Suicide, Responsibility, and the Teenaged Brain

Anti-gay activists want to duck responsibility for anti-gay bullying and teen suicide. They occasionally veer into sheer lunacy, as when they claim gay teens are in despair because society is too accepting of homosexuality. But there’s one dodge I find particularly offensive. From the comments on NOM’s Facebook page:

The only people responsible for the suicides are the people that comitted them.

Nobody forces anyone to take his own life; ergo, only those who commit suicide are responsible.

Each person is responsible 4 their own actions. U make believe u r gay. God did not make u gay & He does not make u commit sucicide. nor does anyone else

I don’t know if gay is always a choice, or not. But suicide is ALWAYS a choice. The ultimate cop-out.

To be fair, I don’t see this from polished anti-gay leaders. But it’s all over the comments on their web pages and blogs. It’s a strange argument coming from conservatives, who generally believe teenagers require strict discipline and are still learning to make wise decisions. They think a 15-year-old like Billy Lucas can’t handle alcohol, a car, the vote, or serving in the military, but he’ll have no trouble hearing that in the core of his being he’s an abomination, a pervert, an affront to God.

We have good reason not to trust kids to their own judgment when it comes to the big stuff. The human brain isn’t mature until it’s 23 to 25 years old. Through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scientists are now able to track blood flow — and therefore activity — in the brains of adults and teens as they confront information and solve problems.  The science is new, but some differences are clear:

Between childhood and adulthood, the brain’s “wiring diagram” becomes richer, more complex and more efficient, especially in the brain’s frontal lobe, or front outer mantle, which is the seat of such higher order functions as learning and socialization. An important part of the frontal lobes is the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is often referred to as the “CEO” or executive of the brain and is responsible for such skills as setting priorities, organizing plans and ideas, forming strategies, controlling impulses, and allocating attention. New research suggests that the PFC is one of the last areas of the brain to fully mature…

[O]ne key MRI study found that when identifying emotions expressed on faces, teens more often activated their amygdala—the brain area that experiences fear, threat and danger— whereas adults more often activated their prefrontal cortex—the area of the brain linked more to reason and judgment—and performed better on the task. Behaviorally, the adult’s responses were more intellectual, the teens’ more from the gut. These findings and others suggest that although the plasticity and changeability of the adolescent brain are extremely well suited to meet the demands of teen life, guidance from parents and other adult institutions are essential while decision-making circuitry is being formed.

Impulse control, planning and decisionmaking are largely frontal cortex functions that are still maturing during adolescence…[O]ne reason adolescents may have difficulty inhibiting inappropriate impulses is that the circuitry needed for such control is not fully mature in early adolescence, thereby making such tasks relatively difficult.

In short, kids have less impulse control than adults, and they listen to their gut when processing emotional cues.

Adults: prefrontal cortex

Teens: amygdala

Imagine then that you’re a gay teen, and you’re watching this Jimmy Swaggart broadcast with your parents, who have demonized gays all your life. Look at Swaggart’s face as he speaks. Take in his “emotional cues.” Hear your parents murmuring “Mm hmm. That’s right.”

Imagine reacting from your gut, not your intellect. Imagine your brain has only limited impulse control.

Imagine all that — as the only life you know.

Maggie Gallagher wants to know if she has blood on her hands.  Jimmy Swaggart.  Peter SpriggTony PerkinsBryan FischerLinda Harvey.  Whether you’re calling us an abomination, or phrasing it more gently (like Maggie) and merely saying we can never feel the love that a man and a woman can.  You all have blood on your hands.

Share:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

75 comments to Suicide, Responsibility, and the Teenaged Brain

  • 1

    It’s a strange argument coming from conservatives, who generally believe teenagers require strict discipline and are still learning to make wise decisions

    They do and they are. That’s why you don’t give them alcohol, the car keys, the ballot, or the enlistment paperwork.

    But at the end of the day, if the kid decides to drink, take the car, try to vote, or lie to the recruiter, that’s their choice, and the consequences are ultimately their responsibility.

    The interesting thing, Rob, is that it’s pretty obvious that suicide is a choice by the person in question, inasmuch as even people like myself who are TOLD to kill themselves by other gays and lesbians don’t go out and actually do it.

    But then again, if it WERE a choice on their part, then your ability to blame Maggie Gallagher would be seriously impaired — and thus your whole reason for making this post in the first place would be ruined.

  • 2

    Comparing someone online suggesting that you, an adult, blow your brains out (certainly not acceptible behavior on said person’s part) is infinitely different than being a teenager (or preteen) and surrounded by people telling you you are a pervert, worthless and don’t deserve to live.

    It’s even more offensive for you to attempt to make the comparison when you take into account that some of these now dead children were being physically beaten on a regular basis, in addition to being verbally abused. All the while, the adults in the schools turned a blind eye. In at least one of the cases, it was the persecuted teen who was told by administrators to leave, while his tormentors were allowed to remain.

  • 3

    Comparing someone online suggesting that you, an adult, blow your brains out (certainly not acceptible behavior on said person’s part) is infinitely different than being a teenager (or preteen) and surrounded by people telling you you are a pervert, worthless and don’t deserve to live.

    Yes. The former doesn’t fit your narrative, doesn’t blame Maggie Gallagher, and doesn’t line up with your goal of trying to cloak your antireligious bigotry beneath the bodies of children that you didn’t give a damn about when they were alive.

    You’re upset about physical bullying? Fine. Where the hell were you when you couldn’t blame it on Maggie Gallagher? Nowhere to be found. So what exactly were you upset about, since you really don’t seem to care about anything other than blaming it on Maggie Gallagher?

  • 4
  • 5
    Jess says:

    He’s not blaming it ALL on Maggie Gallagher, but she and you are delusional if you don’t think that perpetuating anti-gay rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. Yeah, ultimately the ones that pulled the trigger were the kids themselves, but nobody makes that kind of choice out of the blue. When there is some part of you that can absolutely never be accepted by your family or peers, something you can’t change, it creates a feeling of hopelessness that is hard to escape from. I was a founding member of my high school’s GSA, and the crap my gay classmates had to put up with was totally insane, and I went to one of the GOOD schools! Some kids were about ready to go over the edge and if they didn’t find a place that would accept them, I don’t know what they would have done. NOBODY should be harassed like that, period, and if those kids were harassed for anything different, like say, their religion, or how they look, you’d be crying for blood too.

