tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post7147186991979267881..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: Why some types of "political correctness" are necessaryOne Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-31186409298533920592009-07-27T16:59:34.979-05:002009-07-27T16:59:34.979-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-54630448975483808352009-05-14T12:05:00.000-05:002009-05-14T12:05:00.000-05:00Well, some things might trend that way, as they ca...<I>Well, some things might trend that way, as they can over on "Science" Blogs, where the agenda can quickly move to some ditties certainly more about ideology than science</I>.<br /><br />Definately. After all, when a blog is titled "Dispatches from the Culture Wars", it's a fairly safe bet there will be a lot of political content. Some of the blogs, Like Respectful Influence, stay politically neutral, many do not.<br /><br /><I>As to DiLorenzo, check again.<br /><br />He's an historian as well as economist</I>.<br /><br />I saw that he has made some detailed study, and read one of his on-line debates. I just didn't see anything particularly noteworthy.<br /><br /><I>I realize that I should have posted that under the other posting you had about "Confederacy Denialism". Or so to speak. Whoops</I>.<br /><br />No, that's not what I meant. I was not sure why you were bring up the complaints concerning how we teach the motivations of the North in response to complaints/analysis about the false protrayal by politically motivated individuals of the motives of the South. It didn't seem very on-point.<br /><br /><I>But, in any case, it IS interesting that an event over 150 years in the past is now routinely used as yet another PCism that gives a start rebuke (so we are told) to notions of the 10th Amendment needing boostering beingn some kind of icky, redneckish argument</I>.<br /><br />One man's simplification is another man's PC.<br /><br />when I was in high school, it was clearly presented that the Northern motivations/propaganda regarding the Civil War did not include slavery until 1863. I don't remember what I was taught about it in third grade.<br /><br /><I>... we see things are not quite that simple</I>.<br /><br />Agreed.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-23030703286247847362009-05-12T22:07:00.000-05:002009-05-12T22:07:00.000-05:00I agree this is an unfortunate trend. I’m not sure...<I>I agree this is an unfortunate trend. I’m not sure why you’d bother to bring it up in a comment here.</I>I realize that I should have posted that under the other posting you had about "Confederacy Denialism". Or so to speak. Whoops.<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />But, in any case, it IS interesting that an event over 150 years in the past is now routinely used as yet another PCism that gives a start rebuke (so we are told) to notions of the 10th Amendment needing boostering beingn some kind of icky, redneckish argument.<br /><br />When, with those....shades of grey, and seeing that the angels and demons didn't line up on Blue and Grey either, we see things are not quite that simple.<br /><br />Nothing in history ever is.Wakefield Tolberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07214688786380814406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-54932011561383389382009-05-12T21:38:00.000-05:002009-05-12T21:38:00.000-05:00Leftism? Really? Well, some things might trend tha...<I>Leftism? Really? </I>Well, some things might trend that way, as they can over on "Science" Blogs, where the agenda can quickly move to some ditties certainly more about ideology than science.<br /><br />As to DiLorenzo, check again.<br /><br />He's an historian as well as economist.<br /><br />I don't agree with much of what he says but it is a refreshing break to move away from the "official" lines of things we got taught in school.Wakefield Tolberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07214688786380814406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-55168892907068281482009-05-08T14:39:00.000-05:002009-05-08T14:39:00.000-05:00Welcome to the blog, Wakefield Tolbert. Do come b...Welcome to the blog, Wakefield Tolbert. Do come by often.<br /><br /><I>My first response before recomposure was "...oh golly, yet another site that claims some wide ratiocentric reasoning girth on behalf of leftism</I>.<br /><br />Leftism? Really? <br /><br />No, there are many very rational (i.e., logically valid) justifications for a variety of positions associated with rightism. I do happen to think there is reasonability gap (i.e., of logical soundness).