Saturday, December 21, 2013

In Reply: Stupid Behavior and Online Lynch Mobs

In reply to Why Did BuzzFeed & Co. Target Justine Sacco for Online Assassination

In general I'm against these social media lynch mobs and people being fired (or even disciplined) by their employers, especially for words and deeds that take place outside the workplace (and in some cases, at the workplace either.) That goes for this woman, the duck guy, Imus, the idiot who mistreated the Chick-fil-a girl back when that was going on, the girl at Arlington National Cemetery who wiseassedly mocked the sign calling for quiet and respect in a pair of photos posed on her Facebook account, and maybe even Bashir, too... While the people/companies they work for have the right to let them go if their words or deeds reflect poorly on the company products or brand, I think it's a mistake for employers to get that involved in their employee's off work political or social behaviors.

The same goes for people who disagree with bloggers or political partisans and take/make their attacks on them offline, by releasing personal information about where they live, work, shop or worship, and who their spouses or kids are, thus condoneing (and let's be honest, in some cases encouraging) people to harass them and their families or try to get them fired from their jobs. (I see little difference between the hounding of this woman and the personal attacks (not the policy disagreements or even the photoshop mockery, but the personal attacks on the kid, himself) on PajamaBoy, for instance. YMMV... -- For more on this, there's a great discussion on the Popehat Blog, at a post titled "The Political Is Personal. Why?")

In short, this liberal pretty much agrees with this post...


Posted 12/21/13, about 1:40 PM (Blog uses relative times--currently "3 hours ago"--I'll fix the times later, if/when the blog gets more specific.)

And when someone pointed out that I hadn't mentioned Paula Deen...

Yep, her too...
In her case I think she might've done some of what she was accused of, but it was a long time ago, and she seemed to be legitimately sorry. I believe people can screw up, and then learn and grow and do better. (I'd also put Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond in that category... and yes, I think Trent Lott got railroaded trying to say something nice to/about an old man.)

(On Edit): See also: Dixie Chicks

And... I also didn't mention Baldwin. He verbally exposed himself too many times. Whether he's a bigot or has anger issues (or both), he deserved what he got, and sooner than he got it, too. 'nuff said.


Posted 12/21/13, about 2:40 PM

On a similar subject (sort of): Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"

Sunday, November 17, 2013

"Merry Christmas!!" / "Happy Holidays!!" and Our One Size Fits All Culture


One size fits all policies--whether they be zero tolerance policies, mandatory minimum sentences, political correctness, or the equally inane fight against all political correctness--refuse to accept that most human beings have common sense. A six-year-old bringing a firearm to school is not equal to that same kid holding his thumb and forefinger in the shape of a gun. Some language is legitimately offensive--even if it isn't intended to be, or didn't used to be considered offensive--while other language really just isn't.

Someone wishing you a Merry Christmas is seldom if ever a slight against you or your faith, whatever it may be. Someone wishing you "Happy Holidays!" isn't, either. When stores make a policy that excludes either or only acknowledges one set of beliefs, they're not allowing good old common sense to rule the day. There is nothing wrong with hoping every customer enjoys all the holidays, including the ones they don't personally celebrate. And there's nothing wrong with offering holiday wishes based on the cues people offer, either. (A lot of times, you can figure out who celebrates what holiday based on clothing or other attributes.) Demanding that stores use any one particular kind of greetings and signage--whether all "Christmas" or all "Holiday"--is just questioning common sense.

I suspect that many believe in this "War on Christmas" nonsense because Christmas has been the dominant holiday for so long. Jews and others were just supposed to accept that numbers dictated that stores would have Christmas signage and offer Christmas greetings, and towns would have Christmas tree lightings and Christmas fairs. If those who didn't celebrate Christmas were lucky, there'd be some small recognition of their faith tucked in a corner somewhere out of the way...maybe. That some cities and towns, multi-state or multi-national chains and individual mom N pop stores have chosen to be more inclusive threatens those who want Christmas to remain at the top of the ladder. Every acknowledgement of those who don't celebrate Christmas is one less acknowledgement of the Christian faith. They call it tradition...but refusing to recognize that other faiths exist and deserve to be in the public square too is a bad tradition.


If it were up to me, we, the people would acknowledge and celebrate all sacred and secular holidays in the public square. Schools would teach about all religions, and children would learn the ethnic and religious traditions of everyone in their classes, their schools, their neighborhoods, and ultimately, the world.

I understand why this isn't possible--it's largely the same reason there is both political correctness AND the so-called "war on Christmas" &/or "the Christian faith." (For my money, the "War on Christmas" is just political correctness, Christian edition. Another interest group demanding that everyone give them the respect they think they deserve by virtue of the fact they exist. YMMV...) No matter how much we tried, some group--& more than likely every group--would think they were getting the short end of the stick somehow, or believe that some other group isn't worthy of the same respect as their own. It's a damned shame, but it's something we'll probably never get past... ...so rather than learning about and honoring all of our traditions and faiths, we can't honor any of them in our secular public square... It doesn't stop the complaining, obviously, but it does lessen it...

One size fits all.

Yay.

God bless us, every one.

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

In Reply: Conservative Site Vehemently Defends Anti-War Protesters (because Obama)

In reply to: Clarifying A Developing Story Turned Faux-Outrage….. Veterans Arrested At War Memorial ? It’s not DC, it’s NYC !! It’s not what it appears…. | The Last Refuge:

Maybe the source you list above was vague or tried to make folks believe something that wasn't true, but the truth was out there, including from the protesters themselves on Monday morning: Veterans to Face Arrest at Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza | PopularResistance.Org

The Atlantic's story about it was pretty clear, as well: Police Arrest Vietnam Veterans at NYC Memorial - Brian Feldman - The Atlantic Wire

Nevertheless, at least one conservative site didn't see the big picture and--despite knowing it happened in NYC, blamed Obama for beating up on those patriotic vets: Outrage! Obama has Vietnam Veterans arrested in New York
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted October 8, 2013 at 2:52 am

ADDED: It isn't like I didn't try to tell the blogger at Fire Andrea Mitchell. S/He just didn't seem to want to hear it...or let anyone else know s/he had, either:

Monday, September 23, 2013

In Reply: Reagan Statue Vandalism Despicable, But So Is Lying About Why's Responsible (NY Daily News)

In reply to Ronald Reagan statue vandalized in Southern California - NY Daily News -- Vandalism is awful, no matter the reason. But it's disappointing to see some on the right blaming "the left" with absolutely zero evidence. IF it does turn out to be an act borne of political animus, that would be terrible, and deserving of swift punishment. (Whether you think it would deserve MORE punishment than if it was committed by drunk teenagers or a mentally unstable person depends on your politics and your views on how much or little motive counts when one commits a criminal act.) But to blame anyone or ascribe any motive without facts to back it up in the name of political partisanship is pretty despicable, as well. -- Posted Monday, 9/23/13, 9:40 PM (Supporting links and updates to the story to follow)

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

In Reply: "free speech is often about defending the rights of those one finds repugnant" (Simple Justice)

In reply to: Blogging: More Than The Cost of Admission | Simple Justice, wherein the author brings up several points worthy of consideration as concerns defending folks (and in particular, those folks) against Team Kimberlin.
---

You bring up several points that definitely deserve consideration...and do so with respect for all sides, which is all too rare here on the internet machine.

In fact, most of 'em are so worthy of consideration that I want to stew over 'em for awhile before expressing an opinion.

In part, I'm concerned that my desire not to support the rightwing bloggers on partisan and personal grounds is influencing my opinion of some of what you've said here. I believe in free speech and more speech, but I find some of the folks that stance has me defending morally repugnant and personally ungrateful, besides. While I'm defending them, they're attacking me both personally and via sweeping generalization. It definitely makes one want to just not bother, and some of what you've written here might be justification to do just that.

On the other hand, one's values are one's values. No one ever said it was easy, and free speech is often about defending the rights of those one finds repugnant. In any case, I just want to be sure that I'm agreeing with you (or Ken) for the right reasons.

The only bit I can speak to (at least a little) is whether there isn't a person or cause more deserving. My take has always been that one does what one does and starts where one starts. Every dollar donated to one cause is a dollar that isn't donated to any other cause. By donating to help families who lost their homes in a natural disaster, you're not helping starving children in Africa. By spaying and neutering stray cats, you're turning your back on programs that help homeless veterans. And yeah, putting money into a defense fund for internet free speech necessarily means those who do will give less to defend the indigent accused of more serious crime.