    Maybe you guys are just a lot older than me, but I’ve only just stopped being a teenager a while ago, so maybe I can just remember what it’s like better than you guys. What your classmates and elders say about you and judge you for has a whole lot of impact. And if it seems like EVERYONE is hating on you for something, that does a lot of freaking damage to you. I’ve been out of high school at least three years now and I’m still trying to recover, and I’m not even freaking gay.

    I don’t approve of holding Maggie personally responsible, but if she thinks that her influence of fear mongering and trying to legally discriminate against GLBT citizens has nothing to do with kids bullying gays because they think that’s acceptable and gay kids feeling like there is something irreparably wrong with them, she’s lying to herself.

  • 6

    Where the hell were you when you couldn’t blame it on Maggie Gallagher? Nowhere to be found.

    I volunteer with LGBT youth, partly because I want to do what I can to keep kids from killing themselves. In addition to my main volunteer duties, I’m on call for 24 hours every other weekend for anyone that calls the helpline. I do this because I want to do my part to help. I decided to volunteer on the helpline after I spent a few hours on MSN talking down a young man who wanted to kill himself. All of this was prior to the recent wave of teen suicides reported in the news.

    I do more than just criticize Maggie for being one of the (far too) many who foment the anti-gay hysteria that leads to bullying.

  • 7
    Christopher Mongeau says:

    NDT said:
    “But at the end of the day, if the kid decides to drink, take the car, try to vote, or lie to the recruiter, that’s their choice, and the consequences are ultimately their responsibility.”

    Yes, but the law (and society) hold the parents and other responsible adults to share the responsibility and consequences for their children’s actions. If a person incites a vulnerable person to hurt themselves, they are held accountable for that action. These suicides did not happen in a vacuum. A hostile atmosphere has been created by the anti-gay rhetoric common in the evangelical groups and political groups like NOM.

  • 8

    Stop it with the false accusations. NOW.

    Really? Right after you quoted yourself screaming about how Focus on the Family is glad that Billy Lucas killed himself?

    And right after you quote yourself saying that it’s wrong to accuse someone of bringing bullying on themselves, given your history of stating that people who are told to commit suicide bring it on themselves?

    I volunteer with LGBT youth, partly because I want to do what I can to keep kids from killing themselves.

    Oh good, just what the world needs: someone who goes around telling teenagers that everyone else hates them and would be glad if they killed themselves and that their only hope is to do exactly what the gay and lesbian community orders them to do.

  • 9

    Right after you quoted yourself screaming about how Focus on the Family is glad that Billy Lucas killed himself?

    Focus on the Family fights anti-bullying initiatives that make any mention of LGBT teens. My exact quote:

    I’m sure Focus on the Family is pleased. Just think how awful it would be if there’d been an anti-bullying program at his school that was inclusive of LGBT students! Billy might still be alive, flaunting his perceived, sinful, sexual orientation.

    The actions of Focus on the Family make it apparent that they want homosexuality wiped off the face of the Earth. One more dead kid is another notch in their belt. The compassion they pretend to show is nothing more than crocodile tears for the camera.

    given your history of stating that people who are told to commit suicide bring it on themselves?

    Learn reading comprehension:

    I watched a news clip about this after posting my comment. The principal obviously was aware of the situation and did nothing:

    “He was one that, you know, people found out who he was.”

    “Sometimes he created an atmosphere around him kinda like a . . . uh . . . a little tornado, you know, because he went around doing things that, you know, made . . . made . . . made dust fly, I guess.”

    In other words, as the old line goes, “he brought it on himself.”

    The principal of Billy’s school put the onus on Billy for his torment. I merely stated the obvious: in the principal’s opinion, Billy brought it on himself.

    Oh good, just what the world needs: someone who goes around telling teenagers that everyone else hates them and would be glad if they killed themselves and that their only hope is to do exactly what the gay and lesbian community orders them to do.

    You know full well that’s not even close to what I wrote, so here it is again:

    Maggs and her ilk don’t care what you think about adult/child sex. You are a FAG to them. Nothing more, nothing less. You are immoral and bound for Hell, unless you give up your reprobate ways.

    NOM and other groups that fight any kind of rights for LGBT citizens do not constitute “everyone else,” or even close. Furthermore, we don’t order youth do anything. We encourage them to be themselves, to think for themselves, to be proud of who they are, to standup for themselves. As part of that mission, we have free, professional counseling for LGBT youth. We also do what we can to help LGBT youth who are homeless, due to their parents throwing them out of the house for being LGBT. How dare you try to make volunteering with LGBT youth a negative.

  • 10
    DN says:

    *yawn*

    ND30 is trying desperately to be the victim, again.

    Somebody wake me when Mighty Mouse comes on…

    *snore*

  • 11
    Lyra says:

    @North Dallas Thirty

    If you think that suicide is a choice, then I have to say that you don’t understand suicide. I’m not gay (so I can’t speak specifically to gay suicide), but I do know what it is to be suicidal. You see, I had severe clinical depression combined with an anxiety disorder which caused me to be suicidal. While I was suicidal, my brain wasn’t functioning correctly. I could read the same paragraph on a page a hundred times and not understand what it said. I remember this one time when I lay down on the floor after class because I physically felt as if gravity and switched and was pulling me towards the window; I was afraid if I stood up, I would not be able to stop myself from jumping out the window. I made my mother hide all the razorblades in the house so that I wouldn’t know where they were. Why? Because it was as if suicide was something that was going to happen to me against my will. I never wanted to commit suicide, I was merely so profoundly mentally wounded that I was in danger of committing suicide anyway.

    I’m hoping that you can understand, but I’m not sure that’s possible. I’m no longer suicidal, and I have to stress that judging the suicidal mindset from a perspective of mental health is not viable. It’s like if you (a healthy person) were trying to help a person who had just had their hand amputated learn college algebra. A person who has just had their hand cut off can’t do college algebra. A person who is suicidal can’t think normally.

    Suicide is not a choice. It’s the end result of a mind breaking down.

  • 12
    JFE says:

    @DN I love Mighty Mouse! I think ND30 should spend his time watching that; it’s a fantastic show!

  • 13
    Ind says:

    @North Dallas Thirty

    Yes, you are right. Ultimately attempting a suicide is a choice. I chose to try to kill myself when I was seventeen.

    However, I made that choice just because of people like you. And maggie. And all those other homophobes. If someone calls gays sick and says that they are going to burn in hell, well, now it doesn’t hurt me. I am an adult now. If someone says that to a teen, it hurts. Not enough for suicide, you might say. Well, but it’s not just one person saying that. Turn on fox news. Go on web and listen to what focus on family says. I could keep the list going. Around us there’s so much hate, ignorance, prejudice and discrimination. It’s not a single mean person, Maggie or someone else. It’s you. And everyone else who keeps on trying to make gays and lesbians feel miserable.