<br /><br /><I>Given the sad state of the public schools in this nation (yet another reason we don't need 20 million+ ignorant illegal aliens to trim hedges and clean golf courses in this nation--the schools can aready handle that particular economic argument), it is no suprise the the demogoguery of the Civil War as "freein' the slaves" lives on, when in fact that is the result, however favorable, of something not quite what we hear</I>.<br /><br />I agree this is an unfortunate trend. I’m not sure why you’d bother to bring it up in a comment here. Certainly I made no claim as to the motives of the union being about freeing slaves. I have long known that Lincoln would have committed to preserving slavery in order to preserve the union.<br /><br /><I> I suggest you find a chipper chap named Thomas DiLorenzo on this matter. </I>.<br /><br />I didn’t see anything particulary noteworthy there.<br /><br /><I>Yes, Virginia, there REALLY IS such a beast as States' Rights. </I>.<br /><br />One of the particular concerns of the South were the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave provisions, as interpreted by Dred Scott. It’s curious how you want to portray secession as being about states rights, when the Confederate States would so vocal about other states not acceding to their demands.<br /><br /><I>And on the issue of PC codes on politically correct speech?<br /><br />We need only the correct part</I>.<br /><br />I would agree to that, with only a couple of provisos as already discussed in this blog post.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-88431791875819355332009-05-08T14:05:00.000-05:002009-05-08T14:05:00.000-05:00You say this so glibly, Eric, with no analysis and...<I>You say this so glibly, Eric, with no analysis and a ton of presupposition. One premise seems to be that one should be ostracized from a "social group" if he does not "understand their book.</I>"<br /><br />You habitually seem to imply imperatives into what are intended to be statements of fact. Regardless of whether one "should be" ostracized, one will be.<br /><br /><I>Of course, a lot of people didn't misinterpret me, as far as I know, but naturally they don't count as part of the "social group" in question</I>.<br /><br />Why not? Or if you are intending sarcasm, it’s really coming off as bitterness.<br /><br /><I> I could never conclude that Cosell was "racist" on the basis of that one utterance, even if I had never seen or heard of the guy before. </I>"<br /><br />You seem to be assuming that anyone prominently involved in the situation on either genuinely thought of Cosell as a racist. Cosell did not describe it that way.<br /><br /><I>Here's a excerpt from a current blog:<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/221939/3448/89/321293</I>.<br /><br />I don’t see the point, other than some guy posting on a situation he doesn’t know anything about (Cosell’s) and comparing it to Imus.<br /><br /><I>It all kinda reminds me of another discussion we had once, eh, Eric? The Duke Lacrosse players, ya know?<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />Kinda ironic how those who constantly scream about how "prejudiced" others are toward them can be so abolutely and blindly prejudiced themselves when it comes to an issue which involves their "cause," eh</I>?<br /><br />Much more typical than ironic.<br /><br /><I>As I said before..UTTER WEAKNESS</I>.<br /><br />That’s your interpretation. Usually, things seem more complicated to me.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-1609564639015656922009-05-04T19:48:00.000-05:002009-05-04T19:48:00.000-05:00Ya read this here post too, eh, Tolbert? http://l...Ya read this here post too, eh, Tolbert? http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2008/12/confederacy-denialism.html#comments<br /><br />Seein as how yo talkin bout States rights, I'm guessin ya did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-83620251523867505472009-05-04T19:32:00.000-05:002009-05-04T19:32:00.000-05:00My first response before recomposure was "...oh go...My first response before recomposure was "...oh golly, yet another site that claims some wide ratiocentric reasoning girth on behalf of leftism. <br /><br />But what the hell:<br /><br />Given the sad state of the public schools in this nation (yet another reason we don't need 20 million+ ignorant illegal aliens to trim hedges and clean golf courses in this nation--the schools can aready handle that particular economic argument), it is no suprise the the demogoguery of the Civil War as "freein' the slaves" lives on, when in fact that is the result, however favorable, of something not quite what we hear. I suggest you find a chipper chap named Thomas DiLorenzo on this matter. <br /><br /><I>Yes, Virginia, there REALLY IS such a beast as States' Rights. </I>NOW: In no way, shape, format, or form does this excuse the 3000 year history of slavery, but by the same token provides the context that not only did it start in the South, it did not even start in America, but among the tribal chieftans of Africa who in turn introduced it to the sons of Arabia and later to Europe. Also, the context of some other little things Lincoln had going on, up to and including what the Left would call war crimes if we had a reincarnation of W.T. Sherman today.