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.
2 comments:
Moo-on.
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.
Post a Comment