    Adults can take it. More or less. For teens it’s much more difficult, they are not wired to just ignore the hate. So, yes, they choose, they choose to try to take their lives. And it wouldn’t happen if there were no homophobia. So you do have blood on your hands. Just like Maggie does.

    @Rob
    I am usually too lazy to comment on your posts. Just wanted to say that this is a great post. Pretty much all your posts are :) Keep on the good job! And thanks for doing this!

  • 14
    Michael says:

    Those who believe, as I used to, that God has a special place reserved in His Hell for the gays, have blood on their hands and will, I think, be judged most severely.

    There are five types of human sexuality: asexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality. No form of human sexuality is wrong. No form of human sexuality can be changed. No form of human sexuality is a danger to civilisation. No form of human sexuality is going to cause the moral fabric of society to unravel. No form of human sexuality is going to lead to more earthquakes, or more hurricanes, or more famines, or more crime. No form of human sexuality is going to destroy marriage.

    To believe that somehow a person is less of a person because they happen to be gay is appalling, horrid, and entirely repugnant. To tell a person that God does not approve of the way they are is evil, Satanic, and entirely wicked. To try and get someone to change an immutable part of their nature is inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ.

  • 15
    Neil says:

    …even people like myself who are TOLD to kill themselves by other gays and lesbians don’t go out and actually do it.

    North Dallas 30,

    Do you not even begin to comprehend how much you disgrace yourself with this false equivalence? Where do you think you’re posting such pettiness? This sort of unthinking, precious self-importance you put forth in strident defense of callous right wing ideology no doubt flies well at the gay patriots’ forum.

    But at the end of the day, if the kid decides to drink, take the car, try to vote, or lie to the recruiter, that’s their choice, and the consequences are ultimately their responsibility.

    …it’s pretty obvious that suicide is a choice by the person in question,…

    Here, it just looks grotesque. Here, it’s just another serve of false equivalence. Here, it’s taking a serious subject like suicide and claiming it has no social context in what appears to be a pathetic attempt to score some petty debating point.

    Grow a heart and try to become a better man.

  • 16

    However, I made that choice just because of people like you.

    Oh yes, I’m sure you did.

    And I’m also sure that I’ve caused you to use drugs, smoke, abuse alcohol, eat too much, develop eating disorders, sexually harass your coworkers, lie about your HIV status to your sexual partners, have sex with underage minors, molest and sell your children for sex on the Internet, embezzle money from your employer, vandalize churches, send death threats to politicians, and so forth.

    And of course, I probably was involved with Pfizer causing you to have bareback sex and use crystal meth with their advertising campaigns for Viagra.

    Does that about cover it? Or what other of your life problems would you like to blame on me? After all, certainly there isn’t any possibility whatsoever that your decisions and choices might lead to negative consequences, right? You’re simply a helpless, incapable victim of society.

  • 17

    Do you not even begin to comprehend how much you disgrace yourself with this false equivalence? Where do you think you’re posting such pettiness?

    At a site that, up until a few minutes ago, supposedly thought it was necessary to condemn and repudiate those who tell people to kill themselves.

    I see that that is merely a matter of convenience. Ah well.

    This sort of unthinking, precious self-importance you put forth in strident defense of callous right wing ideology no doubt flies well at the gay patriots’ forum.

    Again, interesting; previously, it was supposedly a good thing for gays and lesbians, quote, “to be themselves, to think for themselves, to be proud of who they are, to standup for themselves”.

    That was, of course, until they strayed off the “blame religion for everything” plantation, at which point it was made clear that gays and lesbians who disagree with dogma should be punished.

    Grow a heart and try to become a better man.

    I’ll file that right next to the example of Joe Jervis and the gay and lesbian community wishing for a baby to die of SIDS or be handed over to NAMBLA because it doesn’t like their grandparents.

  • 18

    You see, I had severe clinical depression combined with an anxiety disorder which caused me to be suicidal.

    That is a biological misfire in the brain. I would imagine that your treatment required much more than counseling.

    Speaking of biological misfires in the brain, this is a rather interesting series of articles.

    So since pedophilia likely has a significant inborn component and cannot be changed, society must accept pedophilia, right? Treating pedophiles or if someone was trying to eliminate their pedophile tendencies would be “inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ,” right? Preventing pedophiles from marrying would be violating their “civil rights” and impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment, right?

  • 19

    Meanwhile, as I pointed out elsewhere, this is an interesting case; a teenager expelled from school for supposedly producing a “homophobic” cartoon killed himself.

    So can we now blame the gay and lesbian community for stigmatizing this child and causing him to kill himself?

  • 20
    Michael says:

    @ND30: You said that “Treating pedophiles or if someone was trying to eliminate their pedophile tendencies would be “inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ,” right? Preventing pedophiles from marrying would be violating their “civil rights” and impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment, right?”

    I see the points you’re trying to make, but they’re packed with syllogistic fallacies and form a text-book example of a straw man. Actually, if I wanted to put on my professional educator’s hat, I’d say that your arguments apropos paedophilia constitute a syllogistic fallacy because your middle term is a undistributed categorical syllogism, but I don’t want to bamboozle you completely…

    Now, your arguments about paedophilia vis-a-vis homosexuality (or, more specifically, your arguments about paedophilia vis-a-vis gay adolescents attempting or committing suicide – since that is, of course, what this thread is all about) function as a straw man because you’ve attempted to distract us all with discussing paedophilia without actually seriously addressing any of the critiques other people have raised about your contributions to this thread. Moreover, your arguments regarding paedophilia are a straw man because they don’t address any of the points raised by Rob in his original post: namely, that those people who publically state that homosexuality is disordered are partially responsible for those people who intentionally harm themselves because they believe themselves to be disordered because they are homosexual.

    I’m not going to deal with your arguments apropos paedophilia because they constitute a straw man, and consequently require no specific refutations. Instead, I shall ask simply that you refrain from presenting sophistry as valid debate.

  • 21

    I see the points you’re trying to make, but they’re packed with syllogistic fallacies and form a text-book example of a straw man.

    Not really. You argued that society must accept all inborn forms of sexuality and insisted that there is nothing wrong with any form of human sexuality whatsoever; I simply pointed out that pedophilia is likely as inborn as any of these other things, and forced you into a situation of human sexuality that directly contradicted your “no form of human sexuality is wrong” crapola.

