I am always supportive of people holding different opinions, but we must note that not all opinions are created equally. There are some opinions that are motivated by emotional attachment to traditions and personal preference and others that are based upon research and data. There are some opinions that are based upon moral principles and some that are based on fears and false claims.
Recently, I've heard so MANY conservative white men responding emotionally and fearfully to worries that the American Psychological Association are "anti-man..." The APA recently produced a statement expressing concern about the harmful repercussions of toxic masculinity or traditional masculinity of the sort that can be toxic/has been toxic.
From a recent APA article...
But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.
APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past.
Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research
showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx
As you can see from the article, this is a research based position drawing on observed data from experts in the field.
Now, I'm fine with people raising concerns or questions about such conclusions. "Is this really saying that stoicism is always a bad thing?" for instance. I'm also fine with people pointing to other data that may reach different conclusions.
What I always want to point out, however, is that not all opinions are equally valid.
Saying, "I have read that data from the APA and hear what the experts there are saying. However, there are these OTHER researchers who have data that says..." is one thing. Reasonable, data-driven, not anti-expert or "no nothing" in nature.
But saying, "Those jerks at the APA are saying that being a 'traditional man' is BAD! What a bunch of pansies..." would be an example of a stupid opinion, an ignorance opinion, coming from a place of hyper emotionality or blind allegiance to traditions or fear, not from a place of reason or data.
You are always free to reach silly, ignorant opinions coming from a place of fear if you want. But you will have to expect that more adult reasoners will respond with data and dismiss your conclusions as not based on reliable data or anything but flighty opinions.
102 comments:
Again, not really looking for comments about the APA's conclusion, this is really more about the relative value of opinions and what they're based upon.
However, if someone DOES want to respond to the APA conclusion AND can do so with data, I'll be glad to read the data.
I have YET to see the first person (conservative) respond to this report with anything but silly little emotional nonsense like "They hate men!" Or "More feminist garbage!"
Stupid opinions are stupid. If you want to make a case, make it. Stop embarrassing yourselves, boys. Your toxic masculinity is showing you for what you are.
But here you assume that their "expert" research is something that must be regarded as sacrosanct simply because they're "experts in their field". Heavens to betsy! There's simply no way these "experts in their field" could possibly be subject to confirmation bias. Worse is your own biases, and those of other lefties, that will simply not lift a brain cell to question the conclusions of the "experts in their field". Said another way, you and your tribe LIKE those conclusions and thus they are gospel.
here you assume that their "expert" research is something that must be regarded as sacrosanct simply because they're "experts in their field".
One chance, Marshall: Prove this claim or admit you don't know that this is the case and it's certainly nothing that I've said.
One chance.
And since you can't prove it (it's nonsense and non-factual), admit the mistake and then we can move from there.
I'll even go so far as give my ACTUAL position that you misrepresent here, so you can see the facts of my position and hopefully learn from your mistake.
My position is NOT that the APA is sacrosanct. My position is NOT that researchers are sacrosanct, nor their data nor conclusions are sacrosanct.
Rather, I take that expert opinion is starting from a much more solid ground than non-expert opinion.
I take that conclusions based upon peer-reviewed research is better than conclusions based on feelings or traditions or hunches.
I take that IF someone finds a conclusion of some research by experts to be hard to believe, that they read MORE research on the data or, if they're educated in the field, they can do their own research and publish those results.
THEN, we all can look at the research from one expert and compare it to other experts and draw conclusions.
Thus, no organization or researcher or one set of data is "sacrosanct." But data that is researched by experts is helluva lot more reliable than some misogynist limp-brained jerk having a negative emotional response because it hurts his feelings.
Now, take your one chance to admit you made a mistake and we can move on from there. Or take your emotional fragility and move on to play with other boys who don't want to grow up.
Wow! If there's anyone displaying emotional fragility, it's YOU! I've said nothing about the merits of the research, but rather about your willingness to give it so much value. Have you personally perused that forty years of research? By your own words, then, you validate my suggestion.
I'm leaving this so you can SEE where you didn't answer the question I asked you, nor provided the proof to support your claim, nor apologized/admitted the error you made. You've blown your chance so future comments here will be deleted (it's just too much work to deal with your inability to understand words or make rational comments on topic).
YOU claimed...
"here
YOU ASSUME
that their "expert" research is something
that must be regarded as sacrosanct simply because they're "experts in their field"."
Emphasis mine.
You INCORRECTLY state that I have assumed their expert opinion is sacrosanct.
As a point of fact, I made no such claims nor do I hold that assumption. It's a stupidly false claim based on nothing but your wimpy-ass little white man-boy brain that just repeatedly seems unable to talk through topics at an adult, rational level.
Do you understand? I ask for your sake, but not because I'm continuing in this conversation. You blew your one chance.
This last point, Dan, is the most salient: "You INCORRECTLY state that I have assumed their expert opinion is sacrosanct."
Marshall and Craig and Stan and people like them who support white male supremacy under the guise of Christian faith want to refuse one thing above all others: change.
But experts, real experts, learned experts, are always ready to know more, to do better. They expect change. Even real experts do not think their contributions are sacrosanct. Not even groups of real experts believe their understanding will remain the same throughout their careers. Sacrosanct knowledge is forbidden by the very foundation of the Enlightenment and Scientific revolutions - movements which we inherit as modern western people and which we stand on as we further knowledge.
But it was these very movements that spelled doom for unmerited straight white male privilege.
So, Marshall and Craig and Stan and those like them war against real experts because real experts ask us to change.
Here, Marshall wars against it by lying diversion. He tries to paint the APA as a monolithic, secular replacement for other values which he prefers. Sadly, these other values - primarily religious - also ask him to keep changing. Real spirituality ask us to continuing grow into Christ. But Marshall and Craig and Stan and people like them refuse even that.
They like being stuck in sacrosanct. And choose to be willfully ignorant in how they've sold away the sacred.
They expect change. Even real experts do not think their contributions are sacrosanct. Not even groups of real experts believe their understanding will remain the same throughout their careers. Sacrosanct knowledge is forbidden by the very foundation of the Enlightenment and Scientific revolutions
Yes, exactly.
Again, the point is not "Don't have a different opinion and ask that I change my position to align with yours..." The point of the post is Don't have an opinion based on nothing but your preferences and then mock and malign those that have opinions based upon data and research.
Stan at his blog yesterday tackled this topic and it wasn't that he disagreed with the APA position that was/is a problem. It's that he offered no reason NOT to agree with the experts beyond that he didn't like their opinion. No counter research, no data, no Other experts say... just empty disagreement based upon his own cultural traditions that he prefers.
To the degree that Stan DID try to offer some reason for disagreeing with expert opinion, based upon research is that Stan found ONE line in the Bible where Paul counsels people to "act like men."
Now, it's not a problem citing the Bible itself as a reference. It's nothing like data or proof, but there's nothing wrong with it.
The problem is in making way too many assumptions that the data doesn't support.
First of all, Stan appears to be making a very clear error of reading into the words a modern meaning. We know today that "man up" and "act like a man" is a counsel to be tough, hard, stoic (some of the things that the APA data suggests we should be wary of). But IS that what Paul meant? Stan does not make that case at all. Other scholars I've read have said that this "act like a man" is just in contrast to acting like children. Act like a mature person. Which, in context, makes some better sense than presuming Paul was wanting his readers to "act like a man... in the 20th century understanding of that phrase..."