<br /><br />Be careful of that moral catbird seat. It can be kinda top heavy and tipsy.<br /><br />And on the issue of PC codes on politically correct speech?<br /><br />We need only the correct part.<br /><br />The lie comes in, in the politics part. Rarely are the two notions (political) (truth) co-joined at the spine. As Barney Frank and Paul Krugman illustrate, not to mention a governance now over the economy from men who've never had the pioneering ways with so much as a lemonade stand.<br /><br />Which is precisly the problem, or one of the many, rather--and the main issue with pious PC nonsense.<br /><br /><br />--Tolbert the High Brow, Multi-Brow.<br /><br />(or at least hailing from middlebrow America)Wakefield Tolberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07214688786380814406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-77312131712266683252009-05-04T19:11:00.000-05:002009-05-04T19:11:00.000-05:00It all kinda reminds me of another discussion we h...It all kinda reminds me of another discussion we had once, eh, Eric? The Duke Lacrosse players, ya know?<br /><br />The accused students were expelled the lacrosse coach was immediately fired, and the whole lacrosse schedule cancelled (to make sure the all the associates of defendants were punished too).<br /><br />The PC "judges" came out in a hurry, Nancy Grace on CNN said: ""I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" Almost 100 professors collectively ran an ad citing anonymous sources about the "sexism" and "racism" at Duke, and thanking the students who were demonstrating. Not surprising that over 70% of both the African American and Womens Studies departments signed on to this (none of the law professors did, of course). Only one ever apologized for prejuding the case. "Wanted posters" for all 40 members of the lacrosse team were widely circulated by students, and one black professor claimed that Duke had "veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves in the bargain." <br /><br />Kinda ironic how those who constantly scream about how "prejudiced" others are toward them can be so abolutely and blindly prejudiced themselves when it comes to an issue which involves their "cause," eh?<br /><br />As I said before..UTTER WEAKNESS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-85839707501786220392009-05-03T16:40:00.000-05:002009-05-03T16:40:00.000-05:00Meant to post the source, eh?:
http://www.dailyko...Meant to post the source, eh?:<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/221939/3448/89/321293Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-85337738061748140472009-05-03T16:38:00.000-05:002009-05-03T16:38:00.000-05:00Eric, in that other post, you also referred to pro...Eric, in that other post, you also referred to prominent blacks defending Cosell as a non-racist (which, of course, was obvious to anyone who knew anything about him and/or his history). You're making my point, actually. People who know nothing decide that they know everything from a few words. I could never conclude that Cosell was "racist" on the basis of that one utterance, even if I had never seen or heard of the guy before. That doesn't stop others from doin the opposite, even if the face of easily known facts and explanations.<br /><br />Here's a excerpt from a current blog:<br /><br />"As many of you remember, this was Howard Cosell's career-ending quote.<br /><br />Having been well overexposed to the Imus debacle, I'd reckon it's fair to say that it's a tossup between Cosell and Imus; they're both insensitive, racist fuckups.<br /><br />UPDATE Some say that Cosell didn't make racist remarks before this. I will certaintly NOT dispute this, Cosell seemed like a standup guy before that...I was as shocked as anyone. Nonetheless, he really fucked up. {end update}<br /><br />What really sucks today is that it developed into some so-called "issue." Thirty years ago there was no issue. There was no discussion. Cosell was fired shamed into resignation, no ifs, ands, buts, or controversy.<br /><br />That's right! No controversy! You're Thirty years ago there was no issue. There was no discussion. Cosell was fired shamed into resignation. Bye."<br /><br />Does it strike you as at all significant that some are so certain of the (erroneous) facts and interpretations, and of the mandatory "punishment" which should follow. Does it tell you anything about the underlying mentality at work?<br /><br />Out of 106 votes on the poll at this blog, 72% said Imus should be fired, "just like Cosell."