Liberal Fallacies

[jimbob]

That is indeed a bit of a problem with this hypothesis.

My take on this:
If he actually did have working WMD, or was very close to having them, the US (and/or Israel) would find out about it in short order and bomb the crap out of his WMD program and stockpile - see for example the bombing of Osirak reactor. Saddam´s enemies knew that, too, so they could infer from the fact that he was not having the crap bombed out of his assets that he was not (yet) even close to having working WMD. So, that sort of bluff wouldn´t have worked.
Instead, Saddam went for the tightrope act of trying on one hand to look as dangerously close to having WMD as possible, while on the other hand not looking so close to having WMD that the US or Israel would have reacted to that already.
I´m sure that, if he´d seen the possibility to acquire WMD without the US or Israel stopping him before he actually acquired them, he´d have done it in a heartbeat - only he couldn´t (or didn´t see a way to do it, at least), so he didn´t.

Or he started to believe his own propaganda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason these special privileges were afforded to hetero couples has to do with things like historical tradition and the socializing costs of child-rearing and such.

Historical tradition, yes, but not anything to do with child rearing.

If it were so, we would see laws extending those same privileges to unmarried parents and prohibiting hetero couples who cannot and/or will not rear children from getting marriage licenses. Since gay people can be parents too, claiming that the distinction of who gets these privileges is connected to child rearing doesn't make sense.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Historical tradition, yes, but not anything to do with child rearing.

If it were so, we would see laws extending those same privileges to unmarried parents and prohibiting hetero couples who cannot and/or will not rear children from getting marriage licenses. Since gay people can be parents too, claiming that the distinction of who gets these privileges is connected to child rearing doesn't make sense.

The hetero marriage tradition makes as much sense as speed limits. Sure, there are some circumstances that justify speeding, but in general, it's a bad idea to blast through town at 90 mph. Morality evolves to accommodte circumstances. Evolved customs no more fit every imaginable circumstance than will your digestive system accommodate every diet or your eye operate in every frequency of light. Customs, like other rules of thumb, don't have to be perfect, just good enough to work most of the time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hetero marriage tradition, traditionally, involved many wives. Are you for that, Malcolm?

 

[SezMe]

Viewed from the perspective of homo sapiens existence, the hetero marriage tradition is a new fangled thang.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Viewed from the perspective of homo sapiens existence, the hetero marriage tradition is a new fangled thang.

You have Bronze-age swinging singles pages? Rock-carved "Top seeks submissive bottom" personal ads?
Seems to me, support in ancient literature (e.g., Homer) indicates otherwise. Also, jealousy is common across cultures and even across species, which indicates that the impulse to exclusion predates the rise of homo sapiens. I read somewhere that the degree of sexual dimorphism relates to the number of females that a male keeps (elephant seals at one extreme). Humans are slightly sexually dimorphic.
Carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child alone imposes a heavy burden. Fatherless children are bad news. The marriage custom reduces costs. Monogamy reduces conflict.

 

[Dancing David]

Just like "the sun rose in the East today" is unsupported. Consider all the "Liberals/Conservatives/Republicans/Democrats are stupid" threads. It makes JREF boring, after a while. Some people probably feel it elevates them to diss others. Maybe their wives get sexual satisfaction from door-to-door salesmen, their job at the office is to fetch coffee for people with real skills, and running others down (anonymously) is the only source of self-respect for them. That's my working hypothesis.

Asserting your conclusion does not make it so.

 

[Dancing David]

What "we all know" is false. See David Kay's testimony. Kay specifically said that "command influence" was not the problem. A further disproof is my original observation: the intelligence did not change between the Clinton administration and the Bush II administration. So, unless you mean to suggest that a Republican Governor can influence the CIA analysts of a Democratic administration, hanging faulty intelligence on Bush won't work.