Secondly, of course, Stan errs in assuming that a line in the Bible - even IF he were understanding it in the cultural context of the day (which is doubtful, in this case) - is equivalent to data/proof that this is "the right" way to understand things, or God's Way.
There are lines in the Bible, for instance, that speak of slavery as an acceptable (even God-approved) notion... and it was not an uncommon practice in the day, not considered "bad" in the mores of the day and culture. BUT, that does not mean that support for slavery is rational or moral or a good thing, and certainly not in any "proven" data-measured sense.
The assumption that "It was considered good by people back then, therefore, it should be considered good today..." is just insufficient support for a moral position, much less a scientific position (like that the data suggests that ideas associated with "being a MAN" are harmful, or at least potentially harmful).
So, IF a person believes in a sacred text and IF scientific data/research/studies suggest that Activity A is bad for us, then most of us would agree that the belief in a sacred text (or a personal understanding of a sacred text) is simply not a valid measure or set of proofs to dismiss the expert opinion. All of us would agree with this if the sacred text were zoroastrian or baal-ish or some other religion we don't believe in. Some are appearing to be willing to set that aside, however, if it's a sacred text (or THEIR OPINION of a sacred text) that they embrace.
That, in and of itself, is simply not an adequate response to research and data.
"Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love."
Toxic masculinity concerns those things we do, those things we teach each other that are opposed to love.
I’d agree that when actual scientists and medical professionals suggest that behaviors cause harm, that those who choose to engage in those behaviors consider the risks.
I appreciate how quickly y’all rush to make judgments about those who’s different opinions you claim to be open to.
So, for instance, when Stan complains about the APA report about the experts' research on masculinity but his only response to the years or scholarly research is ONE verse in the Bible - and not expert opinion or data or anything but ONE verse from his holy text and even there, he's speaking of his opinion of that verse... do you agree that this is not a rational response that others would take to be worthy much of anything?
As to your last line, Craig, it is vague and obscure and without a single bit of context. I have zero idea what you're speaking about. Which is fine, just sayin'.
I love how Craig uses the word, “opinion.” Like he’s at a 3am poker game with three bottles of scotch gone.
1. "My position is NOT that the APA is sacrosanct. My position is NOT that researchers are sacrosanct, nor their data nor conclusions are sacrosanct.
2. Rather, I take that expert opinion is starting from a much more solid ground than non-expert opinion.
3. I take that conclusions based upon peer-reviewed research is better than conclusions based on feelings or traditions or hunches."
You don't even see that you've validated my position. I've numbered your words above for reference purposes. Note that #1 states your objection. But #2 & 3 belie that objection. On what basis do you presume that "expert opinion" is much more solid? Obviously on the basis that you regard that opinion as more worthy of respect simply because they are "experts in their field". Hence, sacrosanct (Oxford def: regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with) Because they are "experts in their field", you choose to use them as a basis.
Some of us, on the other hand, simply wait until we've studied the "experts'" research before assuming anything about the merits of their conclusions and "expert opinions". See the difference? Whereas we assume nothing, you start from a position that the "experts" are likely absolutely correct and their opinion "too important or valuable to be interfered with".
Worse, you castigate those who would dare withhold judgement of the declarations of "experts" as misogynist limp-brained jerks having a negative emotional response because it hurts their feelings. Indeed, how is that talking "talk through topics at an adult, rational level."?
Further, you clearly put more weight on the opinions of "expert" observation over that of the observations of others who might dare question the observations of "experts", as if the "experts" couldn't possibly be wrong without those who object engaging in years of research of their own. Some things are just obvious.
Next, I can't help but notice that you're responses go off topic, in that nothing I've said has anything to do with the APA study specifically. Thus, demonizing as you did with this line: " misogynist limp-brained jerk having a negative emotional response because it hurts his feelings" is totally uncalled for, and a far truer description of YOUR response, than mine. Also, "wimpy-ass little white man-boy"??? What's my race have to do with ANYTHING?? Like feo, you show your own racism by presuming race factors into everything your opponents say or do. Adult and rational, my ass.
Moving on, there's this gem:
They expect change. Even real experts do not think their contributions are sacrosanct. Not even groups of real experts believe their understanding will remain the same throughout their careers. Sacrosanct knowledge is forbidden by the very foundation of the Enlightenment and Scientific revolutions
Tell that to researchers who suggest there's an intelligent designer, or to those who oppose the current "climate change" agenda, or to those who do not abide the current APA positions on human sexuality. In each of these areas...and no doubt there are others..."real experts" are incredibly territorial with regard their findings and jealously protect them (and the funding it grants them) against any who would dare suggest they are wrong or in error. This also goes to your sheep-like reliance on "peer review". I've presented on more than one occasion reasons to dismiss "peer review" as something that a rational adult should rely as a deal breaker in defending a position. "Peer review", even when done with complete objectivity, does not validate the conclusions of a study, but only that the methods employed are sound.
There. That should satisfy your fascistic and childish demands, though I doubt it will. Worse, you won't do a damned thing to say why.
Craig and Marshall need to go back to SAT prep for vocabulary.
Marshall clearly doesn’t know what sacrosanct means. What lengthy, willfully ignorant drivel.
“Some of us, on the other hand, simply wait until we've studied the "experts'" research before assuming anything about the merits of their conclusions and "expert opinions". See the difference?“
Really?
Marshall days ago regarding actual laws: “Not True!”
Marshall days after, re the same law: “Well, I haven’t read it. Don’t know; can’t comment yet.”
What a two-faced, hypocritical liar.
The last line is in reference to the multiple comments by you and your troll referencing your hunches anlout what others “believe”.
Maybe you should read Stan’s post again, I’m not sure he said what you think he said. I’d suggest that while you might not like Stan writing what he wrote, your dislike doesn’t mean his opinions are somehow unworthy.
I'm leaving Marshall's comments just because of the utter un-awareness he has. Marshall, this is far as I got, early in your comments, you lead with...
On what basis do you presume that "expert opinion" is much more solid?
?
Are you serious?
A doctor of oncology (cancer specialist) and a guy with no medical experience but who has smoked a lot over the years both hold views about smoking cigarettes and cancer and health.
RIGHT OFF from the start, I am going to assume that the doctor has, you know, more medical experience and expertise than the non-medical expert. EVEN not having read any data or reports from the doctor. Why?
Because THAT IS WHAT SHE WENT TO SCHOOL FOR.
Is that not obvious to you? Why WOULDN'T a rational person start with the notion that a person who is a specialist in a given area, who has spent years researching and learning about subject matter and the data associated with a given topic has a more solid grounding on a topic than someone with NO such background?
Of course, we all know of "experts" in various fields whose expertise is flawed, but as a general rule, I give some credibility to someone who has spent years learning about a topic.
Now, GIVEN that in the APA case we're referencing, we're not even speaking of ONE specialists, but a whole field of people who have done research over years on the topic, so that lessens the likelihood of an idiot outlier "expert" not really being all that expert.
Beyond that, we're talking about scientific study, which is based upon the premise of verification of data and the ability of other experts to be able to duplicate results... just because Dr One says that he found a given set of results doesn't mean that it's accepted as "sacrosanct..." Rather, that means the results have been shared and other scientists can test it out, as well.
So, again, back to your question, Marshall.. WHY give some level of credibility to a collection of experts as opposed to a guy on the internet who disagrees with those experts?
Because it is rational to do so.
That I give more credibility to a group of experts than I do to non-experts does not mean I hold their findings "sacrosanct." It just means I'm reasonable and this is a reasonable starting point.
How often do you take your car to get fixed by someone with no expertise in the field?
