Liberal Fallacies

[RandFan]

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.

"Moral hazard"? What are you talking about. Interracial marriage was considered a "moral hazard". You don't need to work so hard to prove me wright.

"Redefinition"? That's an appeal to tradition. Whose definition? I don't see one in the constitution. Your argument is demonstrably fallacious. Marriage was between one man and many women for centuries and it was about ownership, property rights. Spouses were bought and sold. Did you ever hear of "bride price"? You should look into the history of marriage before you make such silly and fallacious arguments. "Property" THAT was the definition of marriage for centuries.

Equal protection. The families of gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as any other American family. To deny them that right is to take a bigoted position.

 

[elbe]

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).

You never provided any cites. You just said a book you read said it. What I'm noticing now is that you're adding extra criteria ("racially disparate") that you didn't before. Nice job trying to weasel out.

Is your cite Griggs v Duke Power Co.? I take it you haven't actually read about that case. Interestingly it doesn't really help your case against the racist accusations of the Bell Curve if the cite you give is a case about racist hiring practices which, I'll assume, the book disagreed with the results of the case.

The fact remains that companies do test for skills, which was what you said you wanted them to do but they didn't.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... 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?

Customs evolve in response to costs and benefits of alternative social arrangements. Your question poses a false dichotomy. The answer is "Yes; both".

... 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?

Not at all. The point was that while speeding and auto theft are not crimes under certain circumstances (justified to prevent a greater harm), laws cannot anticipate every possible application. They only have to be "good enough for government work". Yes, some hetero couples do not have children. Yes, some homosexual couples do have children. Frequency and costs matter.

 

[RandFan]

Customs evolve in response to costs and benefits of alternative social arrangements.

You've yet to show any such analysis. You just assert there is a cost in the face of facts to the contrary.

Yes, some hetero couples do not have children. Yes, some homosexual couples do have children. Frequency and costs matter.

"Some"? Oh come on. You've been given the figure many times. Can you at least be honest enough to admit it's more than "some"?

sources There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Millions of children is not "some". They deserve equal protection. Even if there were an increased cost, and you haven't demonstrated that there is, it would not be sufficient to deny equal protection to these families.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"Moral hazard"? What are you talking about. Interracial marriage was considered a "moral hazard". You don't need to work so hard to prove me wright.

"Moral Hazard" refers to changes in behavior in response to subsidization of costly behavior. As in the difference between what people eat in restaurants that offer a defined meal for $__X__ versus what people eat in an all-you-can-eat-for-$__X__ buffet. As in "Don't worry; the kids can swim and the boat's insured". Rates of risky behavior calculated from the frequency in an unsubsidized population will not generalize to the population in which the same risk is subsidized. The health insurance costs computed on the basis of, say, AIDS frequency in the population at large, fraction of total workforce employed by government and estimates of the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals, will not generalize when governments subsidize same-sex marriage through spousal benefits.

"Redefinition"? That's an appeal to tradition. Whose definition?

The traditional definition.

Equal protection. The families of gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as any other American family. To deny them that right is to take a bigoted position.

To frame this discussion as a matter of "rights" is to dismiss from consideration cost/benefit analysis.
Have your ceremony. Just don't make me pay for it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Can you at least be honest enough to admit it's more than "some"?

a) Can you be civil enough to make a case w/o the attitude?
b) How is this dishonest? How much more than "some" must "more than 'some'" be to be more than some?

 

[RandFan]

Still ignoring argumetns I see:

¹"Moral Hazard" refers to changes in behavior in response to subsidization of costly behavior. As in the difference between what people eat in restaurants that offer a defined meal for $__X__ versus what people eat in an all-you-can-eat-for-$__X__ buffet. As in "Don't worry; the kids can swim and the boat's insured". Rates of risky behavior calculated from the frequency in an unsubsidized population will not generalize to the population in which the same risk is subsidized. The health insurance costs computed on the basis of, say, AIDS frequency in the population at large, fraction of total workforce employed by government and estimates of the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals, will not generalize when governments subsidize same-sex marriage through spousal benefits.

Which is to say absolutely nothing to support your claim. Nada. Zip. It's gibberish. WHAT IS THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS? When you know it you will be able to justify your claim. Until then you have made a baseless claim that you won't even venture an attempt to justify. Instead you spout nonsense.

The traditional definition.

???

A.) Appealing to tradition is a fallacy. B.) The traditional definition is one man and MANY women. M - A - N - Y (that means more than one woman). The traditional definition has been man and his property.

To frame this discussion as a matter of "rights" is to dismiss from consideration cost/benefit analysis.

