Liberal Fallacies

[A'isha]

1. My "behavior" is almost entirely unobserved by participants to this discussion, who base their characterization "bigot" and "racist" entirely on the positions I take in JREF discussions of public policy.

Yes. And those positions are blatantly bigoted (and you cite a blatantly racist source).

If words are defined by their use, then here on JREF "bigot" and "racist" really mean "someone who disagrees with a strident socialist".

No, they don't. This is just more of your bizarre efforts at redefining words to try and derail the actual conversation.

The cost/benefit consideration that (might) justify heterosexual spousal benefits do not apply with the same force to homosexual unions.

So you assert, without actually having done any kind of cost/benefit consideration worthy of the name.

Ant introduced "racist" to an earlier discussion.

Because you cited a book of racist claptrap (ironically written by someone who is actually more progressive than you are when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

1. My "behavior" is almost entirely unobserved by participants to this discussion, who base their characterization "bigot" and "racist" entirely on the positions I take in JREF discussions of public policy.

Yes. And those positions are blatantly bigoted...

Suppose you know that {3,11, 43, 53, 97} is a subset of A and that |A|=100. Would you confidently assert that A is the set of the first 100 odd primes? Maybe A is the set of the first 100 positive integers. Maybe it's a set of page numbers from Moby Dick (not all of them, obviously).

(and you cite a blatantly racist source).

For what? I don't recall citing any source in the discussion of same-sex marriage. I cited Murray's Losing Ground in an earlier discussion. Losing Ground is about moral hazard. There's nothing "racist" (undefined term that apparently means "a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist") about it.

If words are defined by their use, then here on JREF "bigot" and "racist" really mean "someone who disagrees with a strident socialist".

No, they don't. This is just more of your bizarre efforts at redefining words to try and derail the actual conversation.

If the "actual conversation" is NOT about the words "bigotry" and "racism", let's agree to drop those terms from the discussion and get back to cost/benefit analysis of policy options and the relation between institutional structure and incentives.

Redefinition of marriage is a tax increase. Traditions evolve. The cost/benefit consideration that (might) justify heterosexual spousal benefits do not apply with the same force to homosexual unions.

So you assert, without actually having done any kind of cost/benefit consideration worthy of the name.

True. Some costs are obvious and potentially large (employer-funded health care for AIDS-afflicted spouses of employees of government agencies). Some benefits are potentially large (promoting marriage within gay culture may reduce the number of sexual partners per man-year and so reduce STD inccidence). At least I attempt it. Framing the discussion as a matter of "rights" stuns critical facilities.

... it would help if "criticism" contained something to address other than name-calling.
...
Ant introduced "racist" to an earlier discussion.

Because you cited a book of racist claptrap (ironically written by someone who is actually more progressive than you are when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage).

False, but that's an easy mistake to make. I cited Murray's Losing Ground (which is not about race and has little to do with race). I have read (but not cited anywhere that I recall) Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve. So long as "racist" remains an undefined term, I can't say whether it's "racist claprap" or not. I did not see in The Bell Curve any assertion-as-to-fact that looked obviously unlikely to me, so "claptrap" is wide of the mark.
Ant apparently has not read it. What's the word for passing judgment before you have evidence? "Prejudice", right?

Interesting meditation on the psychology of "more victimized than thou" here

Another one here.

... women like Meg Lanker-Simmons are caught in a trap that has nothing to do with (mythically) rape-minded men and everything to do with the world easy contraception and feminist ideology have given us.

I think that underneath the obvious political maneuvering, screaming about a nonexistent rape pandemic is a displacement activity. Campus feminists do it because confronting their actual powerlessness and the jaws of the dilemma that created it would be too painful for them to face.
...
One thing I am sure of is that displaced moral panic and silly, counterfactual yabbering about “rape culture” will not solve the problem.

Substitute "racism" or "bigotry based on sexual orientation" for "rape culture" and the point is the same.

Either the grievance-mongers are head cases or paid Democratic Party shills. Those are the only possible explanations. /SARC]

 

[Mister Earl]

Malcom? I haven't been here all that long, and I lurk far more than I post, but let me tell you something.

AntPogo does not make a claim, ever, without being able to back that up with references. Every. Single. Time. If AntPogo tells you you're using a racist source, I'd double and triple check it before saying it isn't. Because if I'm right about this, AntPogo is about to quote you all the proof you'd need.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcom? I haven't been here all that long, and I lurk far more than I post, but let me tell you something.