I take this all to be a plea to consider what's really important to you, and to donate accordingly. But at the same time, I also think there have to be people out there for free speech AND folks for indigents accused of murder AND people whose cause is stray cats AND... (etc.) While it's up to us to put our money where our values are, choosing from among all the competing "goods" there are, it's also important that someone fights for the local art museum, music education or the grey spotted salamander, even if others believe that money could be much better spent saving the causes they champion instead. We start where we start, and we do what we can (and we hope others do too, so that every worthy cause ultimately gets funded.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval September 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm

In Reply: Delete Tweet, or Own Up to Your Mistakes? (Legal Insurrection)

In reply to the Legal Insurrection post To delete a tweet, or not to delete a tweet, that is the question, discussing whether or not to disappear tweets (and by extension, blog posts, etc) where one offers, repeats, or reacts to inaccurate infirmation or says something that turns out to be embarassing. (Follow the link above to the original post for more info.)

I can see both sides (especially in the case of traditional media outlets which, like it or don't, many trust more than bloggers), but I'm in the "leave it up and issue a correction tweet or two" camp. (In some instances when I've tweeted incorrect information (when I thought it was a serious enough error), I've also gone back and commented on my own tweet, correcting the incorrect info. Problem solved.)

While it's embarrassing to repeat, retweet, or react to a news report that later turns out to've been incorrect, I don't so much blame the person who repeated it as the source of the bad information. (Yeah, I hold the "traditional media" to a higher standard than I do bloggers and other social media users, too.)

Everyone makes mistakes, overreacts, or otherwise puts out things they later wish they hadn't (or at the very least, had handled differently). Owning up to being a human being with human foibles makes one more trustworthy in the long run.
--

Posted September 18, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

A thought-provoking blog post: "How to Talk to Little Girls" (Latina Fatale) #GirlsUnstoppable

Just a taste here:
I went to a dinner party at a friend’s home last weekend, and met her five-year-old daughter for the first time.

Little Maya was all curly brown hair, doe-like dark eyes, and adorable in her shiny pink nightgown. I wanted to squeal, “Maya, you’re so cute! Look at you! Turn around and model that pretty ruffled gown, you gorgeous thing!”

But I didn’t. I squelched myself. As I always bite my tongue when I meet little girls, restraining myself from my first impulse, which is to tell them how darn cute/ pretty/ beautiful/ well-dressed/ well-manicured/ well-coiffed they are.

What’s wrong with that? It’s our culture’s standard talking-to-little-girls icebreaker, isn’t it? And why not give them a sincere compliment to boost their self-esteem? Because they are so darling I just want to burst when I meet them, honestly.

Hold that thought for just a moment.

This week ABC news reported that nearly half of all three- to six-year-old girls worry about being fat. In my book, Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart in a Dumbed-Down World, I reveal that fifteen to eighteen percent of girls under twelve now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly; eating disorders are up and self-esteem is down; and twenty-five percent of young American women would rather win America’s next top model than the Nobel Peace Prize. Even bright, successful college women say they’d rather be hot than smart. A Miami mom just died from cosmetic surgery, leaving behind two teenagers. This keeps happening, and it breaks my heart.
Please read the rest: How to Talk to Little Girls

As I read this post, I realized how often I use appearance as the go-to, first compliment when talking to my niece and other young girls whose parents, etc. I know. While I believe that such compliments have their place, I'm going to try harder to focus in on those attributes and skills that I (or the specific girl I'm talking to) most value in future, especially when making an initial, first-impression comment. Like the Dove Real Beauty and #GirlsUnstoppable campaigns, I believe female (and human) beauty is more than skin deep, and comes in many forms.
---

Links:
How to Talk to Little Girls

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty
dove real beauty campaign - Google Image Search

Help Make All Girls Unstoppable
Positive Self-Esteem Makes All Girls Unstoppable
---

But on the other hand:
How To Raise Girls Who Love Their Looks
(And no, I didn't realize until this link addition that the original post, as well as the link I just added, are from 2011... Still as relevant and thought provoking, though...)

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

In Reply: Perhaps 911 dispatchers need to rethink how they "suggest" that wannabe heroes and morons not put themselves in danger by approaching or following the potentially dangerous criminals they're calling 911 about

Revised and extended, in reply to a whole lotta back and forth about the 911 dispatcher and George Zimmerman at the post Can Anyone Verify These Disturbing Allegations About Trayvon’s Family? : The Other McCain:

Hopefully 911 (emergency and non) throughout the country will rethink the best way to talk to people who haven't got the good sense to understand that "we don't need you to do that, sir" is a "suggestion" that callers not put themselves in further danger by approaching the potential criminals they're calling about. It's not illegal to be a moron, but neither party would've been injured if only Zimmerman understood, and had listened to the guy with a whole lot of experience dealing with first responders and potentially dangerous situations...though no, he was under no legal obligation to do so.

While they're at it, they probably ought to consider rephrasing how they ask which direction the potential criminal went, perhaps including the phrase "from where you are now, and please don't go after the man/woman/group you're telling me may be dangerous criminals," in deference to those same kinda morons.

Based on the evidence available and the laws as they stand, Zimmerman could not be convicted. Also, he didn't commit a hate crime. But--like Christopher Serino says, Zimmerman ultimately could've avoided this whole thing--not been hit, and not killed anyone--if only he had done things differently, either waiting in his car for the police (which the dispatcher also gently "suggested,") or at least approaching Martin differently, perhaps saying he was part of the neighborhood watch, and saying that Martin seemed unsure of which house he was looking for. While that doesn't matter criminally (though I think it should), it hopefully will matter civilly.
---

Posted Tuesday, 7/16/2013, 8:25 AM

Sunday, June 30, 2013

In Reply: Staying Away From Unknown, Suspicious Individuals Is Smart...and Lessens the Possibility of Confrontation and Subsequent Need for Self-Defense

In reply to the following comment at the post, Open Thread Friday | NewsBusters:

I appreciate you taking the time to address me on this- I read your piece as recommended by Jer, and found it to be better than the other one, by far, but you're still off base. I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time around today's urban youth. You've made suppositions based on emotion, or feelings, or initial biased reporting, or whatever causes you to believe that Zimmerman was "creepy" and that Martin was provoked into committing aggravated battery. Fine. You've got a soft spot for what you think is idyllic youth. But it's misguided and unrealistic.

I'm not sure which neighborhood watch guidelines you're suggesting he didn't follow, but the Sanford guidelines are here: ttp://axiomamnesia.com/Trayvon... Maybe you can be more specific.

The very purpose of the neighborhood watch program is to observe and report. One of the suspicious activities noted in the guidelines is running. So tell me, if you're driving a vehicle through your neighborhood, and you observe a person dressed like several others who've been involved in a spate of recent crime in your neighborhood, AND while trying to drive by for a better look, said suspicious person moves in between houses AND you are unable to continue follow due to the lack of roadway AND you lose site of that suspicious person AND you have completed or are involved in on-going training as a neighborhood watch component, would you not exit your vehicle to try and ascertain where the person was going as you're on the phone with police trying to give them a description of said suspicious person? ("Uh sorry, he took off. Nope. No clue where he went. In a house? Maybe. I don't know. What was he wearing? Uh, could be a sweatjacket, maybe one of those hoodies. Not sure. Lost him as I was dialing.") Well, some might not, but others surely would. I would. Following and confronting, however, are two very different things.

The Zimmerman call to police has been thoroughly dissected from a time and location standpoint. Maybe you're not privy to some of that. Here is a pretty detailed summation: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony

For some reason, you're giving all of the benefit of the doubt to the 17 year old over the 28 year old. You're suggesting that Zimmerman provoked confrontation without a shred of evidence to indicate that. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle a considerable distance from where he reported Martin's location, and the actual confrontation took place at a location that required Martin to turn back toward Zimmerman. A scared kid wouldn't have done that. A kid who thought the big bad -potentially armed- wolf who was out to harm him, wouldn't have done that. He was closer to the front door of his temporary residence than he was either Zimmerman or the location of the altercation. Martin came back looking to confront Zimmerman. Remember, Martin is no stranger to fighting. And now we know he was on top of Zimmerman, beating him in what was described as MMA-style "ground and pound". Zimmerman had very obvious injuries of this type of beating while Martin only had one gunshot wound. This kid wasn't scared, he was the aggressor.

