Join The Debate!

RE: CB response to TriciaCT

Having perused the above comments for tone and content, it didn't take long to spot the least reasoned person on this forum. I take my text from the most recent post by CB in response to TriciaCT. (My apologies to the lady, who appears always to take the high road. I feel no such compunction.)

CB wrote:

"It's common in written forums for those who are unable to offer
a cogent rebuttal to stoop to accusing their opponent of not
having a life. It's a diversionary ploy -- an attempt to shift
the focus of attention away from the untenability of their position
and the intellectual bankruptcy of their side's arguments.

"It's also an example of a logical fallacy known as _argumentum
ad hominem_: 'Argument to the man.' In other words, you're
attacking the person rather than what he says."

It also is common in written forums for those who are new to a concept to feel the need to define that concept for everyone else, as if to prove their bona fides.

I note that in the entirety of your "rebuttal" you do not address any of the science fact in the links and posts referenced above. Thus your post is reduced to an ad-hominem (or ad-feminam?) attack. Your moniker, Crate & Barrel, seems entirely apropos since they sell lots of pots and kettles.

". . . Could it be that it simply doesn't take me as long to compose
and write these replies as it would you? I generally post to
the Townhall forums while I'm having my morning coffee, so it
isnt as though it interferes with any of my obligations . . . ."

This goes to the quality of your posts. What is clear is that you have not addressed the gist of the arguments, let alone the heft. You could not possibly have read and thoroughly considered over morning coffee the information referenced. Thus, your post is an exercise in pseudo-intellectualism. You can write coherent sentences but your arguments are not cogent because, obviously, you have not taken the time to read the information to which others have referred.

(By the way, a quick review of your weekday post times shows they are all over the map. Further, almost three hours lapsed between your first post on Sunday and your last post. All of this belies your claim of being so terribly clever that you dash off your missives over morning coffee. Far more likely is that you are dishonest with your employer.)

"How do you, presumably a layperson, know
[that homosexual attraction is not inborn],
when there's debate even within the psychological community?"

The short answer is, I read. (You may want to try it sometime.) Here is a challenge to you. Provide the name, credentials, and pertinent citation of one widely recognized (I repeat, widely recognized) researcher in the field of homosexuality who believes that homosexuality is simply inborn.

"Again, on what basis do you say that [homosexual activity is harmful]?
It seems to me that
you're just regurgitating selectively received 'wisdom' that
happens to dovetail with your prejudices."

Just regurgitating prejudices? Again, pot, meet kettle.

Note that the reference is to homosexual "activity," not homosexual inclinations. Given the astronomical numbers of homosexuals who die as a direct result of homosexual activity, on what basis do you say that homosexual activity is NOT harmful?

"What do children have to do with it? Are you equating homosexuality
with pedophilia? If so, why? And if not, then what
exactly is the basis for your assertion that homosexuality is
harmful to children?"

Although the incidence of pedophilia is much higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, the apparent answer is that TriciaCT was referring to the indirect impact on families and, hence, children. The homosexual agenda calls for a complete restructuring of the nuclear family without a scintilla of evidence that it will not harm children. Here is another challenge to you. Provide a reference to one long-term longitudinal study of the impact on children of being raised in a homosexual-headed household. By long-term, I mean one that follows the child into adulthood to observe the impact on common measures of well-being.

"In the cases of those homosexuals who are unhappy or supposedly
harmed by their sexuality, could the actual problem be not their
homosexuality _per se_, but the way society treats them? By
being told they're freaks and deviants, by being rejected by
their families? Ever seen any figures on the suicide rates of
gay youth? It's appalling -- and the reason for it isn't those
young people's sexuality, but ultimately, the misguided beliefs
of people such as yourselves."

To which "misguided beliefs" are you referring? Is it that all people are of infinite value in God's eyes? Or perhaps it is that all people, even those with the strongest inclinations, are capable of change? Even in gay-friendly countries the incidence of suicide ideation is much higher among homosexuals, so your claim is baseless. Please specify to what specific "misguided beliefs" you are referring and then provide a reference to one peer-reviewed study that supports your claim that the appallingly high gay youth suicide rate is attributable to those beliefs. This should be easy since you get to define the beliefs yourself.

"I don't know which I find more ironic: a religious person using
science to support her arguments, or a religious person accusing
a secularist of being closed-minded."

The greatest scientists in the world have been, by far, primarily religious persons. The majority of the greatest thinkers in the world have all been religious persons. The true irony is that you, a supposed intellectual, are ignorant of these basic facts. Your posts, and their lack of intellectual vigor, support the conclusion that you are, in fact, closed minded.

I'll check back in a week to see if you can mount a reasoned response with references; to see if you can meet any of the challenges (although I already know the answer to that). Given your track record in the above posts I expect nothing more than an ill-reasoned and hastily composed ad hominem rant.