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-33815272796479778172009-05-03T14:33:00.000-05:002009-05-03T14:33:00.000-05:00One Brow said: "You don't have the only book on t...One Brow said: "You don't have the only book on the planet. If you want to be part of a social group, you have to understand their book, as well." [That quote is from a post in another thread where we were discussin issues of "political correctness."}<br /><br />You say this so glibly, Eric, with no analysis and a ton of presupposition. One premise seems to be that one should be ostracized from a "social group" if he does not "understand their book."<br /><br />But what's it boil down to? According to you, "some" posters at Jazzfanz misinterpreted the meaning and intent of my posts, and I should have done sumthin to prevent that from happenin (by learning, understanding, and conforming to "their book," I guess).<br /><br />Of course, a lot of people didn't misinterpret me, as far as I know, but naturally they don't count as part of the "social group" in question. It is only those with the inability to comprehend who "count," and it is only those who must be satisfied if one desires to remain a part of the "social group."<br /><br />As if anyone could ever make anything statement to a mass audience which was not subject to bein misunderstood by someone, eh?<br /><br />You also not that: "Of course, since you're not even sure you want to go back to JazzFanz, I suppose that point is moot." Any "social group" which demands conformity to their particular brand of "groupthink" to allow you as a member is indeed a group that I don't care to belong to. The same is true, even more so, if they don't demand any particular "thought," but simply disallow ANY expression which might "offend" even one out of a thousand of their members.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-76436317960991962872009-05-03T00:42:00.000-05:002009-05-03T00:42:00.000-05:00The left-wing Berkeley professor of history, Marti...The left-wing Berkeley professor of history, Martin Jay, summarizes the history of "political correctness" in this here video, eh, Eric?<br /><br />http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-89160982239438343072009-05-01T19:20:00.000-05:002009-05-01T19:20:00.000-05:00Could it be? Well, it's possible, but it seems unl...<I>Could it be? Well, it's possible, but it seems unlikely. If anything, I think most humans are born with an innate aversion to smoking tobacco</I>.<br /><br />That actually enhances the example, rather than disputes it. The innate trait is not addiction to tobacco, but becoming addicted or not addicted after prolonged tobacco use. Just as the APA says there is a complex set of factors in homosexuality. Perhaps some genetic switches allow other factors to be turn on or off. Being determined does not require having a simple method of determination.<br /><br /><I>It seems virtually impossible that anyone would be "born" to desire such unnatural and unhealthy practices. The suggestion that someone is "born" with the innate sexual identity of a crap-eaters strikes me as absurd</I>.<br /><br />I don't know about that particular fetish. I have heard that, in the human brain, the places that receive/control our feet are close to those that control sexual perceptions and behaviors, and that foot fetishes may often be a case of bad wiring, so to speak.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-7496020897210369822009-05-01T10:04:00.000-05:002009-05-01T10:04:00.000-05:00Could it be? Well, it's possible, but it seems un...Could it be? Well, it's possible, but it seems unlikely. If anything, I think most humans are born with an innate aversion to smoking tobacco.<br /><br />For anyone I've ever known, my own damn self included, the natural bodily response is to utterly reject smoke, at first. Excessive coughing, to the point of choking, stomach sickness, dizziness, etc. are typical initial reactions to inhaling smoke, and these natural reactions don't go away quickly.<br /><br />It's, like, an acquired trait to begin with, I figure, and it aint exactly easy to acquire. If a human "craves" cigarettes, it seems doubtful that he was "born that way." <br /><br />Human psychology is full of mystery that strikes me as completely independent of anything "innate." You had a post about eatin crap. There are actually people who do this routinely, and derive some kind of sexual arousal/satisfaction from it. It seems virtually impossible that anyone would be "born" to desire such unnatural and unhealthy practices. The suggestion that someone is "born" with the innate sexual identity of a crap-eaters strikes me as absurd.