How often do you go to a high school graduate to get an opinion about your cancer?
YOU almost certainly can agree that you rely upon experts opinion over non-expert opinion... I would hope.
I'll deal with one more line from Marshall...
Some of us, on the other hand, simply wait until we've studied the "experts'" research before assuming anything about the merits of their conclusions and "expert opinions". See the difference?
Look at the case of Stan vs the APA. Where is the indication that he waited until he reviewed the expert opinion on the topic of masculinity? Do you think he DID review the data? OR, do you suspect that he almost certainly whipped out an opinion NOT based upon reviewing the expert opinion of researchers, but because of a knee jerk emotional response because his feelings as a "man" were hurt?
You can answer those or not, I don't care.
I'll just reiterate the original question, now that I've clarified, re-clarified and re-clarified yet again:
One chance, Marshall: Prove this claim...
[You can't and you haven't, because you can't... -DT]
...or admit you don't know that this is the case and it's certainly nothing that I've said.
Yet again, Craig, you have offered MORE vague pablum with no details, no quotes, no specific information.
I DO NOT KNOW what you are speaking of because you are speaking in vague bland nonsense, as is your wont.
If you have some SPECIFIC concern, RAISE that specific concern.
But, if you want to accuse me of generically being "bad" and "inconsistent' because I didn't do "something" in a manner that you think is how it should be done, then save your breath.
Adding nonsense onto nonsense is a waste of everyone's time.
If you’re blind to the types of characterizations you allow from yourself and those you favor, I can’t help you and pointing out specifics will just mean more creative excuses from you.
If only you were consistent.
I have to ask, have you actually read the entire 36 page guidance, and checked the veracity of any/all of the studies referenced? How do you deal with the parts where the guidance diverges from the science of biology?
Did you actually read Stan’s entire post? I fail to see what you have such a problem with. (Beside the obvious, that it’s Stan and your default theology is usually opposed to his).
He’s literally asking a series of questions, I’m not seeing where asking questions would generate this much hand wringing.
You’re the one who said Stan just has an opinion.
Now you say all he has are little, innocent questions.
Denial. Diversion. Prevarication.
You’re aware, Craig, that Stan only has the capacity to bring religious judgment. He doesn’t have the education - or respect for God created intellectual gifts - to really engage.
But you can’t call it that. Because shallow judgment is all you have. Plus limitless innuendo that you never can turn into mature position taking. You’re more a coward than Marshall is.
Shallow mind. Corrupt heart.
1. Yes, I read Stan's entire post.
2. That you fail to notice that he is actively hostile towards the expert opinion and research on the topic says something about your powers of observation, as does your question as to whether I'd read his post.
Re: Stan's hostility to the APA...
"that it is bad to act like a man."
"indeed, if you're woke, you know that men are the problem."
The APA has not said it's bad to "act like a man." They did not say that "men are the problem."
These are Stan's demonized straw man versions of the APA's research. Coming from a place of apparent hostile rejection of the APA research.
He then contrasts the APA research (or rather, his straw man misrepresentation of the research) by saying,
"That's why it's so jarring to read Paul's instructions to the Corinthians..."
...saying, as fundamentalists so often do, that we could listen to the experts "of the world" or to God, a false dichotomy based upon his hostile ignorance of the data and expert opinion.
Indeed, Stan sums up with a question, but these aren't questions posed seeking facts, data or the Truth. It's there to juxtapose "God's Way" (i.e., Stan's OPINION about what being a man means) vs "the World's way..." which in the fundamentalist's worldview is evil.
In other words, it's not a sincere question. It's a devious and a stupid one.
"Modern science (assuming you accept psychology and cultural opinion as science) says that masculinity is toxic. God, speaking through Paul, commands Christians to "man up." Which will it be?"
"Which side are you on, boys?" Stan is asking in his fear mongering fundamentalist voice... "God's or the World's...?"
Do you truly not understand that this is the way that Stan has set up his post?
Please answer if you wish to continue in any conversation on this post. And please be direct, not vague.
And for what it's worth, I was hearing these same No-Nothing arguments all over the place on Facebook and other places from the fundamentalist types. Stan just happened to be posting on the same topic and doing so in the same anti-research manner.
I’m not seeing where asking questions would generate this much hand wringing.
The fundamentalists, while a declining breed here in the US, are part of the problem in today's politics. This whole anti-science conflation of their views with "god's word" is a problem.
I don't give a damn if they want to say, "I don't like the APA's position... it hurts my feelings! I don't have ANY DATA on which to base my opposition, but it runs counter to the cultural human traditions I find comfortable, so I don't accept it..." That is, I don't care if they will be honest that they have NO data on which to base a disagreement and they just want to whine. Fine.
But when they stoop to try to suggest it's a "war" between science and god (and by "god," they mean their human traditions), well, that's devious, deviant and dangerous.
I have to ask, have you actually read the entire 36 page guidance, and checked the veracity of any/all of the studies referenced?
What "36 page guidance" are you speaking of? Once again, you are making reference to some vague "something" that I haven't talked about and the linked article doesn't talk about.
Have I read a variety of research articles about toxic masculinity? Yes. And, I've seen toxic masculinity and it's harm first hand in multiple lives of people I know, personally and second hand. And I don't think it's too far afield to note that this is precisely at least part of the problem with the no-nothing administration's deep deviancy.
I see that the Guidelines linked within the article is 36 total pages, so no doubt that's what you're speaking of (although, the actual page count is 32 and only less than 20 pages are the actual guidelines). If that's what you're speaking about, then No, I have not read them through in depth, but I had skimmed through it. And, as noted, I've read many other articles referencing studies on the topic over the last decade or so.
The guidance from the APA that is at the heart of this issue. That 36 page guidance. Stan linked to it in his post, I assumed that if you read the whole post, you’d have noticed.
I do understand that Stan has set up his post in a way that contrasts the opinions expressed by society, and the APA as two contrasting extremes. I also understand that he’s used the language of those who disagree with him in a snarky manner. I also understand that psychology/psychiatry isn’t exactly a “hard” science and that the establishment has shown the ability to swing from one extreme of the continuum to the other. Given that, it’s reasonable that perhaps one would have less confidence in something set forth as “fact” by psychologists than something set forth by biologists.
But, that seems to be the point of the post. Which of the two options do you place your faith in? (To paraphrase)
Seems like a reasonable question.
Thanks for confirming that you haven’t read the guidelines, nor have you read the studies cited. Can I assume that you haven’t taken the time to look at a broad overview of all of the studies done on this topic? It seems as though you are placing a great deal of faith in the APA and in a bunch of studies. I’m not surprised that you invest so much faith in them, just trying to understand what has led you to this particular bit of faith.
APA or Stan? hmmm
APA or Stan?
Boy, that’s tough.
I’ve read the latest findings remapping the protein bonds between cancer cells that allows them to invade tissue.
And boy does the new version have it all over Christian Scientists’ approach. Whereas 2015 cancer treatment was just about neck and neck with prayer.
How do you deal with the parts where the guidance diverges from the science of biology?
Again, the point of this post is not the APA research, but about how we respond (or not) to expert opinion. Having said that, I'd love to know what SPECIFICALLY you think is within the Guidelines that "diverges from the science of biology..."
My guess is that you fail to understand the science of biology moreso than the guidance diverging from biology. If I had to further guess, this has to to do with your fear/demonizing of transgender folk and your ignorant claims that they are not "compliant" - in YOUR non-expert opinion - with the "science of biology..." - which is almost certainly something akin to your theology... that is, YOUR understanding of biology, but not necessarily actually biology.
