Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Grudge-Holding Gay Nazi Cows

Josh writes:

Updates to a couple of earlier posts.

I'm not sure what I think of Jim Peron at the Institute for Liberal Values, but I have to respect his thorough, two-part demolition of Judith Reisman's wackier theories (in response to that Sandra Paterson column). Highlights include:

She says these erototoxins make one unable to think rationally. Therefore pornography is not protected speech. But Reisman herself spent years pouring over porn magazines to "analyse" their content. She has viewed, or at least claimed to have viewed, thousands of porn magazines in her "studies". She says erototoxins are involuntary so she presumably wouldn't be able to prevent their formation any more than any other "victim" of pornography. Therefore these toxins must have inhibited her ability to think rationally. And all this time I just thought she was a loon. Little did I know her looniness is proof that her own theories are right.

Not to mention his analysis of Reisman and Co's theories on how the Nazis were all gay. Yes, these people actually claim that homosexuality caused the Holocaust, with "several million Butch... homosexual Nazis" working as guards in death camps. Good stuff.


Also, it's not just monkeys who sense injustice - cows can harbour a grudge. I smell a spin-off...

New this fall! Chimp Justice: Old MacDonald's!

In the pilot episode, a cross-over with the original Chimp Justice series, Officer Bongo is forced to travel outside his jurisdiction to track down the murderer of a bonobo hooker. He must work with Detective Daisy, a hard-nosed Holstein with a heart of gold, still nursing hard feelings over an incident back when the two of them were in the Academy. Sniping and arguments over jurisdiction eventually make way for an easy truce, as they both focus on hunting down the perpetrator so he can be brought to... Chimp Justice!

By the way, here's another instance of that article -- compare the two, and see which one left out the phrase "gay nymphomaniacs"... Yes, I'm still talking about cows.

4 comments:

RSJS said...

Moo-on.

phats said...

Granted Reisman's a complete moron, but I disagree entirely about Patterson. Her recent column here I completely agree with. Doesn't sound like raving loony-speak to me. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the ability of either left- or right-wing columnists, pundits, writers and journalists to follow up their damned sources. I think Patterson is guilty of that. Peron, on the other hand, spends most of his time with Ad Homenum. I was going to say 'wastes' most of his time with Ad Homenum, but it isn't wasted. It's perfectly sane: he will influence more people by engaging in this sort of activity, rather than by advocating his views on their own merits using formal logic.
That's not so much different to ommitting the title 'evangelist' when writing an opinion column in the Herald, actually..

Josh said...

I wouldn't call Peron's arguments ad hominem ("X is false because Y said it") in this case -- he's saying Paterson is both factually wrong and intellectually lazy in appealing to Reisman, whose views are demonstrably false, and who supports other people whose views are equally false.

phats said...

His article was named after a metaphor in which he compares Christians omitting their Christian credentials to hiding a light under a bush.

The fact that he thinks Patterson's Christian credentials are central at all is what bothers me. I don't see why they should be; and that link I posted doesn't seem to be doing such a great job in forwarding her despicable plot of subverting the masses through 'hiding' her true motives. (I think that Putting the word 'Jesus' in the first sentance of a document is a pretty fair indication of her point of view.)

Peron engages in false analogy by comparing his self-chosen occupation title "executive director of the Institute for Liberal Values" with her unchosen-and-rather-loaded-label of "evangelist".

Is he a Marxist? Perhaps he is. Is he a Hare Krishna? Probably not, but even if he was both, that doesn't mean either should be his job title. I'm unaware of his positions on other matters, but I can understand why he doesn't choose to call it the "Institute for legalization of drugs, unborn-baby killing, flagrant fudge-packing and public nudity." Here I am obviously taking an extreme example, but we both can see that selective and careful use of terms is an activity widely practised by both sides of any given debate.

"She harps on the morality issues constantly. She is as predictable as most those who share her religious fervour."

This is similar enough to the Mandy Rice-Davies ploy described herethat I would consider the writing ad hominem.

"Fundamentalists in New Zealand are not changing their product but they are relabelling it."
Really? But I thought they were converting to more liberal points of view! Maybe we should respect them more if they adjust their deity to align more closely with public opinion. So what they are actually doing is engaging in selected use of terms?? Outrageous!

"And Maxim Institute never completely admits they are fundamentalists with a Religious Right agenda. They call themselves a policy institute."
"And the Institute for Liberal Values never completely admits they are filthy drug-addled hippies with an Atheist Left agenda. They call themselves a policy institute."
You can see the parallels. Religion is a loaded term. Fundamentalist is a loaded term. The Maxim Institute, whether Christian or not (I know there are Christians among them) has its policies outlined on their webpage. People are free to examine and accept or reject those policies based on their own merits. Is that such a bad thing? Funnily enough, the 'Non-Religious Right' might not be a completely mythical beast and might want some representation that isn't presented by provokative Jarheads like Tamaki.

But of course, we shouldn't let people distinguish between conservative perspectives and religious ones, because then we'd have to justify our positions on their own merits rather than simply writing off these people as conspiracy theorists, sex-obsessed religious loons and morons.

Given that he cites a prime example (Reisman) of exactly why Christians have no credibility due to problematic people, he then tears them apart for doing exactly the same rebranding he would do in their position.