AntPogo does not make a claim, ever, without being able to back that up with references. Every. Single. Time. If AntPogo tells you you're using a racist source, I'd double and triple check it before saying it isn't.

She hasn't read either Losing Ground or The Bell Curve. I have.

Because if I'm right about this, AntPogo is about to quote you all the proof you'd need.

She will cite people who agree with her (Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Gould, Konner). She will not quote a line from The Bell Curve and explain why it's "racist" (still an undefined term, unless it means "caucasian who disagrees with a socialist").

 

[elbe]

Malcom? I haven't been here all that long, and I lurk far more than I post, but let me tell you something.

AntPogo does not make a claim, ever, without being able to back that up with references. Every. Single. Time. If AntPogo tells you you're using a racist source, I'd double and triple check it before saying it isn't. Because if I'm right about this, AntPogo is about to quote you all the proof you'd need.

They've done that dance before. Malcolm will, as with any subject, assert that his sources are right even when demonstrated to be false. Usually he'll just ignore the part where they've been shown to be wrong, ignore requests to address them, and just keep asserting his conclusion when his premises are falling apart. Occasionally he'll pretend he's the word grammar checker for some reason beyond my ken.

For what it's worth Malcolm will cite his own sources, usually from a very limited set.

 

[A'isha]

Suppose you know that {3,11, 43, 53, 97} is a subset of A and that |A|=100. Would you confidently assert that A is the set of the first 100 odd primes? Maybe A is the set of the first 100 positive integers. Maybe it's a set of page numbers from Moby Dick (not all of them, obviously). For what?

And this what, exactly, to do with your bigoted position on same-sex marriage?

There's nothing "racist" (undefined term that apparently means "a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist") about it.

"Racism" has a common dictionary definition, one that your strawman definition resembles in no way, shape, or form.

If the "actual conversation" is NOT about the words "bigotry" and "racism", let's agree to drop those terms from the discussion and get back to cost/benefit analysis of policy options and the relation between institutional structure and incentives.

We'd love it if you actually did that, instead of perpetually trying to redefine terms (like "racism" and "compulsory education").

True. Some costs are obvious and potentially large (employer-funded health care for AIDS-afflicted spouses of employees of government agencies). Some benefits are potentially large (promoting marriage within gay culture may reduce the number of sexual partners per man-year and so reduce STD inccidence). At least I attempt it.

No, you haven't. You made rank assertions (based solely on what you want to believe, as far as I can tell), and you've completely refused to address the actual analyses that have been provided to you.

I cited Murray's Losing Ground (which is not about race and has little to do with race). I have read (but not cited anywhere that I recall) Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve.

Your recall isn't all that great, since you did it less than a month ago right in this very thread.

So long as "racist" remains an undefined term, I can't say whether it's "racist claprap" or not.

"Racist", despite your attempts to redefine it, is not an undefined term.

Either the grievance-mongers are head cases or paid Democratic Party shills. Those are the only possible explanations. /SARC]

Your link has nothing to do with your words.

 

[A'isha]

Malcom? I haven't been here all that long, and I lurk far more than I post, but let me tell you something.

AntPogo does not make a claim, ever, without being able to back that up with references. Every. Single. Time. If AntPogo tells you you're using a racist source, I'd double and triple check it before saying it isn't. Because if I'm right about this, AntPogo is about to quote you all the proof you'd need.

I haven't done much quoting of them, but I've certainly provided plenty of cites to Malcolm about The Bell Curve. He just dismisses them out of hand.

She hasn't read either Losing Ground or The Bell Curve.

You have no idea what I've read and haven't read.

She will cite people who agree with her (Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Gould, Konner).

See?

She will not quote a line from The Bell Curve and explain why it's "racist"

That's because A) it's a red herring, and B) the sources I provided to you already do plenty of quoting of The Bell Curve and explaining, in depth, why it's racist claptrap.

 

[Chaos]

1. My "behavior" is almost entirely unobserved by participants to this discussion, who base their characterization "bigot" and "racist" entirely on the positions I take in JREF discussions of public policy.

That IS behavior. You are taking bigoted positions.

If words are defined by their use, then here on JREF "bigot" and "racist" really mean "someone who disagrees with a strident socialist".

What is socialist about treating gay marriage the same as straight marriage?

2. Presuming the concluson. Of course we disagree. Redefinition of marriage is a tax increase.

You keep repeating that claim, but you have not demonstrated that it is true.