Over 1,600 scientists have signed a letter condemning a proposal by the Trump administration to define gender as biological and established at birth.
What do the scientists say?
The letter, signed by over 700 biologists, over 100 geneticists, and nine Nobel Prize winners dispute the US government's proposal, saying it "is in no way 'grounded in science' as the administration claims".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46067559
And this...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
If that's what you're speaking about, you should learn about the actual science, rather than find a science that, in your ignorance, you THINK is supporting your phobias and religious biases.
I also understand that he’s used the language of those who disagree with him in a snarky manner.
It's not a matter of two sides with different opinions and both opinions are equally valid and worth considering.
Stan is NOT offering data to support his biases against the research. He's just saying, in effect, "THIS is what my tradition has to say and WE think that God says 'men should be men..." and this research conflicts with OUR HUMAN OPINIONS on the matter, therefore, we don't like it! They're stupid worldly men, not wise God men!"
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you recognize how deeply un-compelling such drivel is, from a rational viewpoint?
Can I assume that you haven’t taken the time to look at a broad overview of all of the studies done on this topic?
As I already said, I've read many reports and studies and articles on the topic for the last 10+ years, so NO, you can't assume that because that would be contrary to reality and you shouldn't delve more into non-reality than you do already.
It seems as though you are placing a great deal of faith in the APA and in a bunch of studies.
Great deal of faith in the APA? Not particularly, although I DO place some credibility in those who have devoted time, energy and intelligence into doing research... especially when the other "side" is represented by fundamentalists like Stan, who are not offering ANY time, energy or intelligence into doing research. He offered NO data to support his position.
That is not rational to give much credence to such an approach.
Do you agree with this reasonable point?
And yes, I DO place some credibility (not sacrosanct faith, but credibility, yes) in research and data, but not blindly so. i do so because research can be replicated and supported or found flawed and support can be withdrawn.
Are you saying you are okay with trusting human traditions (with NO research on their positions on topics like this... or at least, in Stan's case, none cited) over research and data?
The point of the post, I'll remind folks, is that not all opinions are created equal.
The point I'm making is that there is a significant difference between an opinion offered by...
1. Someone with more education/expertise
2. ...and with specific education on a topic (i.e., an educated expert)
3. ...who is considering the data from research from other experts in their field (scientific data)
4. ...which data is supported by the consideration/review of other experts/scholars in that specific field (the scientific process)
AND an opposing viewpoint from someone
1. With potentially less education/expertise
2. ...and specifically with no/less education in a specific topic (a lay person who is not familiar with the data of experts)
3. ...who opposes expert opinion NOT because they are looking at other data from other experts that contradicts the expert opinion, but because their personal preferences/biases/traditions are opposed to the conclusion of the experts (a place of ignorant biases)
This is just reasonable.
IF there was someone who was spouting off about what "Haiti ought to be doing to fix themselves so they're not such a 'shithole nation'..." AND that person was coming from a place of personal ignorance about Haiti, who knew no one there, who had done no research on Haiti's history or what Haitian scholars or experts were saying... AND you knew that there were experts who disagreed with his opinions that were coming from a place of ignorance, not knowledge, and, in fact, his hunches were racist and very likely to be harmful, you would NOT hold both opinions as equal valid (the opinions of Haitians and Haitian experts/scholars and this person who was ignorant of them), nor should you.
It is not rational to hold such opinions as anything like equally valid. Indeed, it is reasonable and moral and responsible to give some credence to expert opinion and research and data.
Of course I understand that Stan is establishing a dichotomy between those who choose to believe the APA and those who choose to believe something else (in his case, the Bible). It’s the entire point of his post.
I’m not sure what’s unconvincing, the actual point of the actual post, or his view. The actual point of his post (that we can choose to have faith in the APA or in something else) is incredibly rational. The fact that you don’t find his particular position rational says absolutely nothing about the objective rationality of either position.
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that I agree that we have a choice in where we place our faith.
I find it it interesting that you are quite vehement about people making “guesses” about your positions, while you have absolutely no problem making “guesses” about other people’s positions and motivations.
It’s things like that which make me question your ability to determine what’s rational.
Of course I understand that Stan is establishing a dichotomy between those who choose to believe the APA and those who choose to believe something else (in his case, the Bible).
Put more accurately:
He is establishing trusting in what is observable and provable (data and research) produced by experts and scholars in the field
VS
Trusting in HIS opinions about what God might think NOT based upon research or data, but based upon HIS understanding of his human traditions and HIS interpretations of the Bible.
Do you understand that this is the better/more reality-based way of understanding what he was doing?
To help you understand, there are PLENTY of people who love the bible AND who take experts, research and data (such as from the APA) seriously. So, there's no inherent conflict in "believing in" the bible and taking expert opinion seriously (AND to note that taking expert opinion seriously is not "believe the APA" as in a faith system, but just relying upon/valuing expert opinion and that which can be observed and measured. So, strictly speaking, Stan is literally NOT factually speaking of those who take expert opinion seriously and who "believe the Bible..." since the two are not mutually exclusive.
Do you understand that I am NOT speaking of "having faith in the APA," as you are setting it up... but believing in the value of the scientific method and expert/scholarly/informed opinion VS forming opinion APART from expert/scholarly/informed opinion?
Please answer.
Of course I understand that Stan is establishing a dichotomy between those who choose to believe the APA and those who choose to believe something else (in his case, the Bible).
Put another way, it appears that you are not understanding at all.
The point of THIS post is that it is foolish to place huge confidence in opinions that are coming from a place of ignorance on a particular topic or that are not relying upon informed researched opinion... but are instead reacting to scholarly, researched opinions with a negative attitude based upon NO scholarly, informed opinion.
Do you understand that? Because it sounds like you don't.
It SOUNDS like you (along with Stan) are trying to set up two reasonable possible opinions (Have "faith in the APA" research about masculinity vs Have faith in what God has told us about masculinity) and that YOU ALL PREFER (in your opinions) "trusting god" BUT by "trusting god," what you are actually referring to is "trusting in MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I THINK GOD might think, but NOT based upon research OF ANY SORT, just my opinions about what God might think... even though God has NEVER told me what God thinks about masculinity... I'm just lifting some verses from the Bible that mention "man" and extrapolating out an opinion FOR "god..."
Question for you, Craig: Do YOU think that God has staked out an opinion on masculinity and presented it clearly in the Bible?
Do you think that those who read a "clear opinion from God on masculinity" in the Bible hold that opinion AS an opinion or as a fact?
In the case where we can observably note some facts in the real world (i.e., that the earth is the center of the universe or even the solar system, for instance) that would be disputed by the Bible - OR at least, some humans understanding of the Bible ("God told the sun to stand still..." "the sun goes up, the sun goes down..." "the earth is firm, never moving..." or words to that effect)... do you think that we need to take what is provable as reality (indeed, since it is observable/demonstrable/proven, it is literal reality, right?) and recognize that we've misunderstood something in the Bible?
OR do you think preference should always be given to our human understanding of the Bible and if we THINK science has proven something that we don't think is biblical, then science is wrong, rather than our human understanding of the Bible and, by extrapolation, God?
"Do you understand that this is the better/more reality-based way of understanding what he was doing?"
I understand that you have characterized Stan's motives, words, and beliefs, through your particular prejudices and assumptions. I understand that you haven't demonstrated that your prejudices and assumptions equate to "reality". Nor have you demonstrated that the APA guidelines consist of objective fact. I understand that you believe that your version of Stan's (or my) motives, actions, or beliefs, is reality. The reality is that it's your opinion filtered through your biases and prejudices.