Throwing a punch at someone is an assault. Connecting with it is battery. You do not have the right to assault and batter someone that is asking you questions. You do not have the right to batter someone whom you fear. And there is no indication that Zimmerman initiated any physical contact. I would challenge your assertions as to morality.

Zimmerman may ultimately be convicted for his actions that night, but the well is so severely poisoned at this point -with threats of violence quite prevalent if he's acquitted (http://twitchy.com/2013/06/27/ima-kill-me-a-cracka-death-threats-against-george-zimmerman-random-white-people-explode-during-trial/)- that jurors feeling some sense of self-preservation might end up influencing their decisions. But everything that has been entered into testimony to this point has backed up Zimmerman's claims from the outset.

---

You missed the "h" in http on your first link, and even searching the site, I can't find the Sanford Neighborhood Watch Handbook (it's also been removed from the Sanford.gov site that most bloggers referencing it linked to initially), but I'd be very surprised if Sanford's handbook doesn't match what most most say: Do not follow a suspect, do not confront a suspect, and do not patrol while armed. (one example: Neighborhood Watch 101: How to patrol - St. Louis Crime | Examiner.com)

Even trained, armed police officers seldom go after a suspect individual without back-up. George reported the suspicious activity--including the fact that the suspicious person ran out of sight...and the dispatcher told him that they didn't need for him to follow the suspicious individual. So, while some might, and you say you would, it's awful foolish and against neighborhood watch policy and police department want or need for a civilian to follow an unknown suspect into a dark area on foot...in part because "following" can very easily lead to "confrontation," even if the latter is not intended.

The evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin is clear, and not in dispute, even by Zimmerman. One can assume that Martin might've doubled back on Zimmerman, but there's no actual evidence or testimony to that effect... (I don't know where the guy at the wagist link is getting his info, but not even he backs up his claim that Martin went up to his step mom's house & doubled back with anything other than his own words.)

I contend that a scared individual (kid or otherwise) would--and would be smart to--stay away from unknown suspicious individuals. Martin did that for the majority of the timeline. Zimmerman did not. Sure, it is possible that Martin chose fight when flight didn't work for him--Zimmerman kept coming--and that he is responsible for the first punch, and for being the better fighter overall, too... And yes, if Martin threw the first punch--even if he believed it was the only way to get this creep to stop following him--Martin was guilty of assault. But if Zimmerman had followed neighborhood watch guidelines, police suggestions, or even just good old common sense, neither would've thrown any punches or fired any shots.

On edit: My point isn't that I think Zimmerman (or Martin) actually were creepy, but that each painted a false picture of the other as creepy and up to no good, and behaved as though those images were accurate. On one hand, it's probably safer to be suspicious of strangers behaving unusually, these days (whether it's following you, looking in windows, loitering, etc), but it sure would've helped if either had just approached and asked for the time or offered to help, or something...
---

Posted Sunday, June 30, 2013, 2:00 AM

Previously: In Reply: "Over a year later...I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin"

Saturday, June 29, 2013

In Reply: "Over a year later...I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin"

In reply to the following comment at the post: Open Thread Friday | NewsBusters:

The Sanchez piece can't be taken seriously. Every supposition the guy makes is based on his belief that the entire incident was predicated entirely on Zimmerman's perceived hatred for blacks. In it, Martin has done nothing wrong - victim from the outset.

The other one tries to put the race element on the back burner, but then has the nerve to posit this little gem:

(I have to say, I suspect that of the two scenarios, Trayvon hitting Zimmerman first, in an effort to avoid imminently getting robbed, kidnapped, or raped seems more plausible to me... ...and that makes me very sad to imagine this kid scared, fighting for his life--and ultimately losing it--over the bad judgement of Zimmerman, and there will be no justice for his family, besides...)
Let me tell you something- the 6'-1" teenager was not in anyway concerned that he was going to be "kidnapped" or "raped" (are you freakin kidding me?) by the 5'-8" "heavyset" stranger.

I broke this whole thing down last year. Martin was a punk-assed kid who acted toward a "white" authority figure exactly the way he was taught in the environment he was raised. Zimmerman shot him in an effort to save his own life. Thug attacks wannabe cop, wannabe cop shoots thug. End of story.
- bkeyser: Friday, June 28, 2013, 7:22 PM
---

bkeyser: I'm the guy who wrote the latter post. I don't know exactly what specific crimes Trayvon might/might not've been worried about--perhaps you're right that kidnap or rape were not among them, though I don't see either as being quite so far-fetched as you seem to believe they are--but the fact that he was larger and stronger in no way proves he was not worried that the creep following him was "up to no good" illegality of one sort or another... particularly a creep that might be--and as it turns out, was--armed. Whatever their relative sizes and weights, the person being followed is often going to imagine the worst of the stranger pursuing them.

Over a year later and I still don't know if there's any criminality here...but I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. Had George listened to the police dispatcher who suggested he not follow the stranger, or paid attention to Neighborhood Watch guidelines about confronting "suspect" persons (or about being armed while acting in a neighborhood watch capacity at all--while I'm not sure I agree, those are their guidelines), or even gun owner common sense about looking for trouble unnecessarily, both Trayvon and George would've lived through that night unharmed. Trayvon spent most of the time during this incident trying to get away from the suspicious creep following him. George spent most of that same time moving closer to the guy he thought was suspicious and up to no good. Whether he meant to or not--and I still suspect not--I believe George Zimmerman made the situation worse and provoked the confrontation that ultimately took place. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch and was winning the fight up until George shot him, his actions defending himself from what he thought was a creepy stranger following him seem far more morally understandable to me than George's, going after and confronting a suspicious stranger who he believed might be on drugs and up to no good, especially knowing the police were already on their way... YMMV...
---

Posted Saturday, June 29, 2013, 5:46 PM

Links:
Wingnuts and Moonbats: Trayvon Martin: My Hypothesis As To What Happened

Trayvon Martin: The death that united America to oppose prosecutorial inaction - New York Public Policy | Examiner.com

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

X-Post: Methinks Creepy-Clown Stalker Donald Kent Douglas Doth Protest Too Much...

American Power: Bwahaha!! Poor Widdle Wepsac3 Whines Hilariously: 'I'm the Victim! It's Me, I'm the Victim!'

"BWAHAHAHA!! Time to bet back to school, loser. Math is hard!"
So is spelling, apparently... (Muphry's Law is a mean ol' bitch, and catches Dr. Douglas every. damned. time.)


Sadly, no... I am aware of only two blogs where my comments have been moderated away before the fact; Donald's blog, and Zilla's. (And, in a comment she posted on her blog at the time that was lost when she changed blogging platforms--which I cited here at the time, but unfortunately did not screencap or quote--Zilla stated that she blocked me primarily because Donald was her friend, and she didn't want him to be uncomfortable when visiting her blog. It wasn't about anything I ever said there; it was about protecting Donald's fee-fees.)

UPDATE: Lookie what I found:



(For the record, I have no recollection of whatever Dishonest Don is claiming happened with Tania Gail. I think she posted a link to a youtube video on a blog (hers, or in comments somewhere else), and I probably followed the link to youtube and joined the commentary there rather than at that blog. But this happened back in 2006 or 2007. Like I was saying yesterday, Donald is r-e-a-l-l-y r-e-a-c-h-i-n-g into the past, and generally finding a whole lotta shit to get all worked up about that no one else even cares about, anymore... And finally, protecting Tania's reputation as much as my own, I am aware of no time where Tania Gail ever threatened any sort of violence against me or anyone else. While she and I disagreed pretty vehemently, she always behaved like a lady. Whatever Dishonest Don believes, it simply didn't happen.)

---
So yeah... Dishonest Don is actually...bragging?...proud?...that I missed a pair of tweets from June 5th where he also lashed out at me. I stand corrected, Dr Douglas... You are indeed two tweets more obsessive and pathetically creepy than I thought you were...

Here are those tweets a little larger, and linked:

Link

Link

(And, perhaps because I'm just a bad victim, or perhaps because McCain's mistaken, I have no recollection of having "attacked him during the Kimberlin stuff." While I'm no fan of lipless McCain and the rest, I seem to recall standing with them during that whole thing. YMMV...)