<br /><br />Of course, for those who approach every issue with the presupposition of strict genetic determinism, it could ONLY be that. In one sense. the "genes makes me do it" argument can appear to be the only conceivable explanation, I spoze. Why would anyone ever do that, unless "forced" to do so by factors beyond their control, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-25579430990055419432009-05-01T07:12:00.000-05:002009-05-01T07:12:00.000-05:00Again, my onliest point was that I wouldn't say th...<I>Again, my onliest point was that I wouldn't say that your Pappy would always have tobacco cravins because he was innately predetermined to have them. It's possible, I spoze, but...</I>.<br /><br />My mother smoked for a couple of decades, quit, and never had a craving. You think that might be an innate difference?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-71384988210603869272009-04-30T20:04:00.000-05:002009-04-30T20:04:00.000-05:00"The cravings don't end after a year or ten years ..."The cravings don't end after a year or ten years (my father has had non-metaphorical tobacco cravings for a decade or so)."<br /><br />Well, that could be true, I dunno. Again, my onliest point was that I wouldn't say that your Pappy would always have tobacco cravins because he was innately predetermined to have them. It's possible, I spoze, but....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-29588195020710128842009-04-30T17:21:00.000-05:002009-04-30T17:21:00.000-05:00Despite the addictive qualities of nicotine, it is...<I>Despite the addictive qualities of nicotine, it is generally belived that people "can" quit smoking, if sufficiently motivated. Many have no such motivation though, and no amount of "encouragement" will change their habits</I>.<br /><br />Smoking or not smoking is a behavior. If you want to make this even remotely parallel, the behavioral equivalent is having homosexual sex or not having homosexual sex.<br /><br />My understanding of NARTH is that the are making the claim they can end the equivalent of the nicotine cravings. I think that claimis irresponsible. If the National Association of Research for Tobacco Cessationn (NARTC) is only claiming they can help you stop smoking, then I have no issue. When smoking is punishable by death, oppression, loss of job, loss of property, and/or shunning by your family, lots of people will quit smoking even without the help of NARTC, and I'm sure NARTC will help others. My problem is when NARTC claims, against all evidence, that they can end tobacco cravings even in the most highly addicted people. The cravings don't end after a year or ten years (my father has had non-metaphorical tobacco cravings for a decade or so). Telling people you will end their tobacco cravings, because tobacco cravings are just the result of habits, is wrong. It can work with the mildly addicted, but the seriously addicted will always have the cravings (true non-metaphorically as well). <br /><br />Believe it or not, this is not how I think it should be. In my ideal world, everyone is bisexual and finds themselves attracted to all genders, and those who are religiously motivated to choose one gender only can do so successfully. However, my preferences don't change reality.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-4860398336695327742009-04-30T16:45:00.000-05:002009-04-30T16:45:00.000-05:00Isn't even gay, I meant. I left out the negative ...Isn't even gay, I meant. I left out the negative in the previous post too, were I intended to say that the party in question has [no] desire....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-84672605534912172192009-04-30T16:43:00.000-05:002009-04-30T16:43:00.000-05:00Not particularly relevant, but for some reason a s...Not particularly relevant, but for some reason a statement attributed to the actor John Malkovich comes to mind. It wuz sumthin like this (he wuz attackin some mutual acquaintance of his and the person(s) he wuz addressin): "That little bitch is even gay. He's bisexual, for christ's sake!"<br /><br />The ultimate put-down, from a PC perspective, I spoze.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-74089487650986815402009-04-30T16:21:00.000-05:002009-04-30T16:21:00.000-05:00Well, Eric, the issue of "reparative therapy" seem...Well, Eric, the issue of "reparative therapy" seems to have somehow gotten mixed up with that of genetic determinism, which is all I'm talkin about. Changing established habits is always difficult, especially when those habits give big "pay-offs" and/or the party in question has desire to alter his habits for any other reason(s).<br /><br />Despite the addictive qualities of nicotine, it is generally belived that people "can" quit smoking, if sufficiently motivated. Many have no such motivation though, and no amount of "encouragement" will change their habits. Either way, that has nothing to do with, nor does it lend any support for, some wild hypothesis that they were innately determined to be a habitual smoker for the rest of their life, ya know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-35904762930838243042009-04-30T15:38:00.000-05:002009-04-30T15:38:00.000-05:00No, Eric. She seems to deny the validity of the pl...