"Do you understand that I am NOT speaking of "having faith in the APA," as you are setting it up... but believing in the value of the scientific method and expert/scholarly/informed opinion VS forming opinion APART from expert/scholarly/informed opinion?"
Are you now suggesting that there is absolutely zero "expert/scholarly/informed opinion" about the veracity of the Bible?
I understand that you are placing your faith is the presence of what you consider to be "expert/scholarly/informed opinion". I also understand that the key word in your little rubric is "opinion".
I'd take you much more seriously if your were consistent on your appreciation of "expert/scholarly/informed opinion", and if you were acknowledging the admissions on the part of well regarded scientists that they will ignore evidence if it doesn't confirm their biases, and the rampant abuse of the "peer review" system.
"The point of THIS post is that it is foolish to place huge confidence in opinions that are coming from a place of ignorance on a particular topic or that are not relying upon informed researched opinion... but are instead reacting to scholarly, researched opinions with a negative attitude based upon NO scholarly, informed opinion."
The problem you seem to be having is that the entire above quote is your opinion. You are assuming that other's opinions are based in "ignorance" or "fear" or that there is not any "scholarly, researched, informed, opinions" that might paint a different picture than the one you prefer. You are also assuming a "negative attitude".
I understand that you find it foolish to place "huge confidence" in certain opinions. I also understand that unless you can prove that your assumptions are objectively correct, all you've offered is another version of what you've condemned.
So, I understand your opinion about the situation, I don't accept your opinion as reality.
Then you've completely botched up understanding by assuming that what "SOUNDS" right to your biased ears, actually is right.
I'm not going to speak for Stan (you can continue if you'd like to), I'm going to speak for myself.
I am suggesting that there is a choice between having "faith in the APA" and accepting any other possible option. For example, is the APA objectively more worthy of faith than any other psychology association?
It's fairly clear that you do not accept the possibility that any sort of biblical expression of "masculinity" exists. It's also fairly clear that any attempt to outline one will be met with the same types of dismissal as above. It's also fairly clear that you are not content with a "live and let live" situation, that you are insistent on labeling anything short of agreement with this set of APA guidelines as "irrational".
Look, it's so simple that I see no reason to go much further until you demonstrate that your position is objectively factual. The choice is do you choose to put your faith in humans or in God? You may not like it expressed that way, but that's really what it boils down to.
Craig represses his understanding that the Bible he reads and the church he attends are creations of four hundred years of hit and miss academics working on translations and translations of translations and a summary mix of theological ideas from scores of people thinking and writing and differing slightly from each other and in some cases greatly from those who came before. The progress has followed the uneven lines of Enlightrnment reason and scientific method to get him to the point where he is. There is virtually nothing he has in common with 1st century Christians that the entire world doesn’t share in. Wine and sandals being two of them.
All without evidence of the original manuscripts and historical evidence of anything or anyone previous to a king David, and almost nothing of Jesus and the Jerusalem community of christian Judaism. Or of the apostles.
So... let’s hear it for Enlightenmet based textual criticism, without which Moses would still have horns but Craig would have nothing resembling the faith or scripture he now has.
He, like the Hasidim or the Amish or the fundamentalist Mormons, wants to remain ignorant of his choice to keep faith hermetic: stuck at some fixed point in the past. A choice, ironically, they could not make without the tools of modern interpretation.
Last time, Craig...
I understand that you have characterized Stan's motives, words, and beliefs, through your particular prejudices and assumptions.
He LITERALLY offered no data, no research, no expert opinion on masculinity in his dismissal of the "worldly view" of the APA. Nothing. It has nothing to do with my "characterization" of his motives or anything. It's just an observable reality that he offered NO expert/research/data-based reason to disagree with the APA.
Do you recognize that reality?
In fact, he offered NO data or expert opinion to even suggest that his hunch that God wants me to be "manly" or whatever view it is he thinks the Bible is teaching. All he did was offer a FALSE dichotomy, as if we can only choose "the Bible"/"god's way" (which he conflates his opinions of the Bible with what God wants...) OR you can choose to "believe in" the APA.
Do you recognize that reality?
Are you now suggesting that there is absolutely zero "expert/scholarly/informed opinion" about the veracity of the Bible?
? No. But then, that has a shitworth of nothing to do with anything that I've said. I'm not talking about the "veracity of the Bible..." I'm noting that Stan offered ZERO expert opinion/data/research to support his disagreement with the APA on masculinity.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you recognize the reality that the Bible has not staked out a position - nor God within the Bible - on the APA position on masculinity?
It's fairly clear that you do not accept the possibility that any sort of biblical expression of "masculinity" exists.
I have not said that. I'm saying, instead, that neither "the Bible" nor God have staked out a position regarding the APA's position on masculinity.
Do you recognize that reality?
Indeed, the Bible teaches men to be kind, respectful, loving, etc... As we all should be.
But, the Bible has NOT come out in support of aggressiveness in men, or callous stoicism or any of the other notions associated with TOXIC masculinity.
I understand that you find it foolish to place "huge confidence" in certain opinions.
Yes, it is foolish to place huge confidence in opinions of people with NO expertise or knowledge of a specific topic when they're offering opinions on those topics which they are ignorant of.
This is only reasonable.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I realize that he offered “no data”. Which doesn’t invalidate the choice. As long you don’t define and vet the quality of the data it’s existence is meaningless.
Yes, I realize that as humans with some degree of ability to choose between two options that we are able to make those choices and accept the consequences of those choices. You haven’t proven that to choose a Biblical view of masculinity is objectively a bad or wrong choice, nor have you proven that everything in the APA guidelines is objectively better, true, or right.
I recogzize the reality the reality that the trustworthiness of the Bible would be a major factor in choosing between it and the APA. I realize that the Bible hasn’t said anything about the APA opinion (nice goalpost move there), the Bible does speak extensively about the traits of “masculinity” (self sacrificing love doesn’t sound particularly “toxic”), so it’s reasonable to compare the Bible and the APA.
You asked the the same question twice, so see the above answer. (Again, goalposts moved)
I agree that “expertise and knowledge” are a factor in placing confidence in people, but certainly not the only factor. So, I disagree that “expertise and experience” are the only factor to be considered. The funny thing is, that you agree with me about this.
"You haven't proven that to chose a Biblical view of masculinity..."
A biblical view of masculinity? What the hell is that?! As long as I don't want to be an elder I can have two wives?
"self sacrificing love" is masculine, per se? Lord, Craig's lost the thread of his own thoughts.
Good points, Feodor.
Craig, the reality is that there is no one "Biblical view of masculinity..." Do you recognize that reality?
The reality is, there are many worldviews that touch on issues of masculinity that are found within the cultures found within the stories in the Bible. A great number of those worldviews in those ancient cultures are misogynstic and patriarchal, coming (as they were) from patriarchal cultures.
So, we see worldview about gender expressed in the notion that women were viewed as chattel, not having the same rights or recognition as men... that women could be forced into marriages whether they wanted them or not... that women could be raped or used/abused for sex with fewer consequences than we'd have today in our (I'd say improved) worldview. For instance.
We also see the worldview that, in Jesus, there are no "male" or "female..." Or Paul's worldview that women shouldn't teach men or that women must wear head coverings and that men must have beards or certain haircuts.
Many worldview that touch on issues of gender, masculinity and femininity. Not all of which are good or Godly views.