    Obviously the standards for whatever profession in which you educate are based primarily on sexual orientation and minority status. I would suggest that you challenge yourself to go beyond that and be judged by the content of your character, rather than by your sexual orientation.

    Case in point:

    To tell a person that God does not approve of the way they are is evil, Satanic, and entirely wicked. To try and get someone to change an immutable part of their nature is inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ.

    So since the desire to sin and to be promiscuous is inherent to humankind, you state that God approves of sinfulness and promiscuity and that trying to stop sinning or being promiscuous is inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ.

    Since you insist that no act of human sexuality can ever be wrong, adultery is perfectly acceptable, rape is perfectly acceptable, incest is perfectly acceptable, and unprotected disease-spreading sex is perfectly acceptable.

    Again, your “theology”, such as it is, is informed solely by your minority status, and does not in fact reference anything other than your obvious and desperate need to rationalize the foolish, dangerous, and promiscuous behavior supported and endorsed by the gay and lesbian community.

  • 22

    ND30, I see you’ve now posted the link twice about the suicide of Hunter Perkins. Yet now you’re suggesting the incident that led to the expulsion didn’t even happen: “supposedly producing a ‘homophobic’ cartoon.”

    So can we now blame the gay and lesbian community for stigmatizing this child and causing him to kill himself?

    The gay and lesbian community did not discipline Hunter Perkins for bullying; his school did.

    We don’t know if Hunter killed himself from the shame of being expelled, or the shame of disappointing his parents, or the shame of hurting another student, or the shame of something else entirely. No matter the reason, however, it’s saddening to read about a young person taking his own life.

    As for “stigmatizing” him, I can find no reports of the gay and lesbian doing any such thing to Hunter. I doubt the gay and lesbian community was even aware of the events that transpired until after he had killed himself.

    I suppose you want to make the [dis]connection that if hate mongers can be held partially accountable for driving LGBT kids to commit suicide, then LGBT people who want bullying to be dealt with in schools are responsible for the suicides of bullies.

    I think my head just exploded.

  • 23

    Michael:

    There are five types of human sexuality: asexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality. No form of human sexuality is wrong. No form of human sexuality can be changed. No form of human sexuality is a danger to civilisation. No form of human sexuality is going to cause the moral fabric of society to unravel. No form of human sexuality is going to lead to more earthquakes, or more hurricanes, or more famines, or more crime. No form of human sexuality is going to destroy marriage.

    ND30:

    Since you insist that no act of human sexuality can ever be wrong, adultery is perfectly acceptable, rape is perfectly acceptable, incest is perfectly acceptable, and unprotected disease-spreading sex is perfectly acceptable.

    Once again, you deliberately misinterpret and deceptively paraphrase what someone has written. Sigh.

  • 24

    And now to demonstrate how little thought Michael has actually put into his statements.

    Michael states:

    No form of human sexuality is wrong. No form of human sexuality can be changed. No form of human sexuality is a danger to civilisation.

    Thus, this is not wrong, cannot be changed, and is not a danger to society.

    Moreover, what does Michael say that condemning or punishing this example of homosexuality would be?

    To tell a person that God does not approve of the way they are is evil, Satanic, and entirely wicked. To try and get someone to change an immutable part of their nature is inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ.

    Mhm. Why do gay and lesbian “religious” beliefs always end up supporting promiscuity and sex with minors as an expression of “the mind of Christ”?

  • 25

    Michael started by saying

    There are five types of human sexuality: asexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality.

    Adultery, pedophilia, promiscuity, rape, etc. are neither part of nor comparable to the five types he listed.

  • 26

    Yet now you’re suggesting the incident that led to the expulsion didn’t even happen: “supposedly producing a ‘homophobic’ cartoon.”

    Let me requote something for you.

    I watched a news clip about this after posting my comment. The principal obviously was aware of the situation and did nothing:

    “He was one that, you know, people found out who he was.”

    “Sometimes he created an atmosphere around him kinda like a . . . uh . . . a little tornado, you know, because he went around doing things that, you know, made . . . made . . . made dust fly, I guess.”

    Funny, isn’t it? You state that school administrators who are in far better of a position to evaluate things are always right when they accuse someone of “homophobic” behavior, but are always wrong when they state that children whose bodies you need for trophies of how “oppressed” you are are anything less than perfect angels.

    I suppose you want to make the [dis]connection that if hate mongers can be held partially accountable for driving LGBT kids to commit suicide, then LGBT people who want bullying to be dealt with in schools are responsible for the suicides of bullies.

    I think my head just exploded.

    Well, yeah. You simply aren’t able to make that type of connection unless you can use it to blame religious people, and certainly not in a situation where it would cast aspersions on gays and lesbians similar to what you’ve been casting on religious people.

    The basic problem being dealt with here is that bullying is at unacceptable levels in schools, and it needs to be managed now and harshly.

    You are interfering with that, Lightning, for two reasons: one, your only measurement of effectiveness for an anti-bullying program is whether or not it blames religious people, and two, you expect gay and lesbian students to be exempt from any of its provisions and free to do whatever they please.

  • 27

    I stand by my statement. The principal clearly knew Billy was a target, and he attempted to place the blame for being a target squarely on Billy’s shoulders.

    As for Hunter, it was stated that he and the other two boys were responsible for producing material ridiculing another student’s sexuality. No one has denied that. That doesn’t mean I think he should be dead, however.

    The only thing I’ve said about religion regarding anti-bullying programs is Focus on the Family is pushing hard for there to be no mention of LGBT students whatsoever. They claim that, otherwise, schools will be indoctrinating children.

    Please provide examples of my stating that the “only measurement of effectiveness for an anti-bullying program is whether or not it blames religious people” and “gay and lesbian students [should] be exempt from any of its provisions and free to do whatever they please.”

    Finally, I stand by my past statements that LGBT citizens are stimatized primarily for religious reasons.

    Why should same-gender couples be denied civil marriage? “It’s against my religion.”

    Why should it be OK to fire someone simply for being gay? “It’s against my religion.”

    Why should it be OK to deny LGBT citizens housing? “It’s against my religion.”

    Why should LGBT citizens not be teachers? “It’s against my religion.”

    Why should LGBT teens not be acknowledged as disproportionate targets of bullying? “It’s against my religion.”

    Why should LGBT citizens not be allowed to adopt children? “It’s against my religion.”

    etc.

    etc.

    etc.

