’s support for strict gun control?
See what I mean?
Some “arguments” actually hurt your own stated cause. . .IF that really IS your own cause.
I called you on your claiming you didn’t diagnose James Holmes (Whooops! As shown above – you did). . .I called you on your claiming you DID NOT say that most women killed spouses in self defense (Whooops! Again, as shown above- you DID that too).
It’s very much like you’re whipping your pants off in the middle of the street then claiming I “pantsed you!”
I’m NOT Pantsing you, Ed! You’re doing that to yourself.
in fact, I’m trying to get you to put’em back on. Have a little dignity man.
Ya know. . .with a little work and some rehearsals, we could take this act on the road, Haines & Kelly! Whaddaya say?
You could come up with some arguments that serve to undermine your stated viewpoint and I step in to try and save you from yourself.
Think about it! It COULD BE a real hoot!
Ah SHOWBIZ!
Only if you bring your nannie along to change your diaper.
Well, that was somewhat less cordial than I was expecting.
Look over my posts. I’m not kidding about this – I’ve generously offered you REAL help. . .help that you absolutely NEEDED. I believe I can say that I’ve never initiated insults or personal attacks. . .I DO reserve the right to “respond in kind,” and I made that clear from the start, so it would appear that no one can hold any such responses against me, so long as it can be shown to be a response to a previous ad hominum or insult and not initiated by me. I believe we’ve ALL agreed that that’s the acceptable practice – “the initiator is ALWAYS to blame.”
In the case of your embarassing “Boy Scouts in the News,” post you deeply offended me with that (SERIOUSLY. . .and that’s very hard to do) and that’s why I’ve tried to make clear WHY such a post comes off maliciously. I’m a lifelong Democrat (I call myself a “Zell Miller Democrat”) and self-proclaimed “NYC liberal” (pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-FREEDOM….freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, to bear arms and, of course, economic freedom).
That post of yours come off as maliciously and malevolently anti-gay. I can’t put it any plainer than that.
You (ALLEGEDLY) “defended” the viewpoint that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights,” by DELIBERATELY (and I believe maliciously) pointing to yet ANOTHER homosexual child sex scandal!
That’s an outrage Ed! It was a backhanded way of sliming gays. It’s no different than someone “defending” gun control by noting that Adolph Hitler supported it as well.
I take no pleasure in schooling you like this. I really don’t.
I used your age (I DID think you posted 90, I must’ve skimmed the post) as a possible excuse for all this. If it isn’t age, then it’s either MALICE (against the LGBTV community) OR stupidity. I honestly never saw you as THAT malicious!
I’m seeing a bit more prejudice against the chronologically gifted here than I’m comfortable with. Admittedly I’m feeling more sensitive than usual to my own 71 years, which until Mr. Wired’s decease hadn’t bothered me much because my grandmother was still running around with miscellaneous boyfriends in her 80s. So far as I can tell, age has very little to do with intelligence and judgment, either directly or inversely. This needs more thought.
If you don’t like what someone has to say, it is easiest to pick on a characteristic over which they have no control over. Mean Girls 101.
Ouch!
I think you just called me a bitch! (blushing….takes me back to a few times I spent in various holding cells, but that’s another story)
BUT Sally, it’s NOT that I “don’t like” what Ed said, I merely found it (most likely) backhandedly malicious toward homosexuals.
Seriously, why bring up a homosexual child sex scandal to make the point that “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights?” Seriously! That’s the SAME as defending gun control by noting that “Adolph Hitler was a HUGE gun ban supporter,” OR that the segregated standards of today’s affirmative action policies are just peachy “because they mirror that time-honored tradition of segregated bathrooms and water fountains.”
Those aren’t just “poor arguments,” they’re utterly disastrous ones that actually serve to undermine the initially stated premise!
My good JMK,
Perhaps, but you could have made all of those points without the insults about his age. Discussions about generational differences can be legitimate, but that is not how you presented it. How do those comments serve the debate or the general atmosphere of Alexandria?
Hmmmm OK, once again, I think Fred Gwynne (as that judge character in My Cousin Vinny) put it best, as that really IS quite a “lucid, intelligent and well thought out objection,” and I accept that premise.
Of course, in my defense, I’ve never been much of a “nice guy. I have never “suffered fools/foolish arguments gladly.”
That’s a character flaw.
I will have to look at that more closely.
Honestly WS, I was trying to explain away Ed’s disastrous penchant for undermining his own premises, even denying he said things he very clearly did say, often just a single post above. . .like when in another comments section he insisted, “I DIDN’T diagnose James Holmes” after saying (ONE just post up; ““I suspect that he has schizophrenia and this disease played a major role in his actions.”).
I figured it had to be either rank stupidity or advanced senility and since I don’t think Ed is “stupid,” well, that left just one other possibility….
In this post, using yet ANOTHER widespread homosexual child sex scandal to highlight that, “gays are no more likely than straights to be pedophiles,” also seems either insipid, OR possibly even malicious.
Yes, I know Dr Franklin used “arguing counter to one’s premise,” very effectively back in Philadelphia, BUT Benji (I may have been the only one to have called him that, but I knew him when he was just a sprout) was very astute at making sure the premise undermined was NOT the one he supported!
Benji gave a rather long and impassioned defense of “remaining effective slaves to the Royal Crown,” on (I believe) March 15th, 1776 and that clever bit of reverse reasoning DID seem to convert a number of the recalcitrant Southern states to the cause of Independence.
You see, Benji would’ve used a heterosexual child sex scandal, adding wryly that, “Straights aren’t any more likely than gays to be pedophiles, it just seems so,” which would’ve made the point far more effectively.
I don’t know, maybe I’ve been too jaded by Dr. Franklin’s brilliant arguments that I don’t appreciate the fact that other’s attempts to imitate them (no matter how flawed they might be) amount to, as Benji himself often said, “The sincerest form of flattery.”