A.) Equal rights are not subject to cost/benefit analysis. B.) You've never provided a cost benefit analysis.

Have your ceremony. Just don't make me pay for it.

A.) No one is asking you to pay for any ceremony. B.) On the contrary the evidence is that gay marriage will improve the economy (a fact you ignore over and over). The economic impact of gay marriage is expected to be a plus (see prop 8 trial expert testimony).

Where is the cost benefit analysis? Where Malcolm? How do you keep asserting there is an increased cost if you cannot demonstrate that claim? Huh? You are a proponent of denying equal protection to gays and lesbians. If you are going to harm people you ought to have a valid reason (cost ISN'T a valid reason) and you ought to have the evidence to back it up?

Got evidence? Got your cost benefit analysis? Will we see that soon Malcolm? How much revenue will gay marriage bring in? You don't even know do you? You've never looked at the facts. You simply close your eyes, plug your ears and declare that the many millions of children of gays and lesbians are not worthy of equal protection. And you do so based solely on ignorance.

If there were a cost it would not justify discrimination. But you can't even give us a cost benefit analysis so you don't even know.

 

[RandFan]

a) Can you be civil enough to make a case w/o the attitude?
b) How is this dishonest? How much more than "some" must "more than 'some'" be to be more than some?

A.) Could you not pretend that millions of children are not "some"?

B.) You've never heard of the term "minimizing"? To minimize is to be dishonest. Millions of children are not "some". Millions of children are significant. The word "some" is very dishonest in this context because it reduces the suffering of these families which is considerable (see testimony in the Prop 8 trial) to "some".

It's not okay to discriminate against even "some" but it's an atrocity to deny equal protection for many millions.

 

[bruto]

Malcolm, do you have some actual evidence that there is a moral "hazard" consequent on civil unions or gay marriages, and if so, that it is calculable, and if calculable, that it is a net loss for others? After all these years of gay unions in significant populations, we ought to get some real numbers. You can't speculate for ever.

In the "some" versus "many" argument, you seem to be referring to the marriages themselves, and leaving out the effect on the actual children. The unfortunate fact remains that children of gay unions do not have the legal protections that children of heterosexual unions do. You can argue till you're blue in the face about rights and privileges for couples, but it is utterly irrelevant to that question: what justifies the unequal treatment of the children in gay based families, other than your estimation that their number is not significant enough? Are the perceived sins of their parents a sufficient reason, in your estimation, to set them aside from everyone else?

How long do you suppose an issue must be in the past before bigots stop treating it as if it were in an uncertain future?

 

[rustypouch]

"Moral Hazard" refers to changes in behavior in response to subsidization of costly behavior. As in the difference between what people eat in restaurants that offer a defined meal for $__X__ versus what people eat in an all-you-can-eat-for-$__X__ buffet. As in "Don't worry; the kids can swim and the boat's insured". Rates of risky behavior calculated from the frequency in an unsubsidized population will not generalize to the population in which the same risk is subsidized. The health insurance costs computed on the basis of, say, AIDS frequency in the population at large, fraction of total workforce employed by government and estimates of the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals, will not generalize when governments subsidize same-sex marriage through spousal benefits.The traditional definition.To frame this discussion as a matter of "rights" is to dismiss from consideration cost/benefit analysis.
Have your ceremony. Just don't make me pay for it.

Cute.

Keep it up. You amuse me.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Which is to say absolutely nothing to support your claim. Nada. Zip. It's gibberish. ... baseless claim ...spout nonsense.

Again:
(Malcolm): "a) Can you be civil enough to make a case w/o the attitude?"
Drop the attitude and we may continue the discussion. Did you see any personal attack in this:...

"Moral Hazard" refers to changes in behavior in response to subsidization of costly behavior....To frame this discussion as a matter of "rights" is to dismiss from consideration cost/benefit analysis. Have your ceremony. Just don't make me pay for it.

Try civility,

 

[RandFan]

Again:
(Malcolm): "a) Can you be civil enough to make a case w/o the attitude?"
Drop the attitude and we may continue the discussion. Did you see any personal attack in this:...Try civility,

A.) I don't care whether you continue the discussion or not. B.) I note that since you are backed into a corner and that you cannot defend your claims you are seeking a way out and a way to make it my fault.

Try addressing arguments and answering questions without all the "poor me" nonsense. Put on your big boy pants.

FTR: You are often rude and your ideas are bigoted and are particularly offensive to gays and lesbians. And hiding behind the "some of my best friends are" defense was a Freudian admission that you know your ideas are bigoted and offensive.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, do you have some actual evidence that there is a moral "hazard" consequent on civil unions or gay marriages, and if so, that it is calculable, and if calculable, that it is a net loss for others?