<I>No, Eric. She seems to deny the validity of the platonic/essentialist/innate/immutable/deterministic view of sexuality in general.</I>Good. It's important in every generation to have scientists that quesiton even the most "obvious" truths. However, the subjects of the study in question were bisexual and/or uncatergorized women.<br /><br /><I>We both know that is was not carelessness that led you to confine your question to "bisexuals" as opposed to TRUE gays/lesbians, eh</I>?<br /><br />No, it was not carelessness. It was based on the fact that these are the people Diamond studied.<br /><br /><I>Authentic, unremittin homos, ya know</I>?<br /><br />Also the authentic, unremittin heteros, ya know?<br /><br /><I>The kind who were "born that way" and all. She doesn't seem to share that view.</I>I realize the study is not all there, and I'm not going to make pronouncements on her beliefs. However, the results of the study pertain to women who feel attraction to both sexes, let's say they are 40 to 60, or 35 to 65 if you like, on the Spitzer scale. <br /><br />Again, I accept Spitzer's results that you can change by some 0-20 points at most with reparative therapy in highly committed individuals. However, if you start at a 5, that means that if you are both very lucky and very determined, you can work your way up to a 25 (and 15 is much more typical). The ones who start at 40 can have reasonable success. The ones who start at 5, probably not. Again, not my personal opinion, but the results of the very same Spitzer study NARTH is promoting.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-25515275318559446972009-04-30T14:38:00.000-05:002009-04-30T14:38:00.000-05:00"I read tht as a concession of a possible tactical..."I read tht as a concession of a possible tactical efectiveness, not moral support, espcially when followed so closely by saying it is a bad idea in the long run."<br /><br />Well, I agree that Diamond's viewpoint, whatever it is, was not fully and fairly presented by the NARTH guy. On the other hand, as I have already noted, I don't think the statements contained in this excerpt are sufficient to totally invalidate his interpretation, either. I base this on the explicit distinction which the author herself makes between "for now" and "the long term." That seems to qualify any "answer" made by the author, and it is by no means clear that she is disapproving of the misrepresentation of science "for now."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-69899353180817964032009-04-30T14:19:00.000-05:002009-04-30T14:19:00.000-05:00She doesn't? This is some view I have that says bi...She doesn't? This is some view I have that says bisexuals can't choose, or come to prefer through habit, one sex over the other?<br /><br />No, Eric. She seems to deny the validity of the platonic/essentialist/innate/immutable/deterministic view of sexuality in general.<br /><br />We both know that is was not carelessness that led you to confine your question to "bisexuals" as opposed to TRUE gays/lesbians, eh? Authentic, unremittin homos, ya know? The kind who were "born that way" and all. She doesn't seem to share that view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-44751932478016498892009-04-30T11:22:00.000-05:002009-04-30T11:22:00.000-05:00In the meantime, back to NARTH (NARTH, it ROCKS, e...<I>In the meantime, back to NARTH (NARTH, it ROCKS, eh!?)</I>:<br /><br />Well, in the sence that any organization that regularly publishes work that is "sloppy, at best, deliberately dishonest and misleading, at worst" rocks, sure. Yes, this was just one example. I see it as one among many, even if you do not.<br /><br /><I>I wonder what happened to the "resounding no," and how such an absolute statement got incorporated into the original brochure in the first place, eh? Any guesses</I>?<br /><br />My guess is that the "no" was not nearly as resounding as NARTH claims it was.<br /><br />From what I recall of the Spitzer study, the typical change of people after completing five years of therapy was about 10 points on a scale of 0 to 100, with the highest being 20 or so. That is a measurable change, but it will hardly mkae a dent for homosexuals at the extremem end of the spectrum. The Jones and Yarhouse "longitudinal" study was done over t4h course of a handful of years, and relied on participants memories for their condition on entering the program.<br /><br />I think the NARTH link you offered, like so many NARTH links, is fulls of standard denialist tactics.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com