Do you recognize this reality? That there IS NO one "Biblical view of masculinity..." authorized within the pages of the Bible as such?
Are you suggesting that there is a Godly (as opposed to biblical) view of "masculinity" that contradicts the APA, Craig? If so, do tell.
Dan,
Do you understand that you simply announcing what is “reality” doesn’t actually mean anything? Your attempts to continually define “reality” to suit your preferences is tiresome and pointless.
Craig, the reality is that there is no one "Biblical view of masculinity..." Do you recognize that reality?
OR, if YOU THINK that there IS a "biblical view of masculinity," then by all means, define WHAT you mean by it (probably, you mean "Godly view of masculinity," but you tell me) and explain it. But FIRST answer that question.
"NO, Dan, I do not agree that there is no one biblical view of masculinity... You are mistaken to say that is the reality. Here's why... First of all, by 'biblical view of masculinity,' I do mean a Godly view of masculinity... and the Godly view of masculinity as found in the pages of the Bible is that God wants men to be tough, rugged, stoic, brutal, harsh, leaders - not followers..." or whatever it is you want to make the case about.
THEN you can also answer if you think that God has come out opposed to the APA's position on toxic/unhealthy masculinity.
The reality is, you can't. But if you think otherwise, you can try to make your case. Who knows? Maybe you'll surprise me and make a decent case.
I suspect that the reality is that you won't because you can't.
The reality is that I never said there was one specific “Biblical view of masculinity”.
The reality is that one can take one’s views on appropriate standards of masculinity from any number of places. Unless you can demonstrate objectivity that the APA guidelines are definitely better than any other option, I’m not seeing any reason to keep jumping through your hoops.
"... ability to choose between two options that we are able to make those choices and accept the consequences of those choices.
You haven’t proven that to choose a Biblical view of masculinity is objectively a bad or wrong choice, nor have you proven that everything in the APA guidelines is objectively better.."
Two choices. An APA guidelines on masculinity or a biblical view.
"The reality is that I never said there was one specific “Biblical view of masculinity”.
Uhhhh, then that should be many choices: An APA guidelines or several Biblical views that you never referred to.
You said two choices.
Research, Craig. Data, Craig. Expert opinion.
Is Stan an expert on masculinity? You? What are your credentials? How many years have you been studying the topic? What research have you read?
Or, is it the case that you have ZERO expertise on the topic, from a scholarly point of view? That you have zero data or research you've done - or even READ - about masculinity?
Do you even know what the APA research is concerned about?
Again, the point in this post is NOT the APA, but those who'd default to an appeal to NO expert opinion and reject researched expert opinion for no reason.
If you have NO expertise on the topic, if Stan has none, then I have no reason to give your hunches a bucket of piss, do I? No one does.
You haven’t proven that to choose a Biblical view of masculinity is objectively a bad or wrong choice...
Nor would I. IF someone points to Paul's "In Christ there is no male or female" and notes that they conclude that this says to them that there is no such thing as a positive set of behaviors that are specifically masculine in the author's mind and that this is a rational conclusion, given what we see in the real world.
IF, on the other hand, someone points to fathers selling their children and THEY conclude that it is a good thing for Dads to be men who are in charge and decide to sell their children or force them into a marriage, then THAT vision of an ugly toxic masculinity would be objectively bad, by all normal standards of human liberty and morality commonly accepted today.
The point is that "the Bible" is not a source of expert opinion on masculinity. It makes no claims to be that and we have no reason to assume that it is. So, ANY conclusions that someone reaches because they find a line or lines in the Bible are only as good as they can be reasonably supported.
IF someone reaches a harmful, misogynistic conclusion, THEN THAT OPINION, reached by that human, is a bad opinion because of harm, because of oppression, because of strikes against human liberty... i.e., normally accepted decent moral just behavior.
But I don't think you're getting the point and I'm done trying to help you understand it.
...nor have you proven that everything in the APA guidelines is objectively better, true, or right.
Again, it's NOT two competing reasonable ideas/sources of information.
ONE (the Bible) are INTERPRETATIONS of human readers and IF they reach a bad interpretation/conclusion that is objectively harmful, THEN THAT is a bad opinion.
The OTHER (data, research, expert opinion) is based upon observable data... suicide numbers and causes, abuse numbers and causes, etc...
The point of THIS post is that merely saying "I believe X because... 'THE BIBLE...'" is meaningless, as far as it goes, and only as valuable as it holds up to more reasonable measures.
I understand that, in your view (hunch, opinion, whatever), the Bible and what it contains only had value to the extent that it conforms to those who have done research or have knowledge or expertise that aligns with your preconceptions.
You have no willingness to simply allow others to disagree over the choices they make, you simply want to force people to accept your reality.
No, trust me, I understand.
It’s about forcing the Bible to “hold up” to human reason, with no other alternative.
You’ve announced that the choices Stan offered aren’t equal in your opinion, you’ve treated this announcement as “reality”, yet you haven’t actually offered anything near proof that the assumption is objectively true. So you set and limit the discussion, define the terms to favor your opinions, treat your opinions as reality, then pretend that you’ve started a conversation.
Good luck with that.
I understand that, in your view (hunch, opinion, whatever), the Bible and what it contains only had value to the extent that it conforms to those who have done research or have knowledge or expertise that aligns with your preconceptions.
No. You literally do NOT understand because that is NOT my view. Do you understand NOW that you're mistaken? It is NOT MY VIEW that the bible only has value to the extent that it conforms to data and research.
Rather, YOUR (collective) HUNCHES about the Bible do not interest me if they don't conform with observable reality.
I do not conflate your opinions and interpretations of the Bible WITH the Bible. That's you, not me.
IF someone holds the view that slavery is found in the Bible... that God even commands it at times... AND that person then HOLDS THE VIEW that "So, slavery is at least sometimes acceptable..." I disagree with THAT stupid and evil view, NOT with the Bible. I'm not saying that "the Bible is only valuable if it conforms with this basic understanding of morality..." I'm saying, IF you think that, then that is not a reasonable view and don't you dare try to use the Bible or God to justify immorality.
It is a fundamental difference and one that you all have never seemed to be able to wrap your heads around, at least when it's a progressive type disagreeing with your interpretations. (You don't make the same connection when we disagree with your interpretations...)
So, no, it's NOT about "forcing the Bible to hold up to human reason..." it's about recognizing that ALL of us use our reason to sort things out - including biblical interpretations - and NOT all opinions are equally valid. Again, see my slavery example. Yes, one can make an argument (stupidly, foolishly, evilly) that "god supports some slavery..." because they find a few lines in the bible to justify it... but that is THEIR interpretation, NOT "what the Bible (or God) teaches..."
I’d point out that your own quote disagrees with you, but I know that’s pointless.
I’d point out that you’ve misrepresented my comments, but that’s pointless.
I’d point out that you can’t provide an objective standard of morality, which makes your appeals to morality pointless, but that’d be pointless too.
You're right. You continue to not understand reality OR my views, so your continued comments truly are pointless.
But then, no doubt, you don't understand that, either, and will continue to make pointless comments that are, like the others you've made here, not grounded in reality.
So, go in peace.
So, then, 57 mostly pointless comments later, we still have these realities...
1. Stan, at his post, and others like him, don't like the APA research about toxic masculinity
2. But Stan, at his post, offered NO research, NO data, NO expert opinion on why he doesn't like the expert opinion. This is true for most of the other "conservative" comments I've been reading on the topic: They just "don't like" the findings of the experts - it hurts their feelings as men, or they think it differs from their human traditions or even is an "attack" on their human traditions - but still, they have no data to oppose (or I've yet to see any)... it's just an emotional response without support from data or research or experts.