This is the real discussion. Thanks. People respond to cost/benefit considerations. One of the plaintifs in the original Baer, et. al. versus Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health gave as her ground for complaint that the State's denial of marriage to same-sex couples denied her partner access to her State-funded health plan. I expect that health care costs for a lesbial spouse would be lower than for a female spouse of a male government employee (pregnancy is dangerous). OTOH, I expect that health care costs for male spouses of male employees would be larger than for male spouses of female government employees.
No. I don't have much hard data, but neither does the other side of this argument offer much (and RandFan's cited numbers are strange and only tangentially relevant). Advocates for legally-mandated redefinition of marriage recommend a leap into the dark. I see a risk of significant costs.

 

[A'isha]

Thanks. People respond to cost/benefit considerations. One of the plaintifs in the original Baer, et. al. versus Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health gave as her ground for complaint that the State's denial of marriage to same-sex couples denier her partnet access to her State-funded health plan. I expect that health care costs for a lesbial spouse would be lower than for a female spouse of a male government employee (pregnancy is dangerous).

So, then do you support lesbian marriage? Yes or no?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(attitude deleted)... And hiding behind the "some of my best friends are" defense was a Freudian admission that you know your ideas are bigoted and offensive.

What constitutes contrary evidence in your view, then? Is the "bigot" accusation impervious to empirical disproof? That's like having "hydrogen bomb" as a chess piece that either side can use to end the game as win for the side that uses it.
Okay, then, I'll use it: RandFan is a bigot. Therefore, I win.

 

[A'isha]

Okay, then, I'll use it: RandFan is a bigot. Therefore, I win.

Except we can point to the bigoted positions you hold. You cannot do the same for RandFan.

 

[RandFan]

This is the real discussion. Thanks. People respond to cost/benefit considerations. One of the plaintifs in the original Baer, et. al. versus Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health gave as her ground for complaint that the State's denial of marriage to same-sex couples denier her partnet access to her State-funded health plan. I expect that health care costs for a lesbial spouse would be lower than for a female spouse of a male government employee (pregnancy is dangerous). OTOH, I expect that health care costs for male spouses of male employees would be larger than for male spouses of female government employees.
No. I don't have much hard data, but neither does the other side of this argument offer much (and RandFan's cited numbers are strange and only tangentially relevant). Advocates for legally-mandated redefinition of marriage recommend a leap into the dark. I see a risk of significant costs.

Where is your cost benefit analysis? You are speculating. And, FTR, Canada has allowed gay marriage for some time now. Surely the proponents for prohibition of gay marriage have SOME numbers? Why weren't those numbers presented in the prop 8 trial? Why have you no evidence and I have findings of fact in a trial?

Sorry Malcolm but speculation is neither skepticism nor is it critical thinking. It's just an ad hoc justification to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Have you read the findings of fact from the Prop 8 trial?

 

[RandFan]

Okay, then, I'll use it: RandFan is a bigot.

I may very well be. I'm human. I try to be cognizant of my biases and avoid bigotry but it's not impossible for me to be a bigot. I would want to know that so I can change. What bigoted position do I hold?

Oh, and BTW, your bigoted position is to deny millions of children equal opportunity which they are guaranteed by the Constitution. That's pretty damn bigoted.

 

[RandFan]

This is the real discussion. Thanks. People respond to cost/benefit considerations. One of the plaintifs in the original Baer, et. al. versus Miike suit against the State of Hawaii Department of Health gave as her ground for complaint that the State's denial of marriage to same-sex couples denied her partner access to her State-funded health plan. I expect that health care costs for a lesbial spouse would be lower than for a female spouse of a male government employee (pregnancy is dangerous). OTOH, I expect that health care costs for male spouses of male employees would be larger than for male spouses of female government employees.
No. I don't have much hard data, but neither does the other side of this argument offer much (and RandFan's cited numbers are strange and only tangentially relevant). Advocates for legally-mandated redefinition of marriage recommend a leap into the dark. I see a risk of significant costs.

So, then do you support lesbian marriage? Yes or no?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So, then do you support lesbian marriage? Yes or no?

Do you recommend volleyball? Yes or no?
I'm not recommending any any lifestyle. I support repeal of inheritance and estate taxes. I support a return to a legal regime of freedom of association and freedom of contract in the private sector. I support policies that would ban non-job-related employment discrimination by government agencies and that would mandate that government agencies pay their employees in cash (you want a pension or a health plan, buy one from your wages). Add medical and financial power of attorney and there's nothing left to argue about, unless you want to reach into my bank balance.