  • 28
    Michael says:

    @ ND30:

    Lightning Baltimore is quite right, and you’ve, once again, subjected someone’s arguments (mine, in this case) to your seemingly favourite fallacy of tu quoque. By the by, and for the sake of clarification and elucidation, I’m a high school teacher of History and Philosophy, at a state school in New Zealand. I’m not a theologian, nor a psychologist, nor have I studied in any depth human biology or human neuroanatomy. I can’t speak with authority on the causations of human sexualities or paraphilias, but I know enough about logic (given that I teach it) to recognise an informal fallacy in an inductive statement when I see one, and I see plenty in your posts. Your posts are peppered with bulverisms, and ad verecundiams, and, as I said earlier, tu quoques galore. Reading your arguments is rather like watching a man hop on a horse, and ride off in five directions at once.

    If you go back to my original post (in which I talked about the five human sexualities), I never mention human sexual behaviour, but rather speak exclusively of human sexuality. Sexuality and sexual behaviour are not the same thing: two men might have anal sex, for instance, but so might a man and a woman. Moreover, my original post never mentions paraphilias. Paraphilias are not the same as sexualities; indeed, they’re very different.

    Paraphilia is a psychological and psychomedical term that refers to any sexual arousal caused by objects, situations, animals, or individuals that are not part of the corpuses of social normative sexual behaviour, and which may cause distress or harm to the paraphile or (in the case of zoophilia and the anthropophilias) other persons associated with him or her. Paraphilias are quite specific, and are recognised as mental disorders, and included amongst these is paedophilia. Since paraphilias are recognised by the medical and scientific establishments as mental disorders, there is an obligation on the part of medical science to attempt either or both palliative or curative treatments. Moreover, in the case of paedo- and ephebophilias, there is a concomitant requirement to protect those minors who are the subjects of the paraphile’s desires. These desires might be overwhelming, and they might have a neuroanatomical origin, but this does not mean that legal or moral codices need to be changed to protect the right of the paedophile to indulge in sexual practices involving minors.

    Sexuality is not really a psychological term, but is really more of a socio-anthropological and sociocultural one. It refers to the way in which human individuals identify themselves and express themselves sexually within common sociocultural norms. Now, sexual expressions and sexual identities are not the same as sexual practices. A man might identify as homosexual, but might publically express himself as heterosexual, and his sexual practices may well consist of any number of paraphilias, but this would not mean that sexuality and paraphilia are either correlative or causative, nor would it mean that sexual identities, expressions, and practices are the same or, indeed, similar. Sexualities seem to be, like paraphilias, neuroanatomical and social in origin. Sexualities, though, are not recognised by medicine and science as being disorders; rather, they are acknowledged as being normal and part of the plenum of the human experience.

    Of course, homosexuality was recognised as being paraphilic until 1973 by the DSM (DSM-III, if I’m not mistaken). However, the previous status of homosexuality as a paraphilia does not imply that any currently recognised paraphilia should be recognised as a sexuality, nor that any currently recognised paraphilia should be treated legally or morally in the same way that a sexuality should.

  • 29
    Michael says:

    @ ND30: in your post made at 7.19 on 30 October, you included a link to a news story of an HIV-positive man having unprotected sex with a male minor and consequently infecting that minor with HIV.

    This is a news story entirely about homosexual PRACTICES, not homosexual IDENTITIES or EXPRESSIONS. Sexual identity is not the same as sexual practice: there’s nothing in that news story that states that either male identified as gay. You’ve simply deduced that Christopher Everett was gay because he had sex with another male, but the story never says that he’s gay, nor does he claim in this story to identify as such. It simply states that they met through an iPhone app for men who have sex with men. A man can have sex with a thousand men and not identify as gay. Homosexual practice might imply homosexual identity, but assumption and actuality aren’t the same thing.

    In addition, in your post you ask what I would say “that condemning or punishing this example of homosexuality would be.” Well, as I said earlier in this post, the story you cite isn’t an example of homosexuality per se, but rather of two men having unprotected sex with each other. If anything, it’s about homosexual practice – but it’s certainly not about homosexual identity or expression. It’s about a particular sexual behaviour, but not about a particular sexuality. For what it’s worth, I would say that Mr Everett should be punished to the full extent of the law: regardless of whether he was HIV-positive or not, he had unlawful sexual connection with a minor and should be punished accordingly and appropriately.

    I have not once said that all forms of human sexual behaviour are good or decent or morally valid. Rather, I said that no form of sexuality is socially harmful. Sexuality and sexual practice aren’t the same thing. Please, ND30, spare us your sophistries.

  • 30
    Ind says:

    @ND30 October 30th, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Oh, now I see how you function. You take a sentence out of the context from which you can benefit. Then you just ignore the rest of what’s said and add some of your BS. And then you feel as if we are having an proper discussion. Typical behavior of a lunatic. Go back to NOM, there’s plenty of people like you there.

    One thing we could argue about is whether a forced choice is a choice or not. That would be a philosophical discussion about a general issue. It wouldn’t even have to be about gays or lesbians. Then again, there’s no reason to expect that you or any NOMers have the mental capacity to ever think about such complex concepts.

    @everyone

    There’s no point talking to ND30. You see, he is incapable of reasoning. Just like most of the homophobes you can find on the web.

  • 31
    Neil says:

    At a site that, up until a few minutes ago, supposedly thought it was necessary to condemn and repudiate those who tell people to kill themselves.

    ND30,

    What on earth are you on about? Surely you’re not merely reiterating the same false equivalence. If so, do you really not get how disgusting it is that you compare some comment left on your blog with actual verbal and physical bullying of children on a day to day basis? Are you seriously suggesting that until Rob posts a blog entry about an example of abusive language amongst the comments on your blog you’ll perpetually show disrespect for entries about the harmful effects of homophobia and bullying on lesbian and gay youth? You actually don’t mind appearing that petty?

    Again, interesting; previously, it was supposedly a good thing for gays and lesbians, quote, “to be themselves, to think for themselves, to be proud of who they are, to standup for themselves”.

    Have a right wing opinion, by all means. If you had put a bit of focus into comprehending my words you would see that I’m questioning how you could take pride in your words. You keep raising the same point about a comment made on your blog no matter how inappropriate. It’s not the political slant I take issue with. It’s the sheer indecency. I’m happy for you to think for yourself. You just don’t seem to put much effort into the thinking.

    I’ll file that right next to the example of Joe Jervis and the gay and lesbian community…

    This is what I mean. You don’t even see that you’re admitting your as bad as the person you’ve referenced. Worse, you misrepresent that to which you link. As always you labour with the fallacy of synecdoche. One comment by one person is not “Joe Jervis and the gay and lesbian community”. Through your dishonesty you bring more disgrace upon yourself. Do you seriously think readers wont notice? How does someone else’s crass attitude exonerate yours?