3. The point of THIS post is that you can HOLD opinions that are just emotional and flighty and not researched based, but that opinion will not, can not and should not be held as "equally valid" - or anything like it - as researched based opinions and scholarly research.
This is just reasonable.
Further, Craig, Stan and others all vaguely imply that they "think" that "the Bible" is "opposed" to expert opinion on masculinity, as if "the Bible" had "a position" on masculinity. And yet, when pushed to support the claim, no one has offered a single support beyond Stan offering one verse that mentions "man" and STAN INFERRED a lot of meaning into that one text that he didn't support with any scholarly, expert opinion. It was just a vague and unsupported whimsical "I want this verse to MEAN SOMETHING it doesn't say, therefore, it does..."
But there, too, is a fundamental lack of any research, data or expert opinion to support it. Just an empty claim.
And, to beat a dead horse a bit more, he is welcome to hold unsupported, non-scholarly vague opinions if he wants, but there's no reason - especially in the face of data and research - that anyone rational would hold that no nothing opinion as anything like equally valid.
It's not.
Keep beating.
I can’t help but point out that your last comment makes some pretty large assumptions about the quality of the “data and research”, assumptions you haven’t bothered to address let alone prove.
You seem to mistake the presence of “data and research” for the accuracy of “data and research”. But I wouldn’t want you to have to prove your assumptions or verify the quality of the “data and research” you put so much faith in.
No one will make you take chemotherapy if you have cancer, Craig. No one will make you call it cancer if you don’t want to. No one will make you accept any one of a number of treatment methods to drug addiction.
No one will make you wear clothes with zippers or anything made by a machine.
No one will make you stop calling yourself and all men necessarily the head of the family.
No one is making you accept the APA’s guidelines on toxic masculinity nor the very notion of toxic masculinity. Dan is not making you accept it either. You’re here by your own choice.
You can live as far off the grid of modernity as you want to and can afford.
But you cannot abuse another human being. No one belongs to you. No family member is yours to do with what you want. And you must respect the rights of others and in no way abuse their rights. And no law is just that allows you to do any of these things.
Dan has made a reason-based argument. You’re here because you choose to disagree and do so by proposing a bias toward ancient wit versus modern reason, and you count that as equivalent. You can live as far off the grid of modern reason as you want. Just don’t abuse anyone. This the rule of modernity taught to us not by religion but by the secular human rights. Do not do unto anyone what they do not want done to them.
And you and I remain because Dan keeps choosing to be a gracious host.
Craig, you're done. IF you want to talk about data, PRESENT SOME.
If you just want to keep embarrassing yourself by making inane, vague and unsupported commentary that only exposes your biases and lack of reasoning, well, this post has already answered that.
YOUR VAGUE AND UNSUPPORTED HUNCH ain't worth the same as expert opinion who've looked into it, researched it, has years and decades of data behind it.
I am FINE with counter arguments based upon data. I have wasted enough time dealing with opinions that aren't worth the toilet paper that shat them out.
No more unsupported comments.
You're only embarrassing yourself.
Just for the sake of someone who blew his one chance, even when offered multiple times...
You INCORRECTLY state that I have assumed their expert opinion is sacrosanct.
As a point of fact, I made no such claims nor do I hold that assumption. It's a stupidly false claim based on nothing but your wimpy-ass little white man-boy brain that just repeatedly seems unable to talk through topics at an adult, rational level.
Do you understand? I ask for your sake, but not because I'm continuing in this conversation. You blew your one chance.
Marshall is completely ignorant of 250 years of the scientific revolution. Experts never approach knowledge as sacrosanct.
Since he is complete ignorant of the very foundations of science, he doesn’t know the first thing about coming to any genuine conclusions regarding faith and science.
Deborah C Tyler, Ph.D.:
http://www.ncpsychologyboard.org/BoardActions/DISCIPLINARY_ACTIONS/Actions/PP4430_01-16-13_CO.pdf
I like my experts to be good at what they do. Dr Taylor is not too good an expert. Which, of course, makes her just right for your helicopter engineering approach to scripture.
American Thinker is as biased a source of fake news as there is.
It has shaped you from skin to soul.
You don't really expect anyone to believe you read it...or even ever have....do you? I would expect that you might read an article if it appeared as a link in someone's comment. But even then, I doubt you "read" it with the aim of understanding and considering the point of view expressed. No. You're a "headline" kinda guy...highlighting that which you think supports your biases.
There are scored of contributors to American Thinker. Unlike people like you, they routinely link to government sources, as well as to other hard science sources and actual quotes from whatever person is being discussed to support their premises, opinions and positions. Providing links as they do provides ample opportunity for the reader to do his own research to determine whether or not the writers have a point worth considering...or even adopting.
So for feo or other godless lefties to dismiss AT out of hand says nothing good or bad about AT...because dismissing out of hand simply says nothing...which is saying a lot for feo. The problem isn't "bias". It's never "bias". It's biased positions unsupported by evidence, facts, logic and such. AT supports their biased positions with all of those, because like conservatives in general, evidence, facts, logic and such is why one is conservative in the first place.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/
Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
“American Thinker Doubles Down On Its Claim That President Obama Made a “Muslim Gang Sign” to African Leaders”
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
“Today, American Thinker, a not so thoughtful far-right online publication that likes to publish anti-LGBT folks like Concerned Women For America’s Janice Shaw Crouse and World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder, really outdid itself. It devoted an ungodly amount of words to a fawning profile of Jared Taylor, one of the most prominent white nationalists in America.
What could they possibly be American thinking over there? Taylor is a guy who publishes a racist newsletter, American Renaissance, which argues ad nauseam that people of color are lesser beings than white folks. His biannual conferences are filled with major white supremacists, Klan lawyers and their ilk. At one point, there was even a dispute among Taylor’s followers on the “Jewish Question,” if you can believe something that ridiculous.
American Thinker doesn’t start its puff piece with any mention of those issues. No, sir. Here’s their first line about Taylor, “Good manners are infectious.” Seriously? Well, let’s just take a look at some of the “good-mannered” things Taylor has written. There’s this: “When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears.”
And now let’s kick the good manners up a notch. Here’s Taylor on Hurricane Katrina: “Our rulers and media executives will try to turn the story of Hurricane Katrina into yet another morality tale of downtrodden blacks and heartless whites... . [But m]any whites will realize — some for the first time — that we have Africa in our midst, that utterly alien Africa of road-side corpses, cruelty, and anarchy that they thought could never wash up on our shores.”
For American Thinker, Taylor isn’t a rabid racist who tries to gussy up his hate with big words. Rather, he is a guy who “like[s] ideas,” has “good manners,” and who wishes his “commenters [meaning white supremacists] were better behaved.” Sure, American Thinker points out that there is anti-Semitism and racism associated with Taylor’s group, but even so, the article’s author, Jeff Lipkes, wonders if racist beliefs – i.e. white nationalism – can “be the basis for a political movement.”
I would say it is sad, Marshall, that you have been swallowed up in such hateful, crazed bigotry and misogyny. But I’ve been saying that for years and you’re culpable for choosing every day to worship hate.
Yes. You've been saying that for years and not once have provided a damned thing to justify doing so. Not one single thing. And any hate you detect emanates solely from yourself which you then falsely attribute to me. That, of course, is your hatred for other people, particularly for those who don't partake of your fantasies about yourself as a good and wonderful person, superior in every way. The laughter such a notion provokes is more than you can bear. And so you hate as you fake Christians are wont to do.