Just like "the sun rose in the East today" is unsupported. Consider all the "Liberals/Conservatives/Republicans/Democrats are stupid" threads. It makes JREF boring, after a while. Some people probably feel it elevates them to diss others. Maybe their wives get sexual satisfaction from door-to-door salesmen, their job at the office is to fetch coffee for people with real skills, and running others down (anonymously) is the only source of self-respect for them. That's my working hypothesis.

 

[Dancing David]

The hetero marriage tradition makes as much sense as speed limits. Sure, there are some circumstances that justify speeding, but in general, it's a bad idea to blast through town at 90 mph. Morality evolves to accommodte circumstances. Evolved customs no more fit every imaginable circumstance than will your digestive system accommodate every diet or your eye operate in every frequency of light. Customs, like other rules of thumb, don't have to be perfect, just good enough to work most of the time.

Ah yes, customs like racism, slavery and female genital mutilation.

 

[Dancing David]

You have Bronze-age swinging singles pages? Rock-carved "Top seeks submissive bottom" personal ads?
Seems to me, support in ancient literature (e.g., Homer) indicates otherwise. Also, jealousy is common across cultures and even across species, which indicates that the impulse to exclusion predates the rise of homo sapiens. I read somewhere that the degree of sexual dimorphism relates to the number of females that a male keeps (elephant seals at one extreme). Humans are slightly sexually dimorphic.
Carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child alone imposes a heavy burden. Fatherless children are bad news. The marriage custom reduces costs. Monogamy reduces conflict.

Across species!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The hetero marriage tradition makes as much sense as speed limits.

How so?

Speed limits benefit the public by reducing accidents. Hetero marriage tradition doesn't serve any public interest that extending those privileges to gay people wouldn't also serve.

(To attempt your analogy, it would be like saying speed limits only serve a public interest that is also served by not having speed limits.)

ETA: What valid public interest is served by laws that prohibit issuing marriage licenses to gay couples? I've shown that the idea that it's connected to child rearing doesn't wash unless you assume that gay couples are inferior at child rearing. This is analogous to the assumption behind anti-miscegenation laws (which were based on the assumption that blacks are inferior to whites).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child alone imposes a heavy burden. Fatherless children are bad news. The marriage custom reduces costs. Monogamy reduces conflict.

Sounds like an argument in favor of gay marriage if anything. It still ignores the fact that monogamy and having a father are not issues determined by a marriage license. (Wasn't that your premise? That a marriage license merely grants a number of privileges. It certainly doesn't determine who can have children or who can be a father engaged in child rearing or who remains in a monogamous relationship.)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How so? Speed limits benefit the public by reducing accidents. Hetero marriage tradition doesn't serve any public interest that extending those privileges to gay people wouldn't also serve...

Marriage confers benefits to married couples: tax-free inheritance, access to employer-funded health insurance, Social Security survivor benefits. If you advocate abolition of inheritance and estate taxes across the board, we agree. If you advocate expanding the class of people who benefit from exemption from these taxes to homosexual couples (who's checking, btw?), we disagree. If you advocate repeal of Social Security altogether, we agree. If you advocate extension of survivor benefits to partners of employed homosexuals, we disagree. In Hawaii, State law mandates that employers provide health insurance. Some employers (including the State and counties) offer policies that include spouses and dependent children. One of the claims by a party to the original Baer, et. al. v. Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health for their restriction of marriage licenses to heterosexual couples was that the policy denied her partnet access to her health insurance policy. Courts may allow non-government organizations to renegotiate compensation (redefinition of marriage is a material change in the contract), but I don't see governments changing their compensation packages. Taxpayers will pay increased health insurance costs for people who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition. If you advocate that government-employers compensate all employees in cash only (no non-cash benefits, no unemployment insurance, etc.) and leave the terms of private-sector employment contracts to employers and employees (no mandated benefits, no unemployment insurance, etc.) we agree. If you advocate for an extension of the current spousal benefits in employment contracts to homosexual couples, we disagree.

Redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples is a tax increase on all heterosexuals and all celibates of either orientation. The cost/benefit considerations that may have justified heterosexual spousal benefits do not weigh the same in homosexual partnerships.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Across species!

Typically obtuse. You've apparently never seen Animal Planet or Nature video of elk or elephant seals or lions or horses fighting for access to mates or in defense of their harem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Marriage confers benefits to married couples: tax-free inheritance, access to employer-funded health insurance, Social Security survivor benefits. If you advocate abolition of inheritance and estate taxes across the board, we agree. If you advocate expanding the class of people who benefit from exemption from these taxes to homosexual couples (who's checking, btw?), we disagree. If you advocate repeal of Social Security altogether, we agree. If you advocate extension of survivor benefits to partners of employed homosexuals, we disagree. In Hawaii, State law mandates that employers provide health insurance. Some employers (including the State and counties) offer policies that include spouses and dependent children. One of the claims by a party to the original Baer, et. al. v. Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health for their restriction of marriage licenses to heterosexual couples was that the policy denied her partnet access to her health insurance policy. Courts may allow non-government organizations to renegotiate compensation (redefinition of marriage is a material change in the contract), but I don't see governments changing their compensation packages. Taxpayers will pay increased health insurance costs for people who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of a very expensive medical condition. If you advocate that government-employers compensate all employees in cash only (no non-cash benefits, no unemployment insurance, etc.) and leave the terms of private-sector employment contracts to employers and employees (no mandated benefits, no unemployment insurance, etc.) we agree. If you advocate for an extension of the current spousal benefits in employment contracts to homosexual couples, we disagree.

You failed to address my question that you quoted. How so? How are speed limits like laws banning gay marriage?

What valid state interest is served by denying gay people marriage licenses?

Redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples is a tax increase on all heterosexuals and all celibates of either orientation.

No it isn't. And casting the issue as a "redefinition of marriage" is not correct. (DOMA and Prop 8 attempted to re-define marriage.) If DOMA and/or Prop 8 is struck down, there will be no new tax or tax increase. In fact, your argument would have to cast DOMA and Prop 8 as tax cuts somehow since they are relatively new laws.

The cost/benefit considerations that may have justified heterosexual spousal benefits do not weigh the same in homosexual partnerships.

Says who? Show me that cost/benefit analysis.

Even if this statement is true, so what? As mentioned in another thread, ending slavery came as an obvious and large cost to slave owners, but that was no reason not to end an institution that denies liberties to a group of people.

 

[elbe]

Typically obtuse. You've apparently never seen Animal Planet or Nature video of elk or elephant seals or lions or horses fighting for access to mates or in defense of their harem.

You think that's jealousy at play?

But if we're throwing in animal behavior; infidelity, polygamy, and homosexual coupling have all been observed in other animals. Monogamy is, likely, far less common than polygamy or "who ever is around".

 

[Chaos]

Or he started to believe his own propaganda

Or that. It´s sort of an occupational hazard in that kind of career field.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You failed to address my question that you quoted. How so? How are speed limits like laws banning gay marriage?

That's not my contention. Speed limits and heterosexual marriage are evolved customs. Laws and traditions (usually) evolve in response to cost/benefit considerations (see Posner, "The Law and Economics Movement", AER).

What valid state interest is served by denying gay people marriage licenses?

Reducing the costs that expanding the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples would entail.

... ending slavery came as an obvious and large cost to slave owners, but that was no reason not to end an institution that denies liberties to a group of people.

What "liberty" does restricting the definition of "marriage" to heterosexual couples deny? You're free to share living accommodations with any consenting adult. You're free to use any number of consenting adults of either sex or any sexual orientation for sexual purposes. You're free to call yourselves "married" or "a flock of sparrows" if you like (we still have free speech in this country). You're NOT free to make me pay for your choices.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What are the costs of allowing same-sex marriages, Malcolm?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What are the costs of allowing same-sex marriages, Malcolm?

See #193 for some.