Traditions evolve. The cost/benefit consideration that (might) justify heterosexual spousal benefits do not apply with the same force to homosexual unions.

You keep repeating that claim, but you have not demonstrated that it is true.

3. Of course, it would help if "criticism" contained something to address other than name-calling.

People have provided reasoned criticism of your positions over and over and over again, and you keep reacting with the same tired old BS. If you want to be taking seriously in a discussion, you should grow some spine here.

4. I accept completely Reiver's definition of "bigotry" (the instant case). My definition of "government" is close to Weber's, differing only in precision ("largest dealer" instead of "monopoly") and the elimination of circularity (Weber uses "legitimate" to describe State violence). My definition of "slavery" is exactly that of Walter Williams.

I don´t give a wet fart what you define how. No matter what you believe - or pretend to believe -, you cannot change reality be redefining terms. School is not slavery. People who disagree with you are not socialists. Pointing out bigotry is not name-calling. Evasions and sophistry and arbitrary re-defining of terms are not proper debate behavior.

5. That's what personalization of the discussion accomplishes. RandFan introduced "bigot" to the discussion. Ant introduced "racist" to an earlier discussion.
Interesting meditation on the psychology of "more victimized than thou" here.

Cut the BS and adress some of the questions people have asked - and this time, seriously and honestly.

 

[elbe]

What is socialist about treating gay marriage the same as straight marriage?

He doesn't like gay marriage and he doesn't like socialism. So, you know, they're like the same thing.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I haven't done much quoting of them, but I've certainly provided plenty of cites to Malcolm about The Bell Curve. He just dismisses them out of hand.

That's right. You would, too, if you've read Gould's idiotic The Mismeasure of Man, Dawkins' profound The Selfish Gene, E.O. Wilson's Naturalist, and Arthur Jensen's rebuttal in New Scientist of the criticisms of his work by Kamin and Rose.

You have no idea what I've read and haven't read.

It's an inference from your leap to a discussion of The Bell Curve in rebuttal to my cite of Losing Ground (else, why not dispute that directly?) and your failure to cite even one line from The Bell Curve in support of your characterization of The Bell Curve as "racist". Have you read either of these books?

 

[iknownothing]

Attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers

When you post such hyperbole I assume you don't mean to be taken seriously.

In the era before contraception, there was a much closer relation between regular sexual contact between heterosexual partners and childbearing. Traditions, customs, and morality evolve. Laws do not have to fit every imaginable situation to be "good enough for government work". Sometimes it's okay to steal a car and exceed the speed limit. That doesn't make laws against auto theft and speeding poor policy.

None of that really follows what you said before. You said that your position is based on the fact that "hetero spousal benefits shield children." When asked about that, you suddenly abandoned your interest in marriage as a shield for children, and made vague references to tradition and auto theft. Are you saying A) that marriage laws should be based on protecting children, or B) that laws are based on tradition, even though society has evolved to a point where they don't fit like they used to? Because if A, that's no argument against gay marriage. And if B, that's only an argument for modifying the laws as needed to fit modern situations.

And I don't know what point you're trying to make about auto theft and speeding. I agree, the fact that people commit crimes doesn't mean you don't have laws against them. How are you relating crime to gay marriage?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Malcolm will, as with any subject, assert that his sources are right even when demonstrated to be false.

"Demonstration" is another term with a JREF-specific meaning.

 

[elbe]

"Demonstration" is another term with a JREF-specific meaning.

Hey, remember when you said that companies weren't allowed to test potential employees and how you "neglected" to provide any real evidence that they couldn't do that? And remember when various people pointed out that their companies did just that? And when pressed for evidence you just dropped the whole topic without admitting you were wrong or anything? Ah, good times, right?

 

[A'isha]

That's right. You would, too, if you've read Gould's idiotic The Mismeasure of Man,

I am entirely unsurprised that you consider Gould's work to be "idiotic".

Dawkins' profound The Selfish Gene,

Which has nothing to do with the subject of The Bell Curve. Dawkins himself specifically specifically disputed any comparison between his book and Murray's, and flat-out stated had nothing whatsoever to do with what Murray was arguing about race.

E.O. Wilson's Naturalist,

I haven't read that one, though I have read his Consilience. I am, however, aware of the problems and criticisms of his human sociobiological theories, so I have no idea why you think what he has to say changes or mitigates in any way the racist nonsense espoused in The Bell Curve.

and Arthur Jensen's rebuttal in New Scientist of the criticisms of his work by Kamin and Rose.