Your bizarrely fanatical defense of a manipulative fake hate news generator is justification.
Just in the last 24 hours.
Multiply that over the years and the weight of proof breaks tables.
When you can demonstrate falsehood in AT's articles...INTENTIONAL falsehoods, since that's the implication of your flatulence...then you'll begin to demonstrate credibility. Indeed, even a sincere attempt to do so, without regard to success or failure, would prove you aren't doing anymore than merely demonizing AT simply because of their conservatism...which is really all you ever do being so devoid as you are of intellectual ability and honesty .
How could sincerity possibly be discerned by someone who can’t read? Not to mention cannot be sincere?
Get someone to read this comment to you, Marshall.
And this fact: “American Thinker Doubles Down On Its Claim That President Obama Made a “Muslim Gang Sign” to African Leaders”
Just like if you were the one to have written it, this "fact" that you present does nothing to dispute the claim made by F. W. Burleigh. It simply mocks his position. Said another way, you are rejecting the position of an expert on islam...something Dan insists you cannot do without clear and unassailable evidence to the contrary. Indeed, your link, just like yourself, merely attacks the messenger rather than dealing at all with the message.
And still you've brought not the slightest hint of evidence that AT is false, dishonest or less than soundly supported by facts.
Oh...and by the way...it wasn't "American Thinker" that doubled down on anything. American Thinker is comprised of articles from scores of contributors. It was Burleigh himself who presented the argument, and he has responded to attacks on his argument as well. You again did no research of your own, but simply posted that which you feel confident supports your premise as a good little sheep would do.
Apparently you’re unaware of what an editor does. As in, edit and approve all articles.
Burleigh’s “article” would have been approved by:
Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher
Larrey Anderson, submissions editor
Because they know, even if you don’t, that American Thinker owns everything they publish.
For conservatives, editing doesn't mean censoring uncomfortable or controversial positions or opinions. That's what your favored yellow journalists do. But even with that in mind, there's no lie in the article for an editor to prohibit publishing. So you're still sitting there in your own filth, confounded once again. You must like the environment.
Marshall: “there’s no lie in the article”
“American Thinker Doubles Down On Its Claim That President Obama Made a “Muslim Gang Sign” to African Leaders”
Marshall: ”you must like the environment”
American Thinker: “The Hoax of 'Climate Change'
By Allison Nichols
Obama knows. John Kerry knows. And Al Gore, the man who has made an enormous amount of money perpetuating the biggest hoax foisted on the human race, knows. Human-inspired “climate change” is a ruse. It is all a control-grabbing, land-grabbing, money-grabbing hoax.”
There's no lie in the article. Re-typing the title of your article doesn't change that.
The environment to which I referred was your own filth in which you sit. The climate change narrative pushed by the left is indeed a hoax, so again, there's no lie in that AT article either. But then, no doubt one as steeped in falsehood as you no longer knows truth from lie.
Mendax, thy name is Marshall.
The "superior intellect" is now reduced to "I know you are, but what am I?" Every time I think you could not be more pathetic, you slither under a lower bar. It's the only way you've ever proven me wrong about anything. Kudos.
One doesn’t need really to say anything to an imbecile. The Shakespeare reference is really for the audience: they deserve something at least. Being of lesser mind is why you cannot provide.
"One doesn’t need really to say anything to an imbecile."
And yet I respond to you nonetheless. More's the pity for me.
"Being of lesser mind is why you cannot provide."
Lesser than some, no doubt. Lesser than yours? BWAHHHH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes. The crazed, maniacal laughter of a corrupt denier of truths. Marshall, you’re a follower of anti-christs.
I don’t follow you, false priest. And I don't deny truth. That's YOUR scene...not mine. If you weren't such a "corrupt denier of truths", you wouldn't have so much trouble proving your laughable claim I've lied.
No wonder Marshall loves Trump. Both are bigots who hate experts and love lies and brutalists.
"Intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses to which the president replied, 'I don't care. I believe Putin,'
"Both are bigots who hate experts and love lies and brutalists."
Any yet...and STILL...not one shred of evidence presented to support this ongoing, childish assertion. NOT ONE! The false priest wallows in falsehood to the extent that he'll prevail upon a known liar to validate his idiocy.
RWe’ve covered that, Marshall. The rest of us are aware that misogynist, bigots, and racists hardly ever agree to the clear evidence of their behavior. And you... are VERY committed to misogyny, bigotry, and racism.
If you think this is a circular argument, you’re right, from your point of view: you’re the one riding the carousel of hate. And Trump is just a plastic horse over from you. We watch as you go by again and again and again and again and again. Spouting at every pass the same hate.
How can one agree to evidence never presented? The circular arguing is you doing no more than making the same tired, baseless assertions in response to requests for evidence. The hate is all yours, false priest. It seeps from your corrupt being like the stench it is.
It was presented, many times. It's that blur in your vision as you ride the plastic pony.
Well, no doubt in your self-satifying fantasy world that might be true. But here in the real world, posting two things that don't contradict each other isn't evidence of lying. Posting a quote doesn’t indicate racism, misogyny or bigotry without some explanation of why the quote so much as might, never mind actually does indicate any of those things. Indeed, you simply once again ASSERT thst it does, and thus, because you do desperately and pathetically need me to be a racist, bigot or misogynist, assertion is good enough for you. But as you've proven nothing, only vermin like you will buy it.
And around he goes again! How many nickels are you going to spend to get that vertigo high, Marshall?
Now you assert that you've presented evidence just because you've typed some incoherent crap. You're a waste of time as well as space.
TMarshall finds it to be true that Mr Obama made Muslim gang signs to African leaders.
Marshall believes that ten of the last thirteen years being the hottest on record is a lie, even though scientists predicted global warming since the late 1800s.
Marshall believes lies. Tells them, too.
William Happer, Trump's pick to lead the new Presidential Committee on Climate Security:
“The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler,” Happer said on “Squawk Box” on CNBC in 2014. He added: “Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.”
Let me give you a helpful hint, false priest:
If you provide the date and time of my comment that you believe proves your accusations against me, you could at least give yourself an out. By this I mean when I review the actual comment I made, you could plead ignorance due to your poor comprehension skills. Failure to provide that date and time can only suggest you're lying again, which you do far more egregiously than Trump ever has. Your paraphrasing makes it worse.
You lied: February 22, 2019 at 11:51 AM
You lie even as you write. I was ordained a priest in 1998, thank you very much.
Where's the lie? You speak falsely while being ordained as God's priest. That makes you the false priest you constantly demonstrate you are. Said another way...cuz you're stupid...if a priest lies, especially about the things of God, he's false priest. You lie about pretty much everything. Or you're even more stupid than I give you credit for being.
It may be a fact that you don’t like. Like the fact that immigrants and illegal immigrants are more law abiding than native born Americans; like the fact that all immigrants put tons of money into the US they don’t get back in services; like the fact that Mr Obama is among the most decent and moral if Presidents that we’ve had and Trump is the abasolutr wirst; like the fact that we poisoning our planet such that insects - 90% of all living animals at any moment, the foundation of the carnivorous food chain, pollunation, and recycling nitrogen by eating carrion - are on the midst of a mass dying.
These may be facts you don’t like. But thinking that you’re dislike makes it all untrue? That’s the soul of a liar. You are a tool of Satan almost as much as these sexually abusive priests Pope Francis said this morning.
You sow brutality.
Post a Comment