    Your words insult the intelligence of everyone, including yourself.

  • 32
    DN says:

    I’ve been reading this site for a few months, and I think there is one of two things going on. Either Rob is putting up posts that are all about ND30 and ND30 is simply defending himself…

    Or…

    ND30 has a compulsive need to make everything about himself, no matter what the topic is.

    Anyone care to speculate on odds here? :)

  • 33
    Lyra says:

    @North Dallas Thirty

    [i]“That is a biological misfire in the brain.”[/i]
    I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Yes, it was a biological misfire . . . but it was a biological misfire caused by negative experiences that I was forced to endure. I imagine it’s the same for homosexual children. They are abused and the trauma causes their brains to begin to misfire.

    North Dallas Thirty
    [i]“I would imagine that your treatment required much more than counseling.”[/i]
    Yes, it did.

    [i]“Speaking of biological misfires in the brain, this is a rather interesting series of articles.

    So since pedophilia likely has a significant inborn component and cannot be changed, society must accept pedophilia, right? Treating pedophiles or if someone was trying to eliminate their pedophile tendencies would be “inhuman, ungodly, and at odds with the mind of Christ,” right? Preventing pedophiles from marrying would be violating their “civil rights” and impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment, right?”[/i]
    As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I get really sad when people compare pedophilia with homosexuality. It really, really minimizing for those of us who had to endure childhood sexual abuse to be compared to two individuals who love each other and want to build a life together. Pedophilia is wrong because it wounds and traumatizes children. There is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim. With homosexuality, no one is being wounded or traumatized and there is no perpetrator or victim. So please, please don’t try to co-op the pain and suffering of those who survived childhood sexual abuse. We have enough trouble with being minimized without anti-homosexual crusaders adding to it.

    To put it simply, you do not have my permission to use the pain I endured as a result of being sexually abused as a child to attack homosexuals. Of course, I have no way to keep you from doing this without my permission, but I feel it is very important to let you know that if you are doing this, you are doing it against my will.

  • 34
    Lyra says:

    Hmm, it seems my HTML tags were incorrect. My apologizes.

  • 35
    werdna says:

    Lightning Baltimore wrote, “I think my head just exploded.”

    That’s ND30′s raison d’être, in case anyone hadn’t noticed by now!

    @Michael,
    On a substantive (if niggling) note I’d like to point out that your list of human sexualities mixes sexual orientations (asexual, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual) with a sexual (or gender) identity (transsexual). The first four are mutually exclusive but any of those four could modify the last. A further distinguishing factor is that, contrary to your statement that “sexualities… are not recognised by medicine and science as being disorders,” transsexuality *is* defined as a disorder (gender identity disorder) in the DSM. This is, of course, controversial and should not lead one to lump transsexualism in with paedophilia (for example).

    None of that is intended to undermine any of what you’ve written here, which is otherwise quite precise and sensible. I’m impressed with your fortitude in debating the pernicious ND30.

  • 36

    Paraphilia is a psychological and psychomedical term that refers to any sexual arousal caused by objects, situations, animals, or individuals that are not part of the corpuses of social normative sexual behaviour

    Oh? And who defines “socially normative”?

    Therein lies the problem. You try to argue that sexuality is “biological” and thus should not be changed when confronted with people who don’t think homosexuality is “socially normative” — but then you try to argue that because pedophilia is not “socially normative”, it doesn’t qualify.

    Moreover, in the case of paedo- and ephebophilias, there is a concomitant requirement to protect those minors who are the subjects of the paraphile’s desires.

    I’m sorry, but minors, according to the gay and lesbian community, are not harmed by sex, perfectly capable of consenting to it, and should have freedom to choose to do so.

    Indeed, Michael, your own gay and lesbian community argues that it would be perfectly normal and in fact is “common” for you to have sex with fourteen-year-olds. It is also normal for you to dress toddler-age children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off” for naked and masturbating men, and to proclaim that those who disagree with you are “close-minded”.

  • 37

    A man can have sex with a thousand men and not identify as gay. Homosexual practice might imply homosexual identity, but assumption and actuality aren’t the same thing.

    Oh, Michael, you are hilarious.

    You see, you are currently posting on a website that, any time any male who they don’t like even allegedly has sexual contact with another male, they shriek that he’s gay, irrevocably gay, and is thus a hypocrite, liar, and closeted bigot.

    Now, if logic were in play here, it would seem silly for you to suddenly start arguing that someone who not only had sexual contact, but had unprotected sex with a teenager after soliciting them on a gay sex site is NOT gay. But here you are doing it.

    What that makes rather obvious is that your “sexualities” are rather fluid and are based, not on any unchanging principle, but simply the convenience of the moment. Your entire “logic” system is based on gays and lesbians always being right and anyone who disagrees or criticizes with them being wrong.

    Hence, you aren’t capable of acknowledging that this individual who has sex with underage teens and infects them with HIV is gay or lesbian, because that would require you to admit that they were wrong. Similarly, your intellectual compatriots here automatically insist that anyone who does not obediently follow the Obama Party, hate Republicans, and bash Christians cannot possibly be gay or lesbian.

  • 38

    You take a sentence out of the context from which you can benefit. Then you just ignore the rest of what’s said and add some of your BS.

    (shrug) You accused me of making you try to commit suicide.

    I called your bluff on it and pointed out how you and your fellow gay and lesbian bigots blame every single problem you ever have on other people like me. You claim everything is a “forced choice”, that I made you do it, and use that as an excuse to avoid responsibility for all of your behaviors.

    I mean, this is nothing unusual. When I taught school, there were always children like you who goofed off in class, forgot their books, refused to do their homework, and then screamed to their parents how it was the teacher’s fault. You’re not doing anything different, although I will say it’s unusual to see alleged “adult” gays and lesbians still using the same whiny tricks as a third-grader.

  • 39

    ND30,

    While I neither endorse nor support it, I can certainly understand why someone suggested you blow your brains out.

    I will accept your statement that you are gay. Being gay does not mean one must tow the party line, so to speak; even though you insist it does. I have yet to see you explain how, however, all gays groupthink, yet you are gay and do not. Even when people say they disagree with things you’ve claimed the gay and lesbian community endores and supports, you continue to claim they do.

    I find it hard to believe, though, that you care about anything other than trying to make yourself appear superior to all other members of the gay and lesbian community. No wonder you and Jack Malebranche are, apparently, friends. You are the most self-important, self-righteous, (gay) blowhard I have encountered on the ‘net since encountering him several years ago.