Jensen has been criticised by a lot more people than just Kamin and Rose. And a lot of his "work" was directly funded by white supremacist and eugenicist organizations like the Pioneer Fund (to the tune of millions), who have a propensity for distributing large sums of money to people who support their racialist views regardless of scientific accuracy, such as this guy.

It's an inference from your leap to a discussion of The Bell Curve in rebuttal to my cite of Losing Ground (else, why not dispute that directly?)

Because I have read The Bell Curve and the voluminous criticism of it, and know that anything its author says or writes about the subject is suspect and unreliable at best.

and your failure to cite even one line from The Bell Curve in support of your characterization of The Bell Curve as "racist".

Because, as I keep telling you, that's a complete red herring, designed so that you can sidetrack the discussion and distract from the analyses and criticisms of Murray's book by nitpicking and arguing about "single lines", which is pointless and stupid and I'm not playing your little game.

EDIT: And you're spending so much attention focusing on what I said about Murray and his book to avoid addressing the many, many questions and requests for actual evidence that have been put to you.

 

[RandFan]

1. I have said this often enough that we're just repeating ourselves. The benefits attached to marriage are not "rights". The cost/benefit considerations that (might) make spousal benefits a good idea do not apply with the same force to homosexual marriage as to heterosexual marriage.
2. Is it legal to marry oneself in your State?
3. Tell him to set up house together. Have a ceremony. Invite friends to throw rice. Call yourselves "married" (or "a flock of sparrows"; we have free speech in this country). Just don't dip into my bank balance to do it.
4. So you have written previously. We disagree.

1. SCOTUS declared it a right. It's a right.
2. I've no idea what that has to do with anything. I suppose you think it is cute but it doesn't at all address why two people of the same sex cannot marry.
3. This ignores many facts. Like families of gays and lesbians don't enjoy the same legal protection that other families enjoy.
4. it's a demonstrable fact. I have the right to marry another person whom I love to form a family and enjoy rights for that family and my friend doesn't. That's not arguable.

 

[RandFan]

This makes no sense at all. People value some education (don't try sell your English Literature PhD to a masonry contractor). Education is not everywhere and always the best use of time.
At least you dropped the adjective "public" before "education" in "Private industries value education". That's progress.

State subsidized "public" (that IS it's definition) school is valued by private industry. That's a fact. It will heavily determine how well you do in life if you get an education, public, private, private with public funding, parochial, home school, etc.

If it were worthless private industry wouldn't value it.

Government-operated schools are to education what collective farms are to nutrition.

Argument by assertion. A fallacy. There is no evidence for this at all. You've not provided any evidence that children get nothing of value. You have not demonstrated that state subsidized public education is not a significant value and that children don't get valuable information that private industry wants them to have.

 

[RandFan]

Some do. Some lose more than they would gain in an unsibsidized market in education services.

An argument by assertion.

Across industries subsidized goods are overconsumed and monopolies deliver shoddy goods at high prices.

So the military (a monopoly) turns out shoddy goods (soldiers)?

 

[RandFan]

So "bigotry" is just a distraction, like...

No, when you don't let a black person marry a white person simply because of their collor of their skin that's bigotry. It's just as bigoted to not let two men marry each other because of their sex thus denying equal protection for their children.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, when you don't let a black person marry a white person simply because of their collor of their skin that's bigotry. It's just as bigoted to not let two men marry each other because of their sex thus denying equal protection for their children.

Frequency (of children, of medical access) and costs (of medical treatment, of forgone inheritance tax income) matter. So does moral hazard matter. Official redefinition of "marriage" (with concomitant extension of spousal benefits to the newly-expanded class of recipients) is a tax increase on people who pay more for those benefits (e.g., taxpayers supporting health benefits for partners of government employers) than they receive. It's idiotic to ignore this point. It's just as idiotic to cry "bigotry" in the absence of any evidence beyond a disagreement over policy that turns on costs and benefits.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Hey, remember when you said that companies weren't allowed to test potential employees and how you "neglected" to provide any real evidence that they couldn't do that? And remember when various people pointed out that their companies did just that? And when pressed for evidence you just dropped the whole topic without admitting you were wrong or anything? Ah, good times, right?

Flat false. I provided the evidence (Ant reminded me. The appendix to The Bell Curve that relates to trends in employment law. Griggs v. Duke Power). We discussed how companies risk legal costs if test has a racially disparate impact and face certain legal costs even if they win).