The bottom line on all this is, the facts are quoted, linked, cited, and screencapped in a whole lotta places here at American Nihilist. Concerning the specious allegations in Dishonest Donald Douglas' screed here, primarily in these two posts: BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment and Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?. Those who read what each of us have written (or don't) and nevertheless choose to believe Dr. Douglas' verbal anecdotes and shoulda, coulda, woulda's are welcome to do so. One can only lead an ass to water, after all...
---

An American Nihilist x-post
---

Comment:

Dishonest Donald is among McCain and the rest of them, but he's not one of them. We know it, they know it, and worst of all for Dr. Douglas, he knows it too.

So much of this game he's playing is "Look!! I have a guy harassing me just like you guys do...," but it's obvious to EVERYONE --even Donald himself, though he's loathe to admit it-- that he's carrying on about shit that happened years ago, and never rose to the level that he's claiming it did. Whether they'll ever publically admit it or not, they see right through him. (Which is why for the most part, they so seldom comment on his crazy victimization posts or defend him in any way... They know what he's up to...)

No matter how much Donald may wish it were otherwise, there is no state in America where submitting 35-40 comments to the comment section of a moderated blog over the course of two years is illegal. Not even if the blogger in question asks you not to... (That's why almost all (if not all) blogging platforms have moderation tools.)

Donald made a bunch of accusations and threats of legal action, but when push came to shove, he didn't have the goods, and everybody saw how limp his little dick really was... And obviously, that really upsets him, so he continues to periodically lash out, hoping to somehow clutch victory from the jaws of his epic defeat. I feel bad for the guy, but it really is over...
-- June 18, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

X-Post: Yes, Our Obsessed Creepy-Clown Stalker Dishonest Donald Douglas Is Back To His Old Tricks...

...to the tune of five posts in under 48 hours--(four of them unprovoked by anything aside the voices in his head and the fervent desire to be perceived as a victim by his contemporaries)--but then, what else is new? He can only resist for so long, and the forty-three thirty-three* days he managed to avoid lashing out was probably darn near the longest he's ever gone... [*Dishonest Donald Douglas himself went to great pains to point out that I had missed two tweets he posted on June 5th, making him ten days and two posts more obsessed and creepy than I originally thought. He seems awful proud of it, too.]

For those curious: American Power: Disgusting Troll Rights Harassment Blogger Continues Lying About Years-Long Campaign of Intimidation

To anyone who's read more than a few posts at American Nihilist, it's 99% classic Donald Kent Douglas boilerplate paranoid ranting, offering "facts" that have been debunked over and over again on the pages of this blog, most thoroughly here: BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment and here: Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?. And aside these two comments posted to an American Power post less than a minute apart back in March, everything I said in this post back in January is still true. Dr. Douglas is still whining and shrieking and gnashing his teeth about shit that happened years ago and that seemingly everyone except him has long since gotten over and largely forgotten about. I mean Tiny Tim on a taco, this is my first AmNi post since April--the last time Dr. Douglas lashed out at me.... For reasons I leave to the readers to deduce for themselves--because I have no fucking idea--Donald Kent Douglas insists on perpetuating these years old conflicts. Obviously I'm biased...but this whole obsession with me and things that happened back in 2009-2012 makes ol' Don look awful pathetic and desperate for attention. YMMV...

As for that final 1%, I'm all but certain that no "henchmen" here have at any time been "exposed as homosexuals, perverts, and criminal harassers," and that this is just another example of Dr. Douglas' famous ad hom in lieu of an actual argument (not to mention his nasty habit of using homosexuality as though it's some kind of slur.) If any henchmen past or present have anything to confess in this regard, however, we're all ears...
---

An American Nihilist x-post
---

Additional commentary from American Nihilist post:

No Carl... Pretty much all I hear about Donald Douglas these days comes from Donald Douglas. While I'm sure--or at least, sure he'd claim-- his many followers and fans are sending him supportive e-mails and direct tweets in private, it looks to me like no one is talking much about Donald Douglas, for or against, anymore...

I know he's alienated some who profess to support the same political side he does, but for the most part even that's old news.

He's got his little circle--and like I said, he seems to be using me to help cement his "I've been a victim of liberal harassment too,"--but I suspect that even most of them see right through his claims and know he doesn't actually have the goods, because unlike them, he doesn't provide links, quotes, citations, official records, etc.--but for the most part, no one cares, anymore.

So no... I haven't heard anything...but the idea that people (political enemies, political friends, the sane) are pissed off at Dishonest Don doesn't surprise me at all. He ain't all that endearing... - June 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Sunday, June 16, 2013

In Reply: Donald Kent Douglas is Obsessed with Perpetuating This Conflict

In reply to the following comments at the American Nihilist Post Complicated? It Certainly Must Be!:
Oh Happy Day! Donald still loves and remembers us. I was afraid he'd fallen and had some kind of brain injury (beyond his obvious mental problems, that is). Just curious. Is this actually true or is it just some of the bullshit that he spouts unconsciously?
Stalkers have no right to directly address you after they have been warned to cease and desist.
Not sure what's a greater sign of his insanity the Tourette's-like whining over workplace harrassment or the blatting about "you tried to comment on my blog." Wahhhh! - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I don't typically follow any of the internet grievances of the day. But I did at least put in a search for Bill Schmalfeldt and if half of what he is reported to have done is true then he's a total asshole. And if Donald thinks that is comparable to leaving a few comments at a blogsite then he is a total asshole. But then, we already knew that. - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

And yes, I realize that Lee Stranahan and possible even yours truly may also be total assholes. - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM
---
Aaand...

The Schmalfeldt situation is current, whereas--aside these two comments I made at an AmPow post at the end of March in a moment of weakness--none of us have even attempted to comment at Dishonest Donald's blog in well over a year.

At no time has anyone sent repeated comments, tweets, e-mails, or any other directed communication to Dr. Douglas, or threatened him or "anyone he ever knew, loved, touched, stood next to, heard of, smelt, felt, dreamed about." Not one time, ever.

While Donald is claiming his "poor me, pity me" victimhood, the fact is that he's the one repeatedly and regularly seeking me out and posting about me...not the other way around. While he's legally welcome to do so, it blows his claims of "harassment" and "stalking" victimhood out of the water...and presents a pretty strong argument that it is Donald Kent Douglas who is obsessed with perpetuating this conflict, as well...

Folks--including folks on his ideological side--have already called him out for becoming the same kind of harassment troll he claims to rail against. Even now, he's playing the "@ symbol separated from twitter name isn't a directed mention" argument made famous by Schmalfeldt and TeamKimberlin...which is not the least bit surprising to anyone who knows Donald...
---

Posted June 16, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Monday, June 10, 2013

In Reply: The Partisanship Hidden in the "Independent" Numbers

In reply to the No More Mister Nice Blog post MOSTLY SAY "HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE"
---

I also suspect that a significant amount of the right's mirror image is hidden in the Pew poll's independent numbers. A good number of "republicans" prefer to see themselves as "independent" tea party supporters, conservatives, or libertarians.

It would be interesting to see how those independent numbers would break if Pew, et.al were to seperate the Nader / Green party independents from the Ron Paul / Tea party independents... Or even just clarify how their pool of independents self-identified when the earlier polls were taken.

("Independents" have no set political philosophy as a group, and I suspect that the balance of their in-group political leanings shifts depending on the party currently in power and the availability and viability of other ideological options. Including independents in a poll without identifying the leanings of the respondents is pretty meaningless.)
---

Posted Monday, June 10, 2013, 10:22 PM

Sunday, May 05, 2013

In Reply: Be A Model for Your Beliefs, and Learn From The Beliefs of Others, Too

In reply to a post and discussion titled "atheism and christianity friendships?" on the Nerdfighters ning.
---

I believe it's important to expose oneself to different beliefs, religious and otherwise. It helps you learn about the world and to question all you think you know and believe, which is generally a good thing, whether the questions ultimately lead you to change or to confirm your beliefs. The key is respect for the people one speaks to or about, and tolerance for difference. Whatever your religious beliefs, there will always be those who are "going to Hell," or "wasting their lives taking cues from an invisible friend who doesn't exist," (depending). And while it's worthwhile to make some effort to save them from the "folly" of their beliefs (or lack of them), there comes a point where you just have to let them be as wrong as they choose to be... And that can be hard, especially for those who take their religious beliefs seriously (and that includes non-believers, too). It's difficult to watch someone you care about go down what you whole-heartedly believe to be a "wrong" path.

