Housekeeping notes

| | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Just a few housekeeping notes with plenty of gentle, loving scolding all around:

Jeez, I leave for 36 hours and there's dishes in the sink, candy corn stuck all over the carpet, posts in moderation and open divs. You kids are gonna be the death of me.

Fellow bloggers: Close those divs! The use of the "div" element is as follows (with all this in angle brackets):

div align="center" - followed by - /div

If that div isn't closed, the whole page gets goofy.

Also, once you close the div align="center", the text automatically goes back to left alignment. No div needed.

Also, please try to check "junk comments" in the admin screen periodically - this should make it clear when something happens like Corey Stewart's comments getting held up. If you're not able to unjunk them please let me know.

Jonathan: Sorry your posts keep getting held for moderation - but 99% of these spam filter problems can be avoided by not using the html tags to post links in comments. As explained in this post.

In a comment, instead of making "oops" a hyperlink, you can just put "oops" with the actual link address below like this

http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=334

In a comment, that will automatically post as a hyperlink.

Also, in the same thread, Jonathan asked "Joe, what was it that you said about Ann Coulter being hot?"

All I can say is, I'm not sure what you meant by the question - but tread very carefully around the issue of Ann Coulter's incredible hotness, good sir.

Also in that thread, David asks with regard to the men who realize the girl they're admiring on the beach is actually 13 years old, "And what does it say about Adams that he doesn't question the entitlement of men to look at women that way?"

David, I think that's just what Adams IS doing. He's not holding the men up as positive examples at all. Anyone reading the column would probably focus on the fact the men felt very embarrassed when they saw the girl up close and realized her age.

And regarding the observation "the 'great Americans' over here at Town Hall seem to be in hiding. If I engaged in that much name calling, artifice, and just plain meanness towards decent and virtuous people, I'd probably hide too."

I apologize, first, to Ann Coulter, that I cannot be here 24 hours a day to defend her. But also to our visitors. Besides work, I have a few other projects that keep me wrapped up for days at a time. Our home Internet access is Verizon "high speed" DSL, which in my neighborhood is slow as molasses in January, so popping in to check on the blog can be a very time consuming ordeal. Sometimes I don't get to it until late at night.

Meanness towards the decent and virtuous would never send me into hiding; as a conservative, it's what I live for. One of my infrequent sunshine-and-daisies posts would more likely have me crawling under a rock for a spell.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Housekeeping notes.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/479

4 Comments

David said:

Also in that thread, David asks with regard to the men who realize the girl they're admiring on the beach is actually 13 years old, "And what does it say about Adams that he doesn't question the entitlement of men to look at women that way?"

David, I think that's just what Adams IS doing. He's not holding the men up as positive examples at all. Anyone reading the column would probably focus on the fact the men felt very embarrassed when they saw the girl up close and realized her age.

I think you are misreading Adams. I realize that this is what he is pretending to be doing in order to make a particular argument, but what he is actually doing is setting up a false 1:1 correspondence between two things that have no correspondence.

What he is trying to do is to equate the idea of these 40-something men acting on their inappropriate attraction to a 13 year old girl on the beach with the idea of a gay adult acting on an appropriate attraction to another gay adult.

To set up this comparison, he gives us a premise. His premise is very much that the attraction of these three men to this underage girl is a normal, natural part of male heterosexuality, and that it is only their recognition that it is inappropriate (to say the least) that stops them from acting on their feelings and causes them to be ashamed.

He asks the question, "whether you consider the sexual urges of these three men to be 'natural'? And, if so, would you also consider them to be 'God-given?'" His own answer, given the argument he is making, must be "yes, they are both natural and God-given." I have to disagree. I think that the idea that men are entitled to sit around and "rate" women, as long as they're not your relatives and are of a certain age, is cultural.

Presumably, Adams would have no problem with these heterosexual men being attracted to and acting on that attraction with their adult wives/girlfriends. That would be the corresponding scenario to an adult homosexual relationship.

This sort of logical fallacy is Adam's stock-in-trade, unfortunately. I feel bad for his students.

David, I follow what you are saying but part of the narrative had to do with the fact that from a distance it can be hard to tell how old someone is. You could see a fabulous body at the beach without realizing who it belongs to.

But in part I agree: Your suggestion the best parallel would be men rating or feeling lustful about women their own age is exactly correct. I think Adams used this example for its higher degree of irony, but his point would have been clearer to simply say, there are natural sexual urges that people do not act upon.

David said:

Right. We all have to make the choice to not act upon things. There is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, regardless of one's sexual orientation. Acting as if there is no such thing as healthy, appropriate sexual behavior if one happens to be gay is, at best, not helpful to the conversation.

And that is what Adams does.

Loudoun Conservative said:

David,

The problem is that we often don't recognize our wrong desires to be wrong. We often need society to enforce good standards on us. When dealing with any immoral behavior, some of those who "do the deed" see it as wrong and are ashamed of it and others do not see it as wrong but refrain from it for fear of censure.

From theives to pedophiles, this is true. It is wrong to consider all women common property for a guy's lustful urges. But ask a dozen Playboy fans if this is wrong and what answer will you get?

It is even more wrong for a person to use a position of power to force his / her attentions on a subordinate. But ask a wicked slave master of the 18th century if he considered the rape of an adult black woman wrong. How do you think he would respond?

Ask a member of NAMBLA if he thinks his relationship with a juvenile is wrong. How do you think he would respond?

You smuggle in a presupposition when you say that acting out homosexuality is "appropriate." If you are correct, then surely your critique of Adams is also correct. But that is exactly what you are trying to prove. As I recall, having a premise identical to your conclusion is known as circular logic.

Likewise, Adams presupposes that not all sexual urges should be acted upon and he would include same-sex attraction in that class. He is making an argument by analogy: this sexual urge should not be acted on, perhaps that one shouldn't either.

You are certainly free to bring up a relevant dissimilarity that you perceive in his analogy, but don't forget how easily we human folk deceive ourselves. When we want to believe something to be true, we can almost always manage to justify it. Unfortunately, our desire that an idea be true or false little alters its actual truth value.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM