Sunday, November 7, 2010

Factoids and Fact-turds

Back in the day, my high school debate coach was unhappy with our practice efforts and our debate research.  We were sitting around after school, and he decided we needed to be given a speech.

In that off-the-cuff speech, accentuated with banging on the desk-top podium with his fist, he pointed out that we would never willingly put a turd in our mouths and swallow it, or shove one up our nose and inhale it.  So, why the hell would we insert one into our eyes or ears accessing our brains, in the form of poorly researched information?  He wasn't going to accept shit research from us, and we shouldn't accept it from anyone else.


I can only surmise that his uncharacteristic crudity reflected his passion on the topic of research - and the short amount of time remaining before we all had to catch the late buses, or other rides home.  The analogy, the metaphor has lingered with me over the years.  I evaluate what I select to read, or view, or hear, on the basis of is it crap, or garbage, or shit, or is it worthwhile.  Will it improve my knowledge and understanding or will it waste me time without benefit. For that reason, I don't care who wins American Idol, or what new scandal is surrounding Paris Hilton, or whether or not Lindsey Lohan is back in jail (and why).  I have a certain disdain for those who can name all the contestants on the current season of Dancing with the Stars, but not the sitting justices on the Supreme Court, or the holders of major cabinet positions.  To me, that is the difference between being an adult, and simply being too old to be called a child anymore.

Fun is fine, entertainment is wonderful, but not instead of or ahead of being an informed adult.

Around the same time, my other mentors, including parents, insisted on critical thinking and evaluation of all sources.  I was particularly cautioned by my father not to be too willing to believe people telling me what I wanted to hear; or more precisely, what they thought I wanted to hear.  I was rigorously taught that people who don't tell the truth, or who are not fact based in their statements were to be regarded with the greatest skepticism, and should be denied my trust --- MORE so, not less so, if they seemed to be in some way 'on the same side'.  The explanation for this more rigorous standard was protection against manipulation, and deception.

I don't see a lot of genuine proofing of the truth in the media, not nearly as much as what amounts to 'gotcha' journalism.  A case in point, one of which I have been critical, was the "He's a Nerd, Not a Nazi" post earlier, in defense of Richard Iott, who lost in the recent election in part presumably due to the attention his interest in historic reenactment attracted from those who tied to make it something very different than it was.

Meanwhile, more objectionable candidates like Illinois' Al Reynolds or New York's Jim Russell, who actually had ties to white separatists, and / or who made bigoted racist comments received far less dramatic attention.  Or Billy Roper in Arkansas, or Tom Metzger in Indiana races, or the California candidates Jeff Hall or Dan Schreunder.  That attention SHOULD have reflected that these candidates were seeking either  Republican party and/or the Tea Party endorsement --- and how that endorsement was refused or repudiated, to their credit.  None of them received the attention their own statements made appropriate, much less all of them together receiving as much attention as Iott in Ohio.  Iott deserved better coverage of his actual positions on policies and issues, and less gotcha sensational coverage distorting his interest in history to the exclusion of everything else.  Iott was not repudiated by Boehner, and shouldn't have been repudiated by minority whip Eric Cantor, for his hobby.  At some point, the media claiming to practice journalism should be leading the examination of our obsession in using the term Nazi for name calling, and contrast it with the reality of who Nazis were - and were not, and are not, more than they have.  Meanwhile I haven't seen any - not ANY - attention from the right paid to these other reprehensible candidates.  Shame on them.

Why not?  Why not from the right, as much as they were given limited coverage by the left?  Every election where the economy or some other facet of our country is in unusually great difficulty, fringe people enter the election process in numbers we do not see other years.  But those fringe participants also have a distillation taking place in the nature and essence of their extremism that has some reflection in the more mainstream.  In any case, they ARE part of the larger process, and deserve a fair, restrained not sensational examination before the public.  Christine O'Donnell was clearly another nut job -- but did we really need the volume (either sound or quantity) of coverage she received? No, but laughing at her (while understandable) played well to the center and left-wing crowds in need of a laugh this election cycle.

Fact checking, like charity, should begin close to ourselves before fact checking those more adversarial -- which we should do as well.  And we should challenge others to do it too.  NO ONE should give their trust and support, or attention and belief, to those who cannot be factual and be more honest in what they do and say, including their apparent intention for those statements and actions.

Or your factoids become fact-turds, and you should avoid that at all costs.  Make the effort. Do it - fact check. Hold all sources accountable, (and not just during elections either).

45 comments:

  1. A command of the facts is important, but it is wise to understand that facts have their limitations. The closer you try and define facts, the more difficult it is to use them to demonstrate generalities. Did WW2 start in 1938 or 1941? Is cholesterol good for you or bad for you?
    It would seem to be obvious that "facts" only become "facts" a posteriori. It may be a fact that the sun rose today, but is not a fact that the sun will rise tommorrow.
    On the other hand the philosopher Michael Oakeshotte has observed (I'm paraphrasing) that the only thing that everyone can agree on about the past is that it does not exist.
    It is a mistake to believe that "facts" are expressions of reality. Facts, like lies, are made out of words and language.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Terry wrote "A command of the facts is important, but it is wise to understand that facts have their limitations."

    Not so many, and even less when facts are made subordinate to fictional narrative or philosophy Terry.

    "The closer you try and define facts, the more difficult it is to use them to demonstrate generalities. Did WW2 start in 1938 or 1941?" The closer you define facts, and the parameters the better, and they are as much involved in specifics as in generalities - this is speciious sophistry. WW II started at different times for different countries with the respective treaties and declarations of war; the origins of the causational factors of WW II go back further - in some respects to the ending of WW I; in others like the attitudes which allowed for anti-semitism in Germany to unfold as it did go back to medieval history and beyond.


    "Is cholesterol good for you or bad for you?"

    Yes to both good and bad. There is a kind of cholesterol which is essential to good health and to the successful management of bad cholesterol; and there is another kind of cholesterol which under certain conditions and outside of a very specific balance is the basis of certain kind of health risks. Why look! - in both your examples, facts are not so difficult to define, or to use in specifics as much as generalities.

    It would seem to be obvious that "facts" only become "facts" a posteriori. It may be a fact that the sun rose today, but is not a fact that the sun will rise tommorrow."

    I'm reasonably confident that the sun will rise tomorrow. My same debate coach was fond of the comment that it was possible to reason, to use facts 'a posteriori' but not to pull them out of our ass -- he was of course referring to the term in the meaning of specifc argued to general, or larger overall status (the format you missed in my Dear Keith Olbermann post). If you are referring to a posteriori in contrast to a priori, the sense of not existing in the mind prior to or independent of the experience... we could argue that as well - but why? For practical applications - and most discussions - Oakeshotte's assertion that the past does not exist is rather silly from a more pragmatic point of view.

    "Facts like lies are made out of words and language". No, Terry THOUGHTS are made out of symbols - some of them numeric, some linguistic, some spatial or directional. This doesn't correlate lies to facts; the two are best used when they are oppositional - facts dispelling lies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Terry wrote "A command of the facts is important, but it is wise to understand that facts have their limitations."

    Not so many, and even less when facts are made subordinate to fictional narrative or philosophy Terry.

    "The closer you try and define facts, the more difficult it is to use them to demonstrate generalities. Did WW2 start in 1938 or 1941?" The closer you define facts, and the parameters the better, and they are as much involved in specifics as in generalities - this is speciious sophistry. WW II started at different times for different countries with the respective treaties and declarations of war; the origins of the causational factors of WW II go back further - in some respects to the ending of WW I; in others like the attitudes which allowed for anti-semitism in Germany to unfold as it did go back to medieval history and beyond.


    "Is cholesterol good for you or bad for you?"

    Yes to both good and bad. There is a kind of cholesterol which is essential to good health and to the successful management of bad cholesterol; and there is another kind of cholesterol which under certain conditions and outside of a very specific balance is the basis of certain kind of health risks. Why look! - in both your examples, facts are not so difficult to define, or to use in specifics as much as generalities.

    It would seem to be obvious that "facts" only become "facts" a posteriori. It may be a fact that the sun rose today, but is not a fact that the sun will rise tommorrow."

    I'm reasonably confident that the sun will rise tomorrow. My same debate coach was fond of the comment that it was possible to reason, to use facts 'a posteriori' but not to pull them out of our ass -- he was of course referring to the term in the meaning of specifc argued to general, or larger overall status (the format you missed in my Dear Keith Olbermann post). If you are referring to a posteriori in contrast to a priori, the sense of not existing in the mind prior to or independent of the experience... we could argue that as well - but why? For practical applications - and most discussions - Oakeshotte's assertion that the past does not exist is rather silly from a more pragmatic point of view.

    "Facts like lies are made out of words and language". No, Terry THOUGHTS are made out of symbols - some of them numeric, some linguistic, some spatial or directional. This doesn't correlate lies to facts; the two are best used when they are oppositional - facts dispelling lies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wrote in my post: "I was particularly cautioned by my father not to be too willing to believe people telling me what I wanted to hear; or more precisely, what they thought I wanted to hear."

    I would use as an excellent example the claims by house speaker to be Boehner about cutting waste and spending - you know that 'people's mandate' while forcing through the production of two engines for every F-35 --- over the objections of the military that uses them. Why? Because they are made in his district! What other aircraft do you know of for military use that requires the manufacture of two engines for every fuselage?

    So, you will perhaps excuse me if I see Mr. Boehner as a convenient short cut to hand over power to special interests, and a hypocrite who will follow that past history (you know - like the sun coming up mornings) and give us a larger debt and greater wealth in the hands of the rich while everyone else becomes poorer through an uneven playing field. Just like the past performance of the GOP.

    What will be interesting is to see if the Tea Party cannibalizes the GOP or not this time -- and how soon for those little lies, those errors of information presented as facts, the Limbugh-esque fact-turds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let me gently correct your knowledge of military aircraft, DG.

    The F4 Phantom had two GE J79 Turbojet engines on each fuselage. It was one of the US's most successful fighters and fighter/bombers. The A-10 "Warthog" has two GE TE-34 turbofan engines. The F-14 has two GE F110 afterburning turbofan engines.

    There are a variety of very good reasons, both military and within good aviation design to put two engines on an aircraft's fuselage. I note that the F-22 Raptor, which is also one of the US's most advanced aircraft, also has two engines. Some of the reasons for two engines include survivability in combat and the extra power needed for speed and maneuverability.

    Now, it is true that the F-35 is designed with only one engine, and I presume that DG was aware of that fact when she wrote her post calling speaker to be Boehner a hypocrite. However, the fact that there are two engines being developed does not necessarily mean that each of these aircraft will have a spare engine sitting around.

    The F-35 is designed as a multi-function aircraft. This means that for air force uses, it will land and take off on conventional air bases and runways. For Navy and Marine uses, however, the aircraft is designed to be able to land and take off vertically. I have yet to figure out why one engine is better than the other, although some of the material that I have seen indicates that the second engine may have better performance in hot, dry conditions.

    In short, please re-verify your sources, DG, on Mr. Boehner wanting to force the production of two engines for every F-35 aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another derogatory reference to Limbaugh!

    ReplyDelete
  7. And, Dog Gone, if you've figured out how to show that our thoughts about the world give us positive, real information about the world that is not dependent on our thoughts, don't keep it a secret.
    Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, and Ludwig Wittgenstein struggled with this issue in the early part of this century. Russell said that the problem nearly broke him, mentally. Some say that it drove Wittgenstein mad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Terry, my objection to Mr. Limbaugh is not that he is conservative. My objection to Mr. Limbaugh is that he pulls fact-turds out of his ass, in other words, he frequently, even routinely uses and relies on erroneous information without making the slightest attempt to fact check it, and passes it off as fact-oids instead of what they are - fact-turds.

    Comparing what Limbaugh and others do on a regular basis - like the ice-cream-bribe story where the facts proved to be nothing whatsoever like what was presented
    is an egregious pattern, not the exception to the rule.

    That has been the problem about which I am complaining, not conservative versus moderate versus liberal.

    (Well,to be fair, both stories -the rightie version, and the factual version of everyone else - took place in Cincinnati, that was about the only similarity between them.)

    Fox doesn't sanction that kind of misinformation by its personnel. Limbaugh's netework and sponsors clearly do not either. Nor does a wide swathe of the right media.

    They present fact-turds as factoids. And it is not just the media on the right either - it is some political figures on the right. It was Bachmann who claimed on national television that Obama was spending 200 million a day, it was Bachmann who claimed unsubstantiated voter fraud, it was Bachmann who hasn't been able to pass a single fact check. TPaw has been bad as well, as have other political figures. Palin's track record is badly flawed, for another.

    I think you are more than capable Terry of distinguishing criticism of errors of facts from other reactions. That is what I'm asking from you here -- requiring of you here.

    And I don't see you demonstrating that they have a better track record of fact than what I have stated. Just whining (sorry, but whingeing at least) that 'lefties' don't like Limbaugh.

    This is more substantive than preference. Challenge it on the merits of accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TOE :
    http://www.f135engine.com/alternate-engine/thirdparty-comments.shtml

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/07/06/ge_jobs_pledge_drives_debate_on_engine_bill/?page=2

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/politics/27engine.html :


    "President Obama said he would veto any bill that included additional money for either the alternate engine, which would compete with one built by Pratt & Whitney for up to $100 billion in business, or the five more C-17s sought by Boeing.

    Both the Bush and Obama administrations have tried to stop both programs. After finally persuading Congress last year to cancel the F-22 fighter jet and other weapons systems, lawmakers say, Mr. Gates has practically made it a personal crusade to scratch the extra engine and the cargo planes off the Pentagon’s project list.

    As a debate over slowing the surge in military spending begins to take hold, the administration has picked up more support from House and Senate leaders to kill the programs. But the engine’s supporters have fought back.

    Some — led by lawmakers from Ohio, Indiana, Massachusetts and Virginia — are seeking to preserve jobs. Others say that Mr. Gates simply picked the wrong program in anointing the 18-foot engine as the latest symbol of Pentagon waste.

    The engine’s supporters, who include the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio"


    I can give you more sources, most of which describe Boehner as one of the more powerful, prominent, vehement supporters of making TWO engines for every plane. The military has been adamant for years it doesn't WANT two engines, and it has made its choice on what it does want -- which is not, unfortunately for Boehner, to be made in his district in Ohio.

    I believe we can trust the military to know what it wants and needs without who is getting political advantage out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But Limbaugh is not a news reporter, Dog Gone. He is a news commentator. If you don't like him, you don't have to listen to him.

    Krugman's lies of commission and omission bother me, and when they are especially egregious I will point them out over at SITD, but I don't obsess over him. I don't mention him gratuitously and I certainly wouldn't put him on a list of "what is wrong with America". It's not just you, Dog Gone, it seems very common on the left to just sort of insert childish insults about Palin, Limbaugh, and Fox into any political conversation. It's like some high school clique banding together in their hatred of some unpopular kid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ToE, here is an earlier reference that we are discussing multiple, as in more than one, engine for the F35. From the NYTimes last May:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29cong.html

    the pertinent part is:

    "In a statement, the administration said that it “strongly objects to the addition of $485 million” for the development of an extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and that it will work with Congress to remove the provision from the bill."

    NOT some of the engines being one kind, some another. An EXTRA engine. This has been the reference I have seen for the many years that this has been a controversy. I was shocked at that too, years ago. Now, it's been around too long to have that freshness of outrage any longer.

    And thank you for the review, but despite my gender, I'm capable of reading about military equipment with understanding, handling a gun and cleaning it myself, changing a tire, or the oil on a car; I don't need to be rescued from spiders, rodents, or cute little snakes, or big ones for that matter, and I can bait my own hook, and clean and fillet my own catch when I go fishing. I routinely read more military history than most of my female friends. (Intended in a light teasing vein, not snarky.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Terry, while we could discuss the illusory nature of reality for hours, and revisit whether a tree fallling in the forest really falls if no one hears it..... for pragmatic purposes rather than idle philosophy, if I stub my toe on a downed tree, or I can cut it with a chain saw, and log it or burn it, or sit on it and carve my initials in the bark.....it's a tree that fell down, for practical purposes. I'm guessing that as an engineer, if you tried to argue that facts were too limited for you to do your job at the observatory, they would first laugh, but if you persisted in failing to appropriately interact with 'facts', they would likely fire you and the a posteriori you rode in on (if you rode your lovely motorcycle to work).

    I don't think you can fairly make the case that when Mitch passes on a Hugh Hewitt story that also made the rounds of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News without correction, claiming that three BUSLOADS of students were taken out of school, on public school buses, and offered only a democratic candidate sample ballot, and were then bribed with free ice cream to vote.......that differs from reality, and from fact. Because what really happened was that alternate private funding to the regular private funding for a field trip NOT on public buses took place. It was three students on one van with others from a local church, for a total of three vans (but only three students) who were old enough to vote. This was NOT a democratic maneuver to suborn new voters; it was the latest in an annual field trip for students in a civics class who are old enough to vote to encourage them to become registered voters. There WAS NO DEMOCRATIC ONLY BALLOT offered. There was no FREE ICE CREAM AS A BRIBE OFFERED. But the other van riding church members did invite the students - whomever they voted for or were going to vote for - to join them briefly for ice cream as their guests, on the ride back to school.

    There is a law suit which was filed against the school district claiming the bribery, school buses, democrat-only-candidate-ballot. But all other sources indicate those are factually incorrect. It appears to have been nothing but a stunt by a tea partier candidate trying to get attention. I'm betting there will be ZERO follow up on that law suit by the right. I'm betting they NEVER EVER correct the misinformation either that they have already promoted to a large audience on the right. I'm betting that a judge hearing this case, if it goes to trial, will insist on FACTS, not bogus claims, and will probably fine or otherwise penalize the plaintiff on behalf of the costs of the school district if the plaintiff doesn't show facts to the judge.

    I don't se Wittgenstein, Oakeshotte, Popper or Russell as cutting it for a defense.

    It is certainly not a valid defense to me of why this story and daily stories just as error filled are presented as fact to the audiences of Limbaugh, and Fox, and Hugh Hewitt, and SitD, and all of the other talk radio right wingers.

    I'm waiting for some defense that either can show this story didn't happen (it clearly did) or that any minimal fact checking is performed (it took me a matter of minutes to locate two sources in Cincinnati - one a tv station, the other a news article with the school district's statement included, and only a few more to verify THOSE sources -- so it COULD be done).

    Wittgenstein etc. doesn't make this kind of fact-turd acceptable to me. It shouldn't to you either.

    So I'm waiting for you to join me in declaring these wrong, I'm waiting to see you condemn this kind of thing to the extent it is both factually wrong and a broader PATERN of conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You really are irrational on this subject, Dog Gone. Your "ice cream story" is too close to Captain Queeg's breakdown scene in The Caine Mutiny to be coincidental. Is this some kind of put-on?
    Do you still believe that Bachmann possessed a mythical "probationary law license" when she practiced law? or that 96% of lesbians are left-handed?
    Dog Gone, you seem to have the same attitude towards fact checking that Maddow does in this clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjXBx9-2c0&feature=player_embedded

    My favorite part is at the end, when Maddow claims that MSNBC, unlike Fox, is a "News operation".

    ReplyDelete
  14. "You really are irrational on this subject, Dog Gone. Your "ice cream story" is too close to Captain Queeg's breakdown scene in The Caine Mutiny to be coincidental."

    I am perfectly rational; I'd be happy to focus on the $200 million that Rush Limbaugh told his audience Obama was spending if you prefer, or any of the other many instances of dishonesty and inaccuracy, if it would make you more comfortable to select a different instance.

    More to the point is that you have failed to address even once the lack of fact which I have identified, a pattern of misleading and misinforming audiences. Instead, you shift from one form of ad hominem to another.

    Why don't you simply address the question of lack of fact on the part of major sources of information and formers of opinion on the right? Is it because you are uncomfortable with their conduct?

    "Is this some kind of put-on?
    Do you still believe that Bachmann possessed a mythical "probationary law license" when she practiced law?"

    Bachmann is not currently licensed to practice law at all. Her law degree came from a law school which was not fully licensed; that does not make her license probationary.

    "Or that 96% of lesbians are left-handed?"

    Not 96%, but some figures have been aprox. 90%.

    Here is an example of the scientific observation that same-sex attracted individuals have an unusually high percentage of right-dominance (left-handedness) compared to the general population, and the preliminary indications that both gender/sexual orientation and brain hemisphere dominance are formed at a far earlier stage of fetal development than previously understood. Which, if you recall, was precisely what I stated before - that there appears to be a developmental component to sexuality. Do you have some information I do not? Please provide those studies.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000710071931.htm

    "Science News BookmarkCanadian Scientists Find More Homosexuals Left-Handed
    ScienceDaily (July 10, 2000) — Three Canadian researchers have shown that left-handedness is more common in gay men and in lesbian women than in comparable heterosexual persons. Drs. Martin L. Lalumière, Ray Blanchard, and Kenneth J. Zucker, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and the University of Toronto, reached this conclusion by means of a meta-analysis -- a statistical technique for combining the results of many previous studies in order to reach a reliable conclusion.

    The study, published in the July issue of Psychological Bulletin, combined the results from 23,410 heterosexual and homosexual men and women. The results for both sexes were statistically significant; however, the tendency toward increased levels of left-handedness was markedly greater for lesbian women than for gay men.

    The importance of these results lies in their theoretical implications. Handedness is determined early in development -- probably before birth. Therefore, the correlation of handedness and sexual orientation demonstrates that at least some influences on adult sexual orientation operate quite early, maybe even before an individual is born. The results also suggest that there may be at least one cause of homosexuality that is common to both gay men and lesbian women. This is in contrast to much other biological research on sexual orientation, which has usually suggested that sexual orientation in men is influenced by different factors than sexual orientation in women.

    Although the findings of increased left-handedness in homosexual persons are quite reliable, they are small in absolute magnitude, and they have no application besides providing clues to the origins of sexual orientation. Handedness could not be used to decide whether someone else (or oneself) is gay, lesbian, or heterosexual.

    Did you need me to supply other sources or is this enough?

    ReplyDelete
  15. FYI Terry, there are some other differences which suggest that homosexuality and bi-sexuality are hard wired brain differences which occur in a fairly consistent ratio, based most probably on fetal developmntal differences, not based on a choice (and not an abomination).

    Physiological
    Some studies have found correlations between physiology of people and their sexuality. These studies provide evidence which they claim suggests that:

    Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[48]
    Gay men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres.[49]
    The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men.[50]
    The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[28]
    The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[27] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[51]
    Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[52]
    The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[53]
    The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[54] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[55]
    The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[56]
    Gay and non-gay people emit different underarm odors.[57]
    Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[24][58][59]
    One region of the brain (amygdala) is more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[60]
    Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.[53][61][62][63][64][65]
    Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;[66][67][68] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[69]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[28]
    A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whirl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness.[70]
    Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies.[70]
    Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.[70]
    [edit] Cognitive
    Recent studies suggest the presence of subtle differences in the way gay people and non-gay people process certain kinds of information. Researchers have found that:

    Gay men[71] and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same sex[72][73][74] (but two studies did not find this result).[75][76]
    Gay men may receive higher scores than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women).[77]

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here are the studies footnoted above, additional to the earlier study:

    66.^ Lalumière ML, Blanchard R, Zucker KJ (2000). "Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: a meta-analysis". Psychol Bull 126 (4): 575–92. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.575. PMID 10900997.

    67.^ Mustanski BS, Bailey JM, Kaspar S (2002). "Dermatoglyphics, handedness, sex, and sexual orientation". Arch Sex Behav 31 (1): 113–22. doi:10.1023/A:1014039403752. PMID 11910784.

    68.^ Lippa RA (2003). "Handedness, sexual orientation, and gender-related personality traits in men and women". Arch Sex Behav 32 (2): 103–14. doi:10.1023/A:1022444223812. PMID 12710825.

    Did you want to dispute this further, or shall we agree there is a scientific basis for left handedness (and ambidexterousness) and lesbianism?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here is additional information which suggests very persuasively that sexuality and orientation have a 'hard wired' component, that there are fundamental differences in physiology, particularly in the human brain, which determine our sexual preferences between same sex and opposite sex partners.

    "Cognitive
    Recent studies suggest the presence of subtle differences in the way gay people and non-gay people process certain kinds of information. Researchers have found that:

    Gay men[71] and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same sex[72][73][74] (but two studies did not find this result).[75][76]
    Gay men may receive higher scores than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women).[77]
    ----------------

    "The chances of being left-handed may be increased in homosexual populations. In comparison with a heterosexual sample, a 2000 meta-analysis of earlier studies [19] showed that homosexual men have approximately one-third (34%) higher odds of being left-handed

    while homosexual women have almost twice (91%) higher odds of being so.[19]"

    I was lazy; that last came from:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation

    ReplyDelete
  18. Meant to correct this earlier as well - Bachmann's law school had been provisionally accredited; the term was not 'probatinarily' accredited.

    Would you like the details of why?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Let's start with this:
    "law school which was not fully licensed"
    Law schools are not licensed.

    Bachmann's law school was a new, Christian law school attached to Oral Roberts University. All new law schools are given provisional accreditation. The JD's they give out are not "provisional" JD's, the graduates who passed the bar were not considered to be "provisional" lawyers.
    The ABA tried to deny accreditation because they believed that Coburn Law School at ORU practiced religious discrimination, and this was against a rule the ABA adopted in the 70's. The ABA backed down when it was clear that they would lose their case (ORU was taking it to the supremes) because BYU, a Mormon law school, was accredited. ORU won against the ABA because its legal position was good and the ABA feared that a loss before the supreme court could result in their losing their accrediting ability altogether.
    The good guys won!

    ReplyDelete
  20. You seem to be trying to prove that gayness (a behavior) is congenital. At least I think that is what you are trying to do.
    Two thoughts: Many behaviors correspond to non-obvious physiological variance. Until you find a "gay gene" all you've done is link a physiological difference to a behavior. Nature and nurture work together in ways that are difficult to untangle. Unless and until the "gay gene" is found, it is not proper to say that "gay people are born that way".
    Second thought: Linking behavior to a congenital condition is very, very dangerous. What if the "gay gene" is found, and women start selectively aborting fetuses that bear it?

    ReplyDelete
  21. For the record, some states do grant a "provisional law license", or a temporary practice permit. I am uncertain whether Minnesota does this or not. Normally, it is done when the lawyer in question needs to be able to practice in the state for a period of time, often on one matter only. This is called pro hac vice. (It also usually requires that the lawyer be duly licensed in another jurisdiction)

    I am not aware of any jurisdiction which allows a recent graduate a "provisional license", for instance, while questions about their credentials to take the bar are being investigated. Those investigations take place long before permission to take the bar has been granted.

    In all but a few states, (including Minnesota), graduation from an ABA approved law school is a requirement to sit for the bar exam. Although provisionally approved, Ms. Bachman's JD was equally valid as any others, which is why she was permitted to sit for the bar exam, which she obviously passed.

    I'm not certain why she isn't currently licensed to practice law, except perhaps she has allowed her license to go inactive so she can concentrate on the lies that she routinely tells in the name of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Bachmann's law school was a new, Christian law school attached to Oral Roberts University. All new law schools are given provisional accreditation."

    Bachmann's law school was not given accreditation originally, and was not accreditd during most of it's existence.

    It is a shame that the ABA backed down; many felt then - and now - that they should have pursued it. But you are correct, they did not.

    I'd have to go back and look, but my recollection is they never became fully accredited, before they transferred the school for multiple reasons to another University, which is where it was located at the time Bachmann graduated with the few students in her class at Oral Roberts, somehow attending classes at the Oral Roberts location despite their press releases indicating there were no such classes being held -- that contradiction has never been explained, but presumably it was resolved to the satisfaction of the state of MN when she sat for the bar.

    TOE you are correct that Bachmann allowed her license to lapse.

    Another area of interest is that she has claimed that Bachmann had claimed she was a litigating attorney for the Treasury Dept. and/or IRS, but that claim was subsequently scrubbed from her official bios. No one seems to know why. But Terry is correct that Bachmann was at one time a licensed - fully licensed - attorney in Minnesota from a crackpot religious law school. That the 'good guys won' is a matter of disagreement and opinion. Some of us believe that a world view which is based on imposing Christianity on the world is not such a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Terry, you wrote:
    "You seem to be trying to prove that gayness (a behavior) is congenital. At least I think that is what you are trying to do."

    I don't need to prove anything other than when I said that aproximately 90% of lesbians are left handed, it was a finding of science, which you seemed to suggest I was making up.

    I demonstrated to you that it wasn't a 'fact-turd'.

    "Two thoughts: Many behaviors correspond to non-obvious physiological variance."

    Many homosexuals insist that their sexual orientation is innate. Modern science supports the contention that gayness cannot be "prayed away", as is claimed by Michele Bachmann's homophobe (and some claim closet homosexual) husband.

    "Until you find a "gay gene" all you've done is link a physiological difference to a behavior."

    Do you actually understand what congenital means Terry?
    It refers to a developmental difference occurring in utero; there is no gene required. Further you are demonstrating here your ignorance of how DNA works - that there are locations on chromosomes which turn on and off affecting the developing characteristics involved at that loci, dramatically in some cases.

    At this point, neuro-science has established there is substantial evidence of consistent physiological differences between same-sex attraction individuals, and that these characteristics appear to occur at certain very early stages of in utero development, and seem to track causally with certain in utero influences. Some of these influences, like certain endocrine functions in utero (like hormonal factors), we understand not only from human medicine but veterinary medicine as having similar and parallel effects in other species, in both physiology and sexual attraction.

    There already IS a consistent physiological basis for same sex attraction. There appears to be no hereditary component to it - it does not follow generationally. It does not follow behaviorally through nurture either. Gay parents have straight children; straight parents have gay children, and identical twins can be one gay, one straight. Genetically identical twins Terry.

    Second thought: Linking behavior to a congenital condition is very, very dangerous. What if the "gay gene" is found, and women start selectively aborting fetuses that bear it?"

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Nature and nurture work together in ways that are difficult to untangle. Unless and until the "gay gene" is found, it is not proper to say that "gay people are born that way"."

    Well, yes Terry - it IS proper to say that it is normal and natural for a certain percentage of people to be same sex oriented. It occurs in roughly the same percentage of people world wide and has appeared to do so in that approximae percentage throughout history, regardless of the attempts to change that.

    Same sex attraction / primary sexual orientation occurs in numerous species - probably in all of those which are mammalian, certainly in birds as well. The largest study of this in birds is in your own back yard in Hawaii. I'd have to look at the status of studies in reptiles and amphibians - some, already certainly have been identified; I don't know the relative percentages of species identified by taxonomic grouping.

    "Second thought: Linking behavior to a congenital condition is very, very dangerous. What if the "gay gene" is found, and women start selectively aborting fetuses that bear it?"

    I don't know of any tests for gayness in utero, but I would suggest that there is greater chance of gender as a basis for abortion than sexual orientation.

    Only ignorant people, like those people who see gayness as an abomination that people choose, instead of those who think that it is normal would even consider it.

    People who are unaware that oh...some 90% of lesbians are left handed for example. I'm guessing that since you challenged me on that factoid, you believed it wasn't ......factual?

    And now that I've demonstrated to you that it is factual, you have to try to deny physiological differences in the brain and central nervous system that show a compelling argument for in utero developmental differences that make sense in modern neuroscience as an explanation for a physical basis in gender preferences. You seem to conveniently ignore every indicator that this is NOT chosen, just IGNORE it, while bringing up the stupid argument that it might be a basis for abortion.

    ANYTHING and NOTHING can be a basis for abortion Terry. Gayness is not however an abnormality, or a defect. Get over your homophobia. It is your homophobia based on ignorance. Put it another way - God doesn't make mistakes, and doing this consistently in so many species is clearly for a reason. It is up to us to learn what the differences are that occur so often, and to understand what the reason is it is important in nature that this is important -- not to demonize people or other species for it.

    So, I'm taking this you agree with me at this point that left handedness (and ambidexterousness) occurs in Lesbians approximately 90% of the time, far far more than in the heterosexual population?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Now I've indulged YOU Terry, wandering all over the map instead of answering my question, my challenge if you will.

    Why is it acceptable to you that the right wing - be it Fox, be it Limbaugh, AND OTHERS - is so frequently FACTUALLY WRONG, and is not just 'accidentally' factually in error, but rather is so as part of a consistent pattern that attacks their political opposition with misinformation. Far too often for it to be a mere coincidence.

    I listed three examples. I can list many more.

    You haven't disagreed that the examples were in fact cases where the right was wrong, and where they did not act to correct their error, and did not hold anyone accountable for those errors.

    Which differs from the standards and practices of CBS when someone is wrong. Which differs from the standards and practices of NPR when someone violates their policies and practices. Which differs from the print media when someone violates those same or similar policies and practices. And yes, it differs from MSNBC when someone violates those similar standards and practices.

    CAN YOU provide facts that show a similar accountability or discipline of Fox personnel, Limbaugh, Hewitt, etc. etc. etc.? CAN YOU provide any indication they act like reputable organizations instead of propaganda?
    NO. Or at least, you've done everything and anything but, so far.

    ReplyDelete
  26. TOE wrote of Michele Bachmann, "perhaps she has allowed her license to go inactive so she can concentrate on the lies that she routinely tells in the name of politics."

    Point two of this original post. Don't trust someone who is deliberately and regularly factually inaccurate. A consistent pattern indicates lies. Being factual or not factual is - unlike being gay - a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, let me summarize the comments so far....

    Terry has no defense for the lack of factual accuracy by the right - be it Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, or any of the other talking heads that talk trash not facts, that present false information as factual.

    But Terry will not oppose that lack of factual content, or their propaganda (Cultural Dictionary
    propaganda definition
    "Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect."
    The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition)

    In this case, a segment of the government - the right wing segment - and their media outlets focus on FALSE information in order to achieve their political effect.

    And not one person has come forward to show that the information I have singled out is anything other than false. Or that there is a pattern of false information, misinformation, and disinformation.

    But heck, at least we have provided Terry with some accurate information on the biology of gender and sexual orientation.

    At least we have apprised Terry of the failure actually to do a damn thing about some of the most egregious wasteful porkbarrel spending by John Boehner in congress, to help him have more realistic expectations of his forthcoming continued catering to special interests and expansion of government - completely contrary to his declared intentions.

    I have had the impression in the past when KR was here that he went back to his friends for help in commenting. There have been times in this exchange where Terry seems to be doing the same thing.

    So -- lets finally get back to the topic at hand Terry. DO YOU APPROVE OF FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ON A REGULAR BASIS OR NOT? DO YOU APPROVE OF THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND STANDARDS IN THE MEDIA ON THE RIGHT - OR DON'T YOU? IT IS A SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION.

    FACTOIDS

    OR

    FACT TURDS;

    it is a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Or that there is a pattern of false information, misinformation, and disinformation.

    that should read

    Or thta there is not a pattern of false information, misinformatin and disninformation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't need to prove anything other than when I said that aproximately 90% of lesbians are left handed, it was a finding of science, which you seemed to suggest I was making up.

    I demonstrated to you that it wasn't a 'fact-turd'.


    I thought that you had given up this nonsense. According to one study, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000710071931.htm lesbians have a 91% greater chance of being left handed than women in the general population. You printed the correct information in an earlier comment on this post, even put it in boldface, but you can't seem to get the number right.
    while homosexual women have almost twice (91%) higher odds of being so.[19]"

    Let me repeat this: the above bolded text (which I got from you, Dog Gone), means that approximately 18% of lesbians are left handed, not 91% (it is unclear what number the researchers were using as a base line, but 10% of the population being left-handed is a good guess). I am not suggesting that you made up the 91% number, I am telling you that you didn't understand what a "91% greater chance of being left handed" means.

    I don't even know how reliable the study is. It was published in a psychology journal, not a medical journal.

    This is why I will not join you in some bizarre campaign to condemn Limbaugh, et al., for disagreeing with you. You can't get your facts right.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wrong Terry, having actually read quite a bit of the various studies on this -- 91% of lesbians ARE left handed.

    This means that any individual Lesbians have a 91% chance out of a hundred that they will be left handed; 9% will not be left handed.

    Those are the odds that any specific individual lesbian woman has for possessing the characteristic of left handedness; it is not a risk, like catching measels.

    Lesbians are overwhelmingly more often left handed (or ambidexterous) than other women with opposite gender sexual orientation. But those are far from the only differences that are emerging that justify the contention that sexuality is something that is part of who you are at birth.

    This was information I came across originally because I AM one of those one-in-a-hundered individuals who was born ambidexterous (but NOT lesbian)and I was curious about it.

    I know perfectly well what it is like to be forced to learn a skill one-handed contrary to natural dominance - for example I write predominantly (but not exclusively) right handed, but I draw and paint using both hands equally. Not only because of pressure to do so, but writing right-handed makes sense given that we typically write left to write; writing with my left hand means moving my hand across what I've just written.

    Learning to shoot well was more difficult because traditional teaching relies on one hemisphere being dominant, which is not particularly the case with us amibidexters.

    That was bad enough; I can't even imagine how awful it must be for someone to try to force their sexuality contrary to what it naturally is.

    You still haven't addressed the issue under discussion Terry, the errors of fact, the fact-turds.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Got it!
    The original Canadian study, Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis.
    I have online search & download privileges with several academic institutions (I am such a brainiac!).
    Normally I wouldn't go this far, but in researching the 91% number I found many, many references to the same Psychological Bulletin paper. All of the info (such as in the wikipedia article you quote) seemed to be derived from the paper's summary, rather than the paper itself.
    I'd email you the PDF, but there are copyright issues. You can buy it for $12 here if you are interested, http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2000-08364-008 , but maybe you have academic privileges through some professional or academic organization & get it that way.
    I haven't done more than skim it so far (busy this AM), I'll read it in depth later today.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dear God. Once again, words fail me.
    . . . .
    How can I . . .
    Can you do math, Dog Gone? The "91% of lesbians are left handed" statement is outrageous. It is wrong on its face, the number is way too high. Simply put, it doesn't pass the stink test. The reason is because the study found that lesbians have a 91% greater chance of being left handed than non-lesbians. If the chance of being left handed in the general population is 1/10:
    1/10 * 91% = 1/10 * 0.91 = 0.91/10.
    1/10 + 0.91/10 = 1.91/10 = 0.191 = 19.1%.
    I really can't make it any clearer than that. As for confirming:

    Simon LeVay, a neuropsychologist who studies the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals and is both gay and left-handed, is also reluctant to jump to conclusions. "The data obscures the fact that most homosexuals are right-handed, and most left-handed people are heterosexual,"


    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200011/sexuality-hand


    His studies report a variety of findings, including:

    * More gay men (13 percent) than heterosexual men (11 percent) and more lesbians (11 percent) than heterosexual women (10 percent) reported being left-handed.

    http://www.titanmag.com/news/2007/lippa.html

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'll go take a look at that Terry. If you are correct - and you may well be - then I owe you a thank you. The interpretation of that study has been widely misquoted, and I relied on it.

    What you have not however disputed is the numerous other indicators from neuroscience which show that there are developmentally occurring significant neural differences tracking with same sex attraction, which I also quoted. I don't anticipate that you will discredit those. I'd love to see you explain away freemartins in bovine species for example.

    Which takes us back to why are you focusing on this and not answering my challenge about the media on the right and their lack of accountability for errors of fact.

    And bringing up that there is an ice cream related scene in the Caine Mutiny, however much I enjoy the acting by Humphrey Bogart, really doesn't let Hugh Hewitt, Mitch Berg, or Fox News or Rush Limbaugh off the hook for not correcting that one.

    Ditto Rush and Bachmann and the $200 million, or the ACORN fraud with O'Keefe, or so many many others.

    When I see O'Reilly suspended for uncorrected factual errors - or Beck held accountable, or Limbaugh etc etc. etc. then I'll be impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hey Terry? Thank you - sincerely - for the correction - and well done!

    ReplyDelete
  35. After I ripped off that last frustrated post I went into town to do a little shopping, came home and went for a little bike ride down Hilina Pali Road in the national park next door. Hilina Pali is a quiet, dead end strip road with a fabulous view at the end of the line. I dread the day that the eco-bicycle-tour people discover it.
    Anyhow, like I said it's a lonely road and I rarely ever see any other bicyclists on it. Today I saw a group of three bicyclists coming towards me. When they got closer, I could see it was three women. When they got closer still, I could see that they all had bikes with left-hand shifts! OH NOES!
    Just kidding.

    I won't join in any campaign to condemn your villains of the week because I think your politically progressive bias leads you to make judgments with epistemological problems. You don't consider counter-factuals, for one thing. You are so intent on finding a "fact" to support your argument you often do not see that the existence of the "fact" does not, in fact, support your argument because your argument was badly structured or not structured at all.

    For example.
    Argument: Congenital physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals prove that the statement "All gays were born that way" is a fact.

    Fail: Correlation between said physiological differences are not not insignificant, but they are not significant enough to justify the statement "all gays were born that way".

    Counter-factual: If there were a congenital condition, such as large ear lobes, that is not insignificantly correlated with an attraction to lower-paying jobs that require "working with your hands". We would never say that everyone who is attracted to such jobs was born that way. At least, I hope we would not.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Terry, I'm glad you calmed down. I enjoy our discussions, and I hope you found me to take your correction of that one fact-oid graciously. I tried to do so.

    But that change in statistical analysis doesn't negate the other information I provided.

    Terry wrote:
    Argument: Congenital physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals prove that the statement "All gays were born that way" is a fact.

    Not ONLY congenital differences. The timing at which these differences occur, and the nature of how they relate to masculine and feminine qualities or responses.

    We don't ONLY have physiological differences, we have the description of the individuals themseles. Many describe an awareness of their sexual orientation dating back to early childhood - an awareness of the difference at two, three, four and five years of age. Differences occurring in otherwise overwhelmingly heterosexual environments which begs where and how this 'choice' this 'environmental factor' you posit is supposed to have occurred. There is no proposed plausible theoretical mechanism that makes sense to justify this supposed claim of environment, learning, or choice. While the explanatioin of neuroscience that this is in fact likely, and is gaining ground with evidence steadily DOES make sense.

    But most of all, if these people report that they are innately this way -- who are you or anyone else to tell them their internal experience is wrong, invalid, not legitimate? Before we contradict them, there should be proof, incontrovertable proof heterosexuals are correct and they are wrong about themselves.

    Psychology supports the physiology, that this is not a deviant sexuality, that it is not 'curable', and that it appears in many - arguably most - individuals to be innate and not a choice. The observations of our own species and other species supports that in every generation the same approximate percentages of these individuals will exist -- not because of a 'gay' gene; their DNA is the same. But likely because of involuntary factors beginning -- and most likely predominantly in utero.

    There is no reason to penalize anyone for being one of those people. There is no justification for denying them the right to teach - as Senator De Mint would do. Or the right to have children, including adoption or providing foster care. Or the right to serve in our armed forces. Or the right to marry and form stable households which benefit our larger society.

    Your argument comes down to not-gay people telling gay people they are making a choice, that it is an unacceptable choice, and that it is NOT innate. No substantive support for that is offered other than than "I think" or "I believe", or "Maybe", or "I selectively cherry-pick supporting that part of the Bible" while ignoring bibilical teachings on slavery, masturbation, concubinage and plural marriage, dietary laws, and so on.

    I am a woman who has strong sexual responses to men. Not ALL men, but exclusively to men. I could not imagine ever choosing to alter that orientation. Nothing would cause that to happen. To believe someone else would convert, by making a decision, from same sex attraction to a heterosexual orientation is just not reasonable.

    It is wrong to ask them to do so, because mostly - we are just asking people to live a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  37. But most of all, if these people report that they are innately this way -- who are you or anyone else to tell them their internal experience is wrong, invalid, not legitimate?

    Counterfactual:
    Some people will report that they feel this way about their heterosexuality. Then later, they will "discover", that they are gay. Are they lying?

    I continue to believe that describing observable human behavior differences as "in born" is very, very dangerous ground to tread.
    I think you would admit that if one aspect of human behavior is congenital, there may be others, and these other congenital behaviors may not be pleasant.
    This is the stuff of totalitarianism. Some Protestant Christian denominations flirt with the idea -- predestination, and all that -- while Catholic theology, with its greater emphasis on free will rejects it. Stalin's USSR did more than flirt with the idea of congenitally determined behavior with Lysenkoism. I won't bother to mention the National Socialists of Germany because it is too obvious and I'd hate to give you an excuse to invoke Godwin's Law.

    ReplyDelete
  38. So your argument is that because some people report an experience as innate, and then change (often under pressure to change, if they are gay) that then ALL descritpions of this as being an innate quality are wrong?

    I think if you examine this, you will find that where you remove the pressures and coercion to report themselves one way or the other, (pressure which is mostly t report they got over, recovered or were 'cured' of being gay - like Haggard) that overwhelmingly, people report one or the other, not both.

    But even if they DO report both, and are sorting it out -- who are you or I to tell them their internal experience is false?

    You have no indication of a mechanism to explain how someone like Dick Cheney's daughter can describe a life long perception of her orientaion, or the heartbreak of trying to conform when it went against who she is, as 'environmental influences'.

    While noting all the physiological differences (and more are emerging all the time) and a theory of developmental causation DO make sense in the context of those differences, and they are consistent with the theory of this mechanism of development.

    Show me something other than 'I got over it' in a few cases - most of whom relapse - that is comparable evidence this is a choice, and NOT innate.

    Given the studies of sexual health
    (http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/ is the most recent, but not the only)
    that indicate a significant percentage of people engage in same-sex sexual behaviors at some point in their lives, and that a LOT of adults engage in sexual variation involving what was previously identified as mostly homosexual sex - oral, anal, and digital stimulation -- WHY should we tell people they are wrong, or abnormal, or that they are making a choice they aren't allowed to make?

    Is this not the most intrusive social and governmental action there is?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Terry, sexual attitudes change.

    Our attitudes about virginity, divorce, sexual orientation, masturbation, every aspect of sexuality is being treated as a legitimate area for scientific study.

    In the course of treating this as a subject that is studied scientifically, we have made an effort to understand the subject, what it is and what it involves, not just what we think it ought to be. We use empiric evidence to make determinations about sexual behavior. The sciences of Psychology and Psychiatry no longer view homosexuality as deviant; the study of animal behavior is finally open to recording and attempting to understand ACTUAL behavior. There was a time when it could not be reported, despite being observed, because of the imposition of assumptions about sexuality that prevented any consideration of animal behavior more objectively.

    There IS NO legitimate basis for penalizing people for same sex orientation or behavior. There is no legitimate reason not to attempt to understand what differences exist, or how they come to exist.

    Our thoughts and feelings have an organic basis; they are electrical and chemical activity in living neurological tissue.

    The greatest break through since gene mapping in our understanding has been not only WHAT DNA is present, but what turns parts of it on and off, and when.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Are you aware, Terry, that it is possible to clone pets? It is expensive - around $60,000, per clone. But people do it. (Personally, I think this is a stupid use of $60k, but people DO it.)

    Were you aware Terry that when creating a clone, an exact DNA identical clone, that the color and pattern of the exterior of the pet doesn't always come out looking exactly like the original?
    Sometimes not very much at all like the original - different color, or pattern entirely.

    Know why? Because while we can duplicate the DNA, we cannot duplicate what turns on and off the DNA, or when it turns on and off in utero. There are no similar changes once in utero development occurs, unless different DNA is introduced.

    Read up for an easy example on the agouti gene - common in multiple species.

    These are normal, healthy variations; not genetic defects, not mutations. We have some pretty sophisticated means to recognize the difference.

    These developmental differences are not theory. They are real, they are pragmatic, and they occur often.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dog Gone, I am taking my time rsponding to your last comment because I need to re-examine how the 14th amendment has been interpreted by the courts. It may be a moot point whether or not "gays were born that way".

    ReplyDelete
  42. Interesting stuff. You might want to check out:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/22.html#2

    ReplyDelete
  43. Terry,

    I note that the reference you cite contains footnotes to cases which are quite old, and not entirely still current.

    Also, how is this relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm not sure I see the connections here either.

    Terry asked me if I was serious about left handedness and same sex attraction, a statement I had made previously. There is a statistical differene betweeen same sex oriented and heterosexual oriented individuals. There are other multiple other physiological differences, primarily neurological differences, and scientific reasons to believe these differences begin to occur in utero, affecting later orientation. There are many, arguably most, same sex and bi-sexual individuals who insist they are not making a choice, that they are born different.

    I agree that it doesn't really matter if it is a choice or not; it is not a difference which should be penalized by different rules - be it Don't Ask Don't Tell, or not being allowed to teach school, or not allowed to adopt, or being fired for being gay, or not being allowed to marry -- those penalties are wrong. Those penalties reflect an approach to this difference which is belief based not fact-based --- not that I am claiming we know all the facts, but that there is a more objective basis for not opposing these people leading similar lives to the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  45. But what this has to do with addressing inaccuracies re facts, or outright whole-cloth made up information, without accountability, eludes me. How this in any way responds to right wing media personnel, both in front of the camera and behind the cameras, attempting to alter the outcome of events and politics through propaganda -- always negative -- instead of objectively reporting events, as other journalists at least attempt to do....... how any of these detours address that also eludes me.

    Whether it is the 'Nancy Pelosi military air travel bar bill' story that has no basis in fact, other than that Nancy Pelosi, as next in line behind Biden was supposed to travel on secure military aircraft rather than commercial travel, or the ice cream story, or the $200 million Obama India story....there are daily examples. DAILY examples of this kind of inaccuracy, conspiracy theories as fact, etc.

    So ----- why does the audience on the right fact check what they are told? And if they DO fact check it, why oh why oh why do they continue to listen to false information?

    I would argue that the right doesn't for the most part fact check any of this - not Rush Limbaugh's audience, not the Fox talking head's audience, not the other right wing radio hosts following, not Michele Bachmann's following either.

    Palin gets fact checked - not by the right, but by the main stream media she hates so much - and then she responds, which the others for the most part don't. Unless the rest of the world is just laughing too hard at their false story du jour to avoid it.

    So.....why? Show me one person on the right who has been fired or suspended for attacks on a sitting president - which you objected to by CBS, or completely false stories - I've listed multiple, or any journalistic ethical violation.

    So far, I've been attacked for 'hating' Palin and Limbaugh - no, I don't, but even if I did, that doesn't answer the issue.

    There have been multiple attempts to change the subject to anything else.

    Trees falling in the forest unheard. The Caine Mutiny - ice cream segment. Homosexuality (including abortion to avoid it).

    Now - the 14th Amendment?

    Fred Astaire in his prime couldn't do a tap dance like this one to avoid addressing the subject.

    ReplyDelete