I tend to think you can't browbeat or force someone to change their beliefs, and there's little value in getting heated about it. Instead, be a model for your beliefs. Live your values--and sure, talk about them when appropriate--but don't become hostile when someone doesn't believe what you do, even if THEY become hostile toward you or your beliefs. Agree to disagree. Learn from them. Teach them too, if they're open to it, but accept that some otherwise wonderful people are just bound and determined to be wrong about God and faith...and there's nothing you can do about it. I still think it benefits both you and them to be in each other's lives, in spite of how dead wrong they are.

(Personally, I'm another of those Unitarian Universalist types and as such, I believe there are many roads to bliss, and that no Beneficent Force would ever refuse entry to anyone who tried, but got the particular song and dance wrong...but obviously, I may be sadly mistaken.)
---

Posted Sunday, 5/5/13, 3:00 AM (or thereabouts...)

Monday, April 15, 2013

Hateful Anti-Muslim Ghoul Donald Kent Douglas Posts Jew-Bashing Attack on Me — and Jews!

American Power: Hateful Anti-Semitic Ghoul (that's me, according to creepy stalker, Dishonest Donald Douglas) Tweets Jew-Bashing Attack on Pamela Geller — and Israel! ...originally written and posted by Jews, in The Jewish Daily Forward

Read the Jewish Daily Forward piece, which gets to the heart of the difference between disagreeing with Israeli foreign and domestic policy and anti-semitism or hate speech, and decide for yourselves... Whether you agree with the author and commenters or you don't, it's nuanced, and a discussion for adults, which obviously leaves ol' Dishonest Don unprepared and wholly unable to do anything more than vent his spleen.

I have never posted anything about the BDS movement as a response to Israel's policies, (or anything about Israel's policies themselves, for that matter) and don't know much about it. The tweet I posted was in support of the article and the proposition that disagreement with government policy or action is not anti-semitic (or anti-American, etc.) Again, readers can decide for themselves...

Donald Kent Douglas hates, and Donald Kent Douglas lashes out.
No surprise there. He's been doing it for years...

How long until he does it again? Anybody's guess. (History says it won't be long, though.)

His ranting is self-refuting.

Links:
American Power: Hateful Anti-Semitic Ghoul Walter James Casper III Tweets Jew-Bashing Attack on Pamela Geller — and Israel!

Why Pamela Geller's Hate Speech Should Be Barred — But BDS Allowed – Forward.com

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?

Saturday, April 13, 2013

In Reply: "Speaking out is seldom if ever un-American, whether in support of Geller and her bigotry or in opposition to it." (Bigotry, Pamela Geller, Dishonesty, Free Speech, Protest)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:
"repsec3 here is the official reason given by the synagogue (not PG) for their withdrawal. They were worried about the safety of their children, etc obviously from radical Islam! What's not to understand? Nearly every time there is a conference on shariah or radcial islam, the hotels etc are pressured to cancel as happened here by a government official no less among others. It's deniers like you that enable their UnAmerican tactics...
'As the notoriety and media exposure of the planned program this Sunday have increased, so has the legal liability and potential security exposure of our institution and it's [sic] member families. In an era of heightened security concerns it is irresponsible to jeopardize the safety of those who call Great Neck Synagogue home, especially our children, even at the risk of diverting attention from a potentially important voice in the ongoing debate.'"
---
My Reply:

Funny that you choose to include "obviously from radical islam" in your response, when that obviously wasn't in the synagogue's statement. The only announced protest in opposition to Geller's appearance that I can find was organized by members of the Great Neck Synagogue, who intended to hold up signs across the street. The interfaith organization and the rabbis who were opposed pretty specifically said they did not intend to attend or to stage any protest. In fact, the only real push for a large on-site protest was being made by Ms. Geller's supporters. (And that's to say nothing of the armed bodyguards she announced she'd be bringing with her. Necessary or not, I'd imagine that they upped the synagogue's potential legal liability and security exposure.)

Now, I do think it was somewhat short-sighted of the synagogue to choose to have this event while the children were attending Sunday school at the same time--and I question why they didn't change the time of the event once they realized it would likely be an issue--but the fact that any protests might frighten the children or make it more difficult for their parents to drop them off and pick them up--both fully reasonable concerns--is not the same as suggesting that any individual or group threatened the safety or security of a single parent or child.

Speaking out is seldom if ever un-American, whether in support of Geller and her bigotry or in opposition to it.
---

Posted: 12:13 am on Saturday, April 13, 2013
---

Added Links:
Sunday, April 14 Event Cancellation : Great Neck Synagogue
Shul Cancels Pamela Geller — But Fails To Take Stand – Forward Thinking – Forward.com
Chabad to host Geller after Great Neck Synagogue drops controversial speaker - The Island Now: News
Geller Forum Shifts To New Venues | The Jewish Week
Controversial anti-jihad blogger will bring armed guards to synagogue speech | PIX 11

Friday, April 12, 2013

In Reply: "Geller has every right to speak. But free speech does not guarantee an audience, protection from criticism, or the use of someone else's soapbox." (Dishonest media, Pamela Geller, Bigotry, Free Speech)

In reply to the following three comments offered at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:
"The fact that you went to the state-run media confirms the fact that you're a low information voter. Did you happen to ask the police?"
and
"Not everybody agrees that it is bigotry. Why are you trying to rob people of the right to hear anything they want to.Are you the parents of those who wish to listen and formulate their opinions after hearing Ms.Gellar,"
and
"Geller's not a bigot, YOU ARE.

Geller speaks the truth about islam and the Left's joint group-grope against America and Israel, and you and the far left and jihadis threatened a riot at the synagogue, forcing the cancellation.

Keep it up, you will eventually get the violence you are aiming for, but you better have bought your toe tags by then, because you won't like the result."

---
My reply:
"Not everybody agrees that it is bigotry."

Not everyone agrees that it isn't, either. So why would you want to rob people of the right to say they believe it is bigotry, in very much the same way as you accuse others of "robbing" Geller's "right" to speak. (Geller has every right to speak. What she doesn't have is a right to speak at a private venue that finds her speech offensive, or dangerous. Free speech does not guarantee an audience, or someone else's soapbox to stand on, either.)

"threatened a riot at the synagogue"

Any citation for that? Because again, no media source--including this one--is making any such allegation. The only person saying anyone was threatened is Pamela Geller, in her interpretation of the synagogue's decision. No one from the synagogue, or the media, or the local police has reported any confirmed threat to any person place or thing. (And with respect to Natalie's "state-run media" comment from yesterday, I'm pretty sure that Mr Jacques is not a tool of the government... Not positive, mind you, but pretty sure... YMMV...)
---

Posted: 3:29 pm on Friday, April 12, 2013

Thursday, April 11, 2013

In Reply: Threats against the neighborhood, the children, or the Great Neck Synagogue? Where? (Pamela Geller, Bigotry, Dishonesty, Free Speech)

In reply to the following comment at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:
"The threats to the residents of the neighborhood, against their children, and against the synagogue are more real than Geller's unproven bigotry. Read her work and enlighten your ignorance. Then stand for her freedom of speech or most surely you will lose your own.
This synagogue stood alone against weeks of threats and intimidation. There must be a complete investigation of the threats and those responsible must be prosecuted. Freedom denied to one American is denied to all.
Ironically, these tactics have spread Geller's work to an enormously wider audience than that of one temple."

---
I asked several media outlets--including this one [see e-mail appended below]--to document these supposed threats against the neighborhood, the children, or the synagogue, or to at least obtain statements from people associated with the synagogue saying that anyone was actually threatened. No media outlet or synagogue official has gone on the record with any threat. Make of that what you will.

Posted: 8:53 pm on Thursday, April 11, 2013
---

E-mail:
To: rich.jacques@patch.com (and sent to several other media outlets who'd reported on the Geller controversy)

Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller, Jewishpress.com and other supportive social media outlets are implying that protesters threatened Sunday school children who attend classes at the synagogue, and that is why the synagogue board cancelled Pamela Geller's speech. Please interview the rabbi and others at the synagogue, and confirm or debunk that allegation. If you do find threats, please post specific examples if possible.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

In Reply: "Bigotry has no place in a synagogue, in any house of worship, or anywhere else in America." (Pamela Geller, Free Speech, Bigotry, Religion)

In reply to Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch
--

While I wish they'd done so because they believe bigotry has no place in their synagogue (or in any house of worship, or anywhere else in America, for that matter), I'm glad they cancelled her speech, if only because *I* believe there should be no place for bigotry in America, least of all in a house of worship.