    He had the gall to tell me I need to stop being so stereotypical and “rediscover” my masculinity. Where did he say this? On a (long dead) message board for gay heavy metal fans. When I pointed out he was calling the lot of us stereotypical, Cher(or whomever was big at the time)-worshipping, HRC slaves on a message board for metalheads, who don’t generally go to bars or pride or worship divas, he turned tail and left. It would be lovely if you would do the same.

  • 40
    Neil says:

    ND30,

    I’m sorry, but minors, according to the gay and lesbian community, are not harmed by sex, perfectly capable of consenting to it, and should have freedom to choose to do so.

    I’m sorry, but you’ve just linked to a NAMBLA point of view. By such lies should we know you? I’ve attempted to school you a little on queer history and some facts about ILGA previously. You come back with the same cherry picked detail for another serve of misrepresentation. I guess there are always children like you who goof off in class, forget their books, refuse to do their homework…

    I live in Victoria, Australia. Here, the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby outlines a clear statement about consent. So it appears that the representative body of a gay and lesbian community doesn’t endorse pedophilia.

    Mr 30, I put it to you that you are a dissembler and a deceiver.

  • 41
    Michael says:

    @ Werdna: thanks.

    @ ND30: When I’m teaching Philosophy to my students, one of the sections of the course involves teaching them how to construct an argument. I’m always at pains to tell them that an argument that relies on fallacies of logic cannot succceed and is invalid. As I said before, your most frequently used fallacy is the tu quoque. A tu quoque argument is one that trys to discredit another person’s argument by pointing out their failure to act consistently with their own position – a tu quoque tries to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. The problem with tu quoques are that they focus on the person who is making the argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. It’s not constructive to a debate to attack individuals through argumentum ad hominem; rather, you should always try and engage directly with the topics being discussed.

    Another fallacy you seem to make frequently is secundum quid, or, to use an English name, the fallacy of generalisation from the particular. You have repeatedly asserted that because one person who identifies as gay says “x,” then it follows that all people who identify as gay say “x.” This is poor reasoning. It would be like going to a small town in the countryside, and upon meeting ten ten-year-old girls and nobody else, returning to your hometown and reporting to everybody that the town you visited contains only ten ten-year-old girls and nobody else. The logic used would rely on secundum quid, and is consequently invalid.

    You’ve also peppered your posts with bulverisms and polylogisms. I’ve also read where you’ve denied correlatives… in short, if you were to try and use the sorts of arguments you’ve been using on this site in a high school Philosophy class, I’m not sure you’d pass.

    I suspect that, once you’ve read this particular post, you might well respond by saying that I accused you of using ad hominem arguments and that I did so by using an ad hominem argument of my own. No, not so: for what it’s worth, pointing out to someone that they’ve relied on ad hominem arguments to make their point isn’t the same thing as using an ad hominem argument in an argument. It’s merely saying “hang on a minute, you need to actually address the topic we’re debating, rather than addressing me.”

  • 42
    writerJerome says:

    @ North Dallas Thirty: You speak with bitterness, rage and you are obviously obsessed about gays. That is not coming from the Christ you claim to be speaking for. Your tone does not match that of Jesus; it’s worse than that of the Pharisees who opposed him. On top of that, your conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia is totally misinformed. You are a hater using reasons only to rationalize your blind bigotry, not a person sharing helpful information. You seem to get off on the pain you inflict with your lies. Why don’t you take a breather and go do something loving and helpful for a change? You wrote almost half the posts on here; perhaps you are one of those closet cases who hates himself so much he tries to prove he’s not gay by attacking those who are open about it. At any rate, get a life.

  • 43

    I have yet to see you explain how, however, all gays groupthink, yet you are gay and do not.

    That’s easy.

    You wrote almost half the posts on here; perhaps you are one of those closet cases who hates himself so much he tries to prove he’s not gay by attacking those who are open about it.

    Clearly, by demonstrating independent thought, I demonstrate that I am not gay, because all gays and lesbians think exactly the same way and anyone who disagrees is a self-loathing closet case.
    Next:

    I’m sorry, but you’ve just linked to a NAMBLA point of view. By such lies should we know you? I’ve attempted to school you a little on queer history and some facts about ILGA previously.

    Actually, what I linked to was NAMBLA pointing out how the ILGA had endorsed and supported it and passed resolutions championing what NAMBLA wanted for well over a decade.
    Your “schooling” involved a rather entertaining attempt to equivocate for why the gay and lesbian community not only accepted, but welcomed and endorsed child molesters for decades — mainly because gay and lesbian “solidarity” was more important.
    And finally:

    As I said before, your most frequently used fallacy is the tu quoque. A tu quoque argument is one that trys to discredit another person’s argument by pointing out their failure to act consistently with their own position

    Which suddenly is no longer a fallacy when Rob Tisinai does it.

    Another fallacy you seem to make frequently is secundum quid, or, to use an English name, the fallacy of generalisation from the particular.

    Which suddenly is no longer a fallacy when gays and lesbians do it.
    So what you clearly are teaching in your classes, Michael, is that whether or not an argument is valid or logical depends solely on the minority status of the individual making it.
    I may have to rethink my previous assessment of New Zealand’s educational system if it’s that divorced from reality.
     
     

  • 44

    That is not coming from the Christ you claim to be speaking for. Your tone does not match that of Jesus; it’s worse than that of the Pharisees who opposed him.
    Actually, Jesus wasn’t a big fan of mincing words or being inactive in the face of stupidity, either.
    Which makes this rather amusing.

    You are a hater using reasons only to rationalize your blind bigotry, not a person sharing helpful information. You seem to get off on the pain you inflict with your lies. Why don’t you take a breather and go do something loving and helpful for a change?

    Yes, and Jesus was so MEAN and hateful, getting off on the pain he inflicted on the Pharisees, and so forth. Why, if he had been “loving” and “helpful”, he would have shut his mouth and twisted himself into knots trying to rationalize why the behaviors that he really should have criticized were good and so forth.
    WriterJerome, I don’t expect you to understand this. You are one of the gay and lesbian community, which means you are trying to blame Viagra advertising for why gay men use crystal meth and have promiscuous disease-spreading sex. After all, holding those gays and lesbians who do so accountable for their own behavior would not be “loving” or “helpful”, right?
     
     
     

  • 45
    DN says:

    Hey Lightning Baltimore – regarding Post 39 (regarding the Heavy Metal gay group thing)…

    That is the best retort to ND30 I’ve ever seen.  Good on you!