Posted: 9:51 pm on Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

X-Post: Nothing Good Lasts Forever: Dishonest Donald Douglas Lashes Out Again

After just over seven weeks of blessed silence in which crazy stalker Donald Kent Douglas curbed his need to lash out against me, Dishonest Don let loose with another crazy screed talking more about who and what he wants to fool his his readers into believing about me than about the subject at hand (marriage equality, this time).

There's little point dissecting the thing--it's just more of the same epithets and "guilt by association" nonsense that Donald Douglas usually writes, especially where I'm concerned. If anyone is interested in my views on marriage equality, they're not hard to find (look here or here), and they don't need translating or explanation by a third party, least of all some crazy obsessed fuck who periodically lashes out at me over the internet, unprovoked.

But since I'm here anyway, I'll crosspost the main part of the post that brought Dishonest Donald Douglas slithering out from under his rock. Those interested can read what I wrote, and then compare it with Dishonest Donald's rant over on his blog, and decide for themselves...:
=======

What'd I Say?: We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)

I recently had a conversation in the comment section of a youtube video: Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents (I'll link to it, but I refuse to embed the thing, both because I disagree with Carolla's take on the subject and because it's altogether a pretty obnoxious video.)

While the conversation started out kinda rocky--in part because I thought something the guy had said was kind of bigoted, and lashed out in reply in a way I wish I hadn't--it was generally not too bad a discussion. (In fact, I'll likely append it to the end of this post, in case anyone's interested.) The gentleman also sent me three e-mails to my youtube account containing links to posts with which he agreed, and which, surprisingly enough, agreed with him, too. What follows is my response to all three posts, as well as the discussion we had. When I stared writing, I initially intended it to be an e-mail reply but given the length, I decided to send him a link to this, instead. The title of this post is taken from the last of his three e-mails.

"homosexual marriage
Not to get all evangelical but the author below has written extensively on the issue of homosexual marriage and politics. His street cred is total and you will find his various articles insightful and even surprising.
I did.
R.O. Lopez writes from the heart and I feel you will benefit from his thoughts. The link below is not the only article and you can go to the archives and find his literary works and they are all valuable insights into this issue most people never even know they don't know.
Enjoy.
American Thinker: The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage

---

I just stumbled over this...
American Thinker: The Annulment of Same-sex Marriage

---

We just disagree
So you see, there IS another side of the debate than yours. Remember: I am one of THOSE people.
American Thinker: The Price of Gay Marriage: The Galvanic Corrosion of Language
"
My reply:

Of course there are more sides to the marriage equality debate than mine. In fact, I believe there are more than just two, although the question of equal marriage rights has only two possible answers; equality before the law or inequality.

Everyone has a right to believe as they will, for religious, ethical, or societal reasons. But only one side of this debate is advocating that the other be prohibited by law from acting in accord with their beliefs.

I've read through all 3 of the "American Thinker" articles you offered links to, and trust me when I say I've read many other articles and posts at similar sites by those authors and others with similar views. The fact that you (and they) believe the primary purpose of laws and statutes governing civil marriage is procreation and parenthood simply does not make it so. The laws pertaining to the birth and care of children are the ones that say so. To read more into the rest of the laws pertaining to marriage--the ones that are about tax rates, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, wills, and the rest of the over 1000 federal, state, and local rights and benefits automatically granted to traditional couples at the moment they say "I do"--and that DON'T specifically mention children--is seeing what you wish to see, rather than what's really there. Only a fraction of those same 1000+ rights and benefits are offered to same-sex couples, even in states that allow civil unions or have marriage equality.

Procreation is a natural phenomenon. Marriage is a human creation. It has probably always had a religious component, a legal one, and one based strictly in nature, involving procreation and sexual desire (both to continue the species, and for pleasure, as well). Sometimes those components are in synch, and sometimes they're not.

I understand the natural argument, but given that so few animals choose and stick with one mate for the majority of their lives, I don't see why anyone arguing in favor of marriage, traditional or otherwise, should or would offer nature as an argument. Were we to use nature as our guide, we'd be doing much better at propagating the species, but we'd be screwing like...well, bunnies, with little if any regard for the man or woman we were with the night before.

Once we get past nature, the religious and legal definitions and purposes of marriage have never been set in stone. I can appreciate that the Judeo-Christian God defined marriage in a way that is largely accepted in these parts (especially by the jews and christians who live in these parts), but there are other religions with other beliefs that define marriage in different ways. (Even different denominations within christianity define marriage in slightly different ways.)

A 10 minute google search suggests that a relatively small but still significant number of same-sex marriages and unions have occurred throughout all of recorded history. (Some were legal (that is, civil) marriages accepted by law and the cultures in which they took place, while others were religiously recognized--including by the Christian church. (St. Serge and St. Bacchus, Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John). One of the first laws against same sex marriage was in ancient Rome. Presumably they passed the law to stop same-sex marriages that were taking place at the time.

Even aside that, the religious, legal, and socially recognized and accepted rules regarding marriage have changed in all sorts of ways throughout history, from the ages of the participants, the number of participants, whether people of different religions could marry, whether people of different races could marry, the rules regarding divorce, the rules regarding remarriage after divorce, the practice of marrying the widow of one's deceased brother, even if you were already married, dowries, the role of husbands and wives in the home and out, the necessity of love (or any prior relationship at all) between the participants, ..., ... There is very little about legal marriage, the rite of marriage, or the social definitions of marriage that has NOT changed since each of these institutions began.

It's up to one's church and scripture to decide which changes to accept and which to reject and refuse; I would never want government law to determine religious doctrine, though I do believe change is possible, in that there are already faiths and denominations that allow gay folks to serve and to marry, and because of the extent to which an actual threat to traditional marriage--divorce--has already been accepted by so much of the mainstream religious community throughout the world.

Legally though, appeals to nature, to church, or even to tradition and "the way it's always been" just don't hold up under scrutiny. Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...

I do believe children should have male and female solid long-term role models in their lives, but I don't believe US law should prevent couples from marrying or raising children in an effort to encourage (or really, enforce) those standards.

Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't--and shouldn't be--defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been--except of course, as an argument against marriage equality.... (Women were (and in a few cases, still are) tested for virginity, and blood tests were done to prevent certain diseases (chiefly syphilis, but TB and german measles were also mentioned), but I know of no tests for fertility, or laws or church doctrine that require children or the possibility of them to start or maintain a legal (or religiously recognized) marriage. We don't even require couples to sign an affidavit affirming that they are able to procreate prior to allowing them to marry, which would require no testing.

It's not that I don't understand the arguments those opposed to legal marriage equality are making... I just don't think they hold all that much water.
=======

Read what we each wrote, and decide for yourselves...

Links:

American Power: Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness

What'd I Say?: We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

An American Nihilist X-post

Thursday, March 21, 2013

We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)

I recently had a conversation in the comment section of a youtube video: Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents (I'll link to it, but I refuse to embed the thing, both because I disagree with Carolla's take on the subject and because it's altogether a pretty obnoxious video.)

While the conversation started out kinda rocky--in part because I thought something the guy had said was kind of bigoted, and lashed out in reply in a way I wish I hadn't--it was generally not too bad a discussion. (In fact, I'll likely append it to the end of this post, in case anyone's interested.) The gentleman also sent me three e-mails to my youtube account containing links to posts with which he agreed, and which, surprisingly enough, agreed with him, too. What follows is my response to all three posts, as well as the discussion we had. When I stared writing, I initially intended it to be an e-mail reply but given the length, I decided to send him a link to this, instead. The title of this post is taken from the last of his three e-mails.

"homosexual marriage
Not to get all evangelical but the author below has written extensively on the issue of homosexual marriage and politics. His street cred is total and you will find his various articles insightful and even surprising.
I did.
R.O. Lopez writes from the heart and I feel you will benefit from his thoughts. The link below is not the only article and you can go to the archives and find his literary works and they are all valuable insights into this issue most people never even know they don't know.
Enjoy.
American Thinker: The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage

---

I just stumbled over this...
American Thinker: The Annulment of Same-sex Marriage

---

We just disagree
So you see, there IS another side of the debate than yours. Remember: I am one of THOSE people.
American Thinker: The Price of Gay Marriage: The Galvanic Corrosion of Language
"
My reply:

Of course there are more sides to the marriage equality debate than mine. In fact, I believe there are more than just two, although the question of equal marriage rights has only two possible answers; equality before the law or inequality.

Everyone has a right to believe as they will, for religious, ethical, or societal reasons. But only one side of this debate is advocating that the other be prohibited by law from acting in accord with their beliefs.

I've read through all 3 of the "American Thinker" articles you offered links to, and trust me when I say I've read many other articles and posts at similar sites by those authors and others with similar views. The fact that you (and they) believe the primary purpose of laws and statutes governing civil marriage is procreation and parenthood simply does not make it so. The laws pertaining to the birth and care of children are the ones that say so. To read more into the rest of the laws pertaining to marriage--the ones that are about tax rates, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, wills, and the rest of the over 1000 federal, state, and local rights and benefits automatically granted to traditional couples at the moment they say "I do"--and that DON'T specifically mention children--is seeing what you wish to see, rather than what's really there. Only a fraction of those same 1000+ rights and benefits are offered to same-sex couples, even in states that allow civil unions or have marriage equality.

Procreation is a natural phenomenon. Marriage is a human creation. It has probably always had a religious component, a legal one, and one based strictly in nature, involving procreation and sexual desire (both to continue the species, and for pleasure, as well). Sometimes those components are in synch, and sometimes they're not.

I understand the natural argument, but given that so few animals choose and stick with one mate for the majority of their lives, I don't see why anyone arguing in favor of marriage, traditional or otherwise, should or would offer nature as an argument. Were we to use nature as our guide, we'd be doing much better at propagating the species, but we'd be screwing like...well, bunnies, with little if any regard for the man or woman we were with the night before.

Once we get past nature, the religious and legal definitions and purposes of marriage have never been set in stone. I can appreciate that the Judeo-Christian God defined marriage in a way that is largely accepted in these parts (especially by the jews and christians who live in these parts), but there are other religions with other beliefs that define marriage in different ways. (Even different denominations within christianity define marriage in slightly different ways.)

A 10 minute google search suggests that a relatively small but still significant number of same-sex marriages and unions have occurred throughout all of recorded history. (Some were legal (that is, civil) marriages accepted by law and the cultures in which they took place, while others were religiously recognized--including by the Christian church. (St. Serge and St. Bacchus, Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John). One of the first laws against same sex marriage was in ancient Rome. Presumably they passed the law to stop same-sex marriages that were taking place at the time.

Even aside that, the religious, legal, and socially recognized and accepted rules regarding marriage have changed in all sorts of ways throughout history, from the ages of the participants, the number of participants, whether people of different religions could marry, whether people of different races could marry, the rules regarding divorce, the rules regarding remarriage after divorce, the practice of marrying the widow of one's deceased brother, even if you were already married, dowries, the role of husbands and wives in the home and out, the necessity of love (or any prior relationship at all) between the participants, ..., ... There is very little about legal marriage, the rite of marriage, or the social definitions of marriage that has NOT changed since each of these institutions began.

It's up to one's church and scripture to decide which changes to accept and which to reject and refuse; I would never want government law to determine religious doctrine, though I do believe change is possible, in that there are already faiths and denominations that allow gay folks to serve and to marry, and because of the extent to which an actual threat to traditional marriage--divorce--has already been accepted by so much of the mainstream religious community throughout the world.

Legally though, appeals to nature, to church, or even to tradition and "the way it's always been" just don't hold up under scrutiny. Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...

I do believe children should have male and female solid long-term role models in their lives, but I don't believe US law should prevent couples from marrying or raising children in an effort to encourage (or really, enforce) those standards.

Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't--and shouldn't be--defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been--except of course, as an argument against marriage equality.... (Women were (and in a few cases, still are) tested for virginity, and blood tests were done to prevent certain diseases (chiefly syphilis, but TB and german measles were also mentioned), but I know of no tests for fertility, or laws or church doctrine that require children or the possibility of them to start or maintain a legal (or religiously recognized) marriage. We don't even require couples to sign an affidavit affirming that they are able to procreate prior to allowing them to marry, which would require no testing.

It's not that I don't understand the arguments those opposed to legal marriage equality are making... I just don't think they hold all that much water.
---

The rest of the conversation(s) with which I was involved. (I think it'll quickly become obvious which one was with the guy who sent the links.)
I [will, at some point] put the comment links in, but they don't seem to work for me... All of 'em just start the obnoxious video, but don't connect to the comment they're supposed to "link" to. Go figure... (I'll add them anyway, in case it's a browser thing or something, and they work for others.)
And finally, I tried to keep the threads together and in order, so I marked where threads ended and repeated comments that got more than one reply. As a result, not every comment is in strict "time posted" order, but each thread is complete and in conversational order.:

buffalowingmediabias: As I said in my video description, go to the FCKH8 youtube channel. You can see what the Gaystapo is championing. Look at the whole "anti-bullying" campaign. They are trying to give people who dare to oppose the gay agenda the stigma that they are bullies. They throw around the word "hate" like there's no tomorrow, promoting the stigma that if you oppose the gay agenda, it must be out of hate. They also make generalizations about religious people all the time.
repsac3: People against gay marriage shouldn't get gay married. But when they insist that NO ONE can get gay married because they're against it, they're behaving like bullies.
buffalowingmediabias: If you don't like religious people, then don't be religious. See how lame that sounds?
repsac3: I don't know whether or not that's some kinda canned response, but it isn't in any way analogous to what I actually said...
A more fitting analogy would be "if you're opposed to religious services, don't attend church," which, like what I said about not being a part of a gay marriage if you're against gay marriages, makes perfect sense to me.
(What you said instead WAS kinda lame... Although, if a person really didn't like religious people, I could see his/her being reluctant to become one.)