  • 46
    ben in oakland says:

    Dallas is a homo-hatin’-homo. Once you understand that, you understand him.

    Dallas says all homos are evil. Dallas is a homo. therefore, dallas is evil. you need only read what he has to say, and the evidence is there.

    No tu quoques or ad hocs necessary. I would no more argue with him than I would with Benny the Rat or james Dobson.

  • 47
    Michael says:

    @ND30, re Post 43: Rob’s committed some fallacies of logic in his posts – most commonly tu quoque and secundum quid.  I’m quite aware of that, but thanks for reminding us all of it.  Merely because I called you to task for using erroneous and fallacious arguments and didn’t do the same with Rob Tisinai doesn’t suddenly make your arguments valid.  It simply means I called you to task and not Rob – and you can make of that what you wish.  All sorts of people (gay, straight, and miscellaneous) take part in all sorts of arguments in all sorts of settings everyday, and they probably commit all sorts of fallacies of logic and reasoning.  I’m not going to dash about calling each and every one of them to task.  If I point out the flaws in your arguments and not theirs, then that’s my business.  It doesn’t suddenly make your arguments any good.
    Incidentally, I laughed and laughed when I read your responses to my responses, in your Post 43.  You’ve used tu quoque and secundum quid to complain that I called you to task for using tu quoque and secundum quid and not Rob Tisinai too.  If you’re going to argue with me about using fallacies, don’t use those same fallacies in your argument.
    @ Ben in Oakland, re Post 46: I think you might well be right.  There’s a maxim I always remind my students of, and that is this: there’s no point in getting into an argument with someone who doesn’t know how to argue.  Over the last few posts, it’s become demonstrably clear that I’ve very merrily ignored my own very good advice.  I remember Rob himself commenting on a previous thread on this site that ND30 is a bit like a petulant child, and that if we ignore him he will take his peculiar logic and bilious invective elsewhere.  He strikes me rather as being the sort of tiresome bore my mother always told me to avoid when in polite society – the sort of person that, when you suddenly find yourself in a conversation with him, you quickly think of any excuse to go and get another drink.

  • 48
    John says:

    A tu quoque argument is one that trys to discredit another person’s argument by pointing out their failure to act consistently with their own position

    Which suddenly is no longer a fallacy when Rob Tisinai does it.
    Actually, in that link Rob is asking Maggie to clarify her argument and he’s trying to find out exactly what she means by it.  But he’s not pointing out any failure on her part to act consistently with it, so he’s not engaging in tu quoque.
    Read. More. Carefully.

  • 49

    Merely because I called you to task for using erroneous and fallacious arguments and didn’t do the same with Rob Tisinai doesn’t suddenly make your arguments valid.

    But, since you support Rob Tisinai’s arguments as valid and factual, what seems the case is that your definition of whether or not an argument is logical and valid depends on whether or not you agree with the person making it.
    And hence you’re right. I don’t know how to argue that way; I was taught that argument and logic were based on facts and rational evaluation, not whether or not you agreed with the person. You quite obviously teach your students that an argument with which you agree is always rational and logical, and one with which you disagree cannot be either.
    Meanwhile:

    But he’s not pointing out any failure on her part to act consistently with it, so he’s not engaging in tu quoque.

    Versus:

    Rob’s committed some fallacies of logic in his posts – most commonly tu quoque and secundum quid.  I’m quite aware of that, but thanks for reminding us all of it.

    I’ll let you two hash that one out. Or more precisely, I’ll let you two demonstrate the “logic” of gays and lesbians, which is that two completely contradictory positions can both be correct if acknowledging that either was wrong would make another gay or lesbian person look bad.

  • 50
    Michael says:

    @ND30, re Post 49: I’m going to make one more post in response to you, and then I’m going to give up.  Arguing with you is like trying to explain Euclid to an oyster: a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time.
     
    Now, in Post 47 I said that

    Merely because I called you to task for using erroneous and fallacious arguments and didn’t do the same with Rob Tisinai doesn’t suddenly make your arguments valid.

    And in Post 49, you replied with

    But, since you support Rob Tisinai’s arguments as valid and factual, what seems the case is that your definition of whether or not an argument is logical and valid depends on whether or not you agree with the person making it.
    And hence you’re right. I don’t know how to argue that way; I was taught that argument and logic were based on facts and rational evaluation, not whether or not you agreed with the person. You quite obviously teach your students that an argument with which you agree is always rational and logical, and one with which you disagree cannot be either.

    I don’t support all of Rob’s arguments, and have never once said so.  All I said was that, from time-to-time, he has made arguments that have relied on fallacies of logic.  The difference between his posts and yours are that he makes fallacious arguments occasionally (so far as I can tell), whereas you do it quite frequently (as both I and many other commenters on this blog have noted).  Moreover, once again, you’ve used secundum quid to try and present a criticism of my criticisms of you.  Stop it.
     
    This leads me to my next point.  You quoted John in Post 49, and said that he and I might like to hash out whether Rob has or has not made tu quoque statements.  Well, for what it’s worth, his points made about Maggie Gallagher in the post you linked to, and which John referenced in Post 48, aren’t tu quoques.  The fallacy of tu quoque, as I’ve said to you before, requires that a person’s argument be dismissed on the basis of inconsistencies in their argument: tu quoque is, essentially, an appeal to hypocrisy.  Moreover, as John quite correctly notes, Rob is simply seeking clarification from Maggie Gallagher as to her position on McCance, and he does so without resorting to tu quoque.
     
    Finally, and I do mean finally, I’m not interested in continuing this discussion with you.  You’ve shown little willingness to engage rationally with other commenters to this blog, but have instead preferred to pick and choose little bits of individual posts to argue about rather than dealing with the theses themselves.  It’s intellectually dishonest and entirely disingenuous, and you are, frankly, not worth mine or anyone else’s time refuting.  In every post we make in response to you, we find ourselves trying to argue against any number of red herrings you’ve thrown up.  Your posts don’t illicit responses because we’re frightened of your logic, or are bedazzled by your scintillating arguments.  Rather, your posts gain responses because they’re peppered with illogics and contain hasty statements that are designed to deliberately provoke and inflame.  I think you’re a fool, and, frankly, nothing more than a bothersome canker.  I’m not going to post any more in response to you, and I strongly encourage everyone else to ignore you completely since I think we’ve all had quite enough of your specious verbiage.
     
    You’re welcome to have the last word, ND30.  I know you’ll take it.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>