+++++++++++


repsac3: People against gay marriage shouldn't get gay married. But when they insist that NO ONE can get gay married because they're against it, they're behaving like bullies.
1776stubborn: Don't be dense. Toleration is not acceptance. You want acceptance, but you pretend that you want toleration.
I should tell you that more and more of my friends are getting wise to this little detail. And that is not all: they are getting more and more intolerant of militant homosexuals. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways. Get it? Both ways? Never mind.
Few "movements" end the way they began. The 2% of the pop that wants to force acceptance of homo-hood might just be surprised.
repsac3: I'm kinda live and let live. What I don't want is for people to use the law to force other people to do (or not do) the things they want to do. Folks should control their own behavior, not the behavior of other people. Atheists shouldn't pass laws to keep religious folks from attending church, and folks opposed to being gay shouldn't dictate whether or not folks who are gay should be able to civilly "marry."
1776stubborn: I can respect what you say, but this is what I have learned in my 62 years on Earth. I was in college when the great sexual revo kicked off. We were promised that nothing bad would come of the NEW sexual mores.
I had never seen a teen mom or public school inhouse baby sitter room. That was in 1969. The worst thing you could catch was the clap. Crosby, Stills and Young sang "Love the one you're with".
They were wrong. Why do you think you're not?
repsac3: It's naive to think that the mores of the 1960's were "new," or that just because teen mothers and their babies were more hidden from polite society in earlier years they didn't exist. Many societies have adjusted the definitions of "marriage" and "family," both legally and religiously. There was a time when marriages were arranged, and treated more like property agreements or ways to secure treaties between governments. Concubines were common. Times change, both for ill and for good.
1776stubborn: No, it is not "naive". I didn't say anything was "new", merely unknown to me and my world. I didn't live in a bubble either.
And we are talking about degrees, not absolutes.
I know of no homosexual nations or cultures that had "arranged" homosexual marriages.
Concubines were of cultures that treated women like cattle. Surely you aren't defending this?
repsac3: While I don't know the history of gay folks and marriage (and concede there may be no history), I don't find the lack of history a compelling reason to dictate the future, especially given some of the things that are in the history of marriage. And no, I'm not defending concubinage or arranged marriages... I'm defending the fact that things--including the definition of marriage--has and will continue to change as time went/goes on.
1776stubborn: And the notion that progress always goes to the left is specious and unfounded wishful thinking. What will you and the rest of society do if and when this dream of gay marriage/unions etc ends up producing a miserable and unhappy subculture? How will you get the toothpaste back in the tube?
Radical change is exciting, but it seldom ends happily. Live long enough and you will see. Life will teach you what you didn't learn in the student union.
repsac3: While I cannot see the future, I don't accept that "something terrible may happen" is a sufficient reason to keep gay folks from uniting under law. (Ditto "man-dog" marriage, polygamous marriage, or any of the other supposed slippery slopes.) Scientific discovery sometimes results in bad acts, too. Hell, you or I could step on a slug and slip on his guts and break your/my neck. But I'm not going to stop walking (or argue for a law against it) because it may turn out tragic for one of us.
1776stubborn: No, you can't see the future, but you can see the past and you can see the present. Traditional rules of societal behavior are not usually arbitrary and pointless. Most have be through the grind of human cultures and the Darwinian (if you will) notion of natural selection has decreed that homo behavior, while apeing hetero behavior has no survival value.
Thus the behavior is aberrant for reasons ordinary folks in the past and the present and hopefully the future would understand.
repsac3: Neither marriage or sex is limited to survival... Not among most humans, anyway... (There may have been a time when that was true, but even devout Catholics have sex for pleasure, these days... They use birth control, and everything... Not only that, I hear tell that science has discovered that some animals have sex just for fun, as well...) The times, they are a-changin'
1776stubborn: "Well, you or I could step on a slug and slip on his guts and break your/my neck. But I'm not going to stop walking (or argue for a law against it) because it may turn out tragic for one of us."
Anecdotal "evidence" is hardly dispositive and one cannot successfully measure the set by a subset.
Again, I must go. Netflix calls. Be well, but this topic is done. Stick a fork in it.
repsac3: I offered no anecdotal evidence. I argued that it is folly to make or support law based on "the terrible things that might happen, maybe," whether it's speculation about "the miserable and unhappy subculture" that might maybe be produced by marriage equality, or about the potential dangers of slug guts (or wet grass, or the Metropolitan bus system) to the pedestrian public. Both are ridiculous, as a reason to pass or maintain restrictive laws, anyway...
1776stubborn: "I don't find the lack of history a compelling reason to dictate the future,"
You should. Traditional societal norms "evolve" over time and EXPERIENCE. In other words, what works survives, what doesn't doesn't.
If nature and humankind, after tens of millenia, hasn't found the same sex phenom to be a successful model for procreation (the Ultimate Prime Directive), why should some San Fran types get to pout and shout and demand such a serious change in Western mores?
repsac3: If you really believed in this prime directive, the laws of man would not be necessary. Homosexuality would already be doomed. So why do you insist that there be laws against their doomed existence? Why not let them be united under law (which may actually help their inescapable fate come sooner)?
1776stubborn: I don't believe in "the laws of man." I believe in the laws of God.  Big diff.
Homosexuality IS already doomed.
I had many homosexual friends as a young man. Married and older, I have few friends period. LOL.....you will learn this.
I have no issue with one human loving another human. The form and practice has immediate and long range effects you seem blind too. It must be your youth.
Anyway, I left you a link on your youtube account. I have to go now.
Be well.
repsac3: I take no issue with the laws of God...except when His dictates are written into secular law that governs believer and non-believer alike. You absolutely should follow the laws of your God...but you should not expect that those of other faiths, or of no faith, do so as well...at least not in this country... (And the condescending "youth" thing is a non-starter...and more'n a little silly, besides...)

---
1776stubborn: Don't be dense. Toleration is not acceptance. You want acceptance, but you pretend that you want toleration.
I should tell you that more and more of my friends are getting wise to this little detail. And that is not all: they are getting more and more intolerant of militant homosexuals. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways. Get it? Both ways? Never mind.
Few "movements" end the way they began. The 2% of the pop that wants to force acceptance of homo-hood might just be surprised.
repsac3: That said, I do think the church should marry folks, and the state should regulate civil unions--meaning all laws delete the word "marriage" and substitute "civil union." (The state can recognize religious marriages AS civil unions, but they should not dictate what is or isn't a religious marriage, just as the church should have no say over civil unions.) That'd go a long way to ending the semantic war over "marriage," and let wethepeople determine who is/isn't covered under fed/state/local law.
1776stubborn: marriage vs civil unions.
At first blush, one could easily agree with your approach, but as in the phony claims of gun control advocates who draw a line in the sand promising to never cross it and go for a total ban, we don't trust them and we don't trust the "civil unions" crowd.
incremental destruction of the family unit is what you REALLY desire.
repsac3: You misunderstand... There would be no "further" to go. If every law that currently uses the word "marriage" is amended to use "civil union" instead, God and one's church defines the sacrament of marriage for all (or their) believers, and the state defines the laws concerning unions for all citizens. (Sure, there may be some gay folks who will try to force churches to marry them, as well as some religious folks who want America to make civil law based on their holy text... Some people are nuts.)
1776stubborn: Actually, I find this offering of yours more compelling, however, as much as I wish to be fair...we are forgetting the main reason for "marriage" and that is children.
Semantics aside, I agree totally with Carolla re the mommy/daddy model vs the daddy/daddy or mommy/mommy models.
There is more to this then what a bunch of self-absorbed grownups want.
repsac3: I dispute both the assertion and (assuming the assertion were true) the haphazard response to it. Many people marry for reasons having nothing to do with children. Others intend to have children, but can't. If marriage--or the laws governing marriage--were about children they would (or could) so specify. For the most part, they don't. No one tests for the ability to make babies in the course of getting a marriage license...not even the church.
1776stubborn: "Many people marry for reasons having nothing to do with children. Others intend to have children, but can't."
Don't be obtuse. I am talking about what nature has decreed the optimal condition for the raising and care of human children.
You can dispute all you want. The facts are still the same: Nature (the Prime Directive) hasn't created a human strain that can self-reproduce or at least reproduce homosexually, as much as you wish it so.
No marriage is perfect. Carolla has your number.
repsac3: There is no marriage in nature, my friend. That is a human invention. Some animals do mate for life, but the number who do is tiny. Most mate at will with whoever is handy. And I'm fairly certain you wouldn't advocate that we humans follow in THOSE "natural" footsteps. And yes, there is some homosexuality and bisexuality among the animals, as well... Though you are correct that it doesn't increase their numbers, either.

---
1776stubborn: Actually, I find this offering of yours more compelling, however, as much as I wish to be fair...we are forgetting the main reason for "marriage" and that is children.
Semantics aside, I agree totally with Carolla re the mommy/daddy model vs the daddy/daddy or mommy/mommy models.
There is more to this then what a bunch of self-absorbed grownups want.
repsac3: And if it were true... Why is divorce legal? Even if mom and dad ARE what's best for children (and it may be), what is second best? Third? Are children better off with single parents or with two gay parents? What about group homes or fostercare vs two gay parents? What is THE REST of the science say, and if the children of single parents score lower than children in gay homes, should we make single parenthood or divorce illegal? (I say no, just so we're clear.)
1776stubborn: "Why is divorce legal? Even if mom and dad ARE what's best for children (and it may be), what is second best? Third? Are children better off with single parents or with two gay parents? What about group homes or fostercare vs two gay parents?"
At one time divorce wasn't easily gotten. Rare was it in olden times. And it had it's uses. Not all hetero marriages are good. There. Happy?
Mom and Dad are what's best. The rest are by def what you do when you can't get the best.
repsac3: Even if you're correct that a biological mother and father in a successful marriage is what's best for raising children--and I suspect it may be--your response is, well, non-responsive. Children are conceived outside of wedlock. Marriages end due to divorce or death. Some children are orphaned. Now what? Not every child will grow up in your ideal "best" situation. What are the rest of the "best to worst" rankings, and at what rank should a family situation become illegal?
1776stubborn: "and if the children of single parents score lower than children in gay homes, should we make single parenthood or divorce illegal?"
I'm unsure what you are driving at. At the very least we should make single parenthood rare and divorce difficult. Children are the ones who pay for mistakes grown-ups make, but have no voice. Stability is key for kids.
Sometimes parents should shut up, suck it up and soldier on.
FOR THE KIDS. Does that make it easier to swallow? You disagree?
repsac3: Yes, I disagree. I think some people give up on their marriages far too easily...but others should get out a lot sooner than they do... No one should put up with physical abuse more'n once (or twice, at most), kids or no kids. Sure, work through infidelity a time or two or three...but once it's a pattern, it does the children very little good to have that as a parental model of behavior... Yes, I disagree...sometimes, anyway... (I wouldn't make "soldiering on" the law, for certain.)
---

Added 3/26/13: The internet rantings of my crazy stalker, Dishonest Donald Douglas, after having read (or at least selectively quoting from) this post: American Power: Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness Read his ravings, and decide for yourself whether he accurately portrays my position. (I may reply, I may not... As someone once said about Dr. Douglas and his blog, "his rantings are self-refuting.")

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)