https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/%E2%80%9Cqueer%E2%80%9D-academic-ole-martin-moen-suggests-pedophilia-be-taught-in-schools-as-an-innate-sexuality.4924217/
https://reduxx.info/queer-academic-recommends-pedophilia-be-taught-in-schools-as-an-innate-sexuality/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51983497_Is_Pedophilia_a_Sexual_Orientation
I'm sure that REDUXX a "Feminist news and opinion" site/magazine will be characterized as "right wing"' or some other nonsense. Because everyone knows that the "right wing" is where all the feminists are.
In all seriousness, when are folks on the APL going to admit that this normalization of pedophilia is growing and that academics are actively trying to lay the groundwork to claim that it's just one more "innate sexual orientation"? When will we see a P added to the existing alphabet soup.
It is interesting to see how the "cis" gay men and lesbians are being attacked by those further down the alphabet soup list, because (for example) most lesbians don't want to sleep with a "woman" who has a penis. For some reason, this pisses "trans women" (or at least some of them" off because it points out the fact that lesbian women, don't consider "trans women" as women in the sexual sense. I think we'll seem more instances of cis gays and lesbians pushing back from being forced to support these increasingly extreme positions as the alphabet soup gets longer.
32 comments:
I saw an article...I believe at American Greatness...decrying the grouping of the "T's" with the "LGB's". The irony is how they are responsible for that as they pushed to normalize their abnormal perversions and scoffed at the Rick Santorums who warned of the slippery slope down which these deviants first pushed us. Now, we're speeding down it as if it's a 90 degree slope. In no time, we'll see Deviant Dan rush to defend the "P's" as there are few segments of society more "historically oppressed" as are child molesters.
Who could possibly have predicted what? That adults having sex with children will be accepted? No one, because it isn't being accepted.
On the other hand: WHO could possibly have predicted this - Pastors advocating killing gay folk?
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/texas-pastor-says-gay-people-shot-back-head-shocking-sermon-rcna32748
Who could have predicted it? Anyone who has listened to conservative religious zealots and their bigotry against LGBTQ folks.
The difference? It's happening, in the case of religious conservatives oppressing LGBTQ folk and it's NOT happening the case of making it acceptable for adults to bed down children.
To the extent that happens, it appears to be largely the domain of the Catholic and Baptist churches, amongst others.
But there again, it's actually happened in the case of these churches abusing minors sexually, in conservative churches where the pastors and leaders judgment is NOT to be questioned... it's predictable.
"Who could possibly have predicted what? That adults having sex with children will be accepted? No one, because it isn't being accepted."
That's quite the bold claim, I don't see any actual proof. While I've provide multiple examples of academic "experts" pushing to normalize MA. Maybe this is a case of you speaking from ignorance, or your memory failing you regarding the previous examples I've linked to, or you failing to read the links in this post, or your hubris in thinking that you speak for the entirety of the APL.
I don't know, but I've posted, commented on, and criticized "pastors" saying all sorts of stupid crazy crap. Hell, the entire reformation was based on "pastors/priests/the pope" saying all sorts of crazy stupid bullshit. You act like this is something new, or different. News Flash: "Pastors" are flawed, imperfect, sinful, humans like the rest of us.
FYI, He's clearly wrong about multiple things and I have no trouble saying that he should be removed from his pulpit.
"The difference? It's happening, in the case of religious conservatives oppressing LGBTQ folk and it's NOT happening the case of making it acceptable for adults to bed down children."
Again with the wild, sweeping, unsupported claims and the total lack of acknowledgement that there are academic "experts" and others pushing for MA to be considered just one more "sexual orientation". But the difference is that you can search my blog, or Google and find the examples you claim don't exist.
Well played, trying to move the goal posts toward clergy sexual abuse. Of course, you strangely don't mention sexual abuse in schools.
The problem with your switch is that literally nobody is advocating for normalizing pastor/school employee sexual abuse of children. Although is the "experts" have their way, MA will be normalized for everyone, including clergy and school employees.
FYI, lots of people predicted that there would be an effort to normalize pedophilia and that the same arguments that were used for GLBT normalization would be used for pedophilia (MA).
Art,
I'm seeing quite a bit of hostility from the GL folks toward the T and other alphabet soup. For some reasons, T's get outraged when L's won't have sex with "women" who have a penis, or when G's don't want to have sex with a T who presents as a "woman" regardless of their equipment.
In the larger sense it's one more example of how the APL has a coalition of groups who's agendas are either divergent or diametrically opposed to other groups and how those groups aren't likely to stay in the coalition when their agenda gets ignored for another agenda.
At this point, it looks like "Cis women" are the big losers in the short term. Much like labor has pretty much already lost to the greens.
Sorry, this got a little off topic.
Dan apparently missed the part about pedophilia being taught in schools as "innate sexuality", from the "expert" academic.
https://www.eutimes.net/2022/05/norwegian-feminist-faces-3-years-in-prison-over-saying-transgenders-arent-women/
Not an expert, but a great example of how "Cis women" are going to get the shaft in all of this.
Dan's also missed where it's been acknowledged how he likes to pretend there's been no evidence for things we say because it isn't presented yet again in the same comment thread...as if the issue hasn't been addressed a billion times over the years.
What's more, it patently absurd and intentionally a lie to insist there's no push to legitimize sex with kids as such things are as old as dirt. The acceptance of the concept has been growing for decades at least.
But then, it's Dan, so we must accept a large degree of dishonesty.
Art,
It's almost like I didn't post an article in a self identified feminist magazine that quotes an "expert" who's literally advocating for pedophilia to be taught in schools as an "innate sexuality". Strange coincidence, I believe that Dan referred to homosexuality as an "innate" sexuality recently.
It's the same old thing. Dan won't accept anything unless he personally approves of the source. Or unless it comes from an "expert" that he considers an "expert".
I'm not sure if it's intentional dishonesty as much as it is selectively hearing, seeing, and remembering only that which he believes helps his cause.
What I said (and which is factually, demonstrably correct) said was...
" adults having sex with children will be accepted? No one,
because it isn't being accepted."
What your own source said...
"as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally alright..."
He's making it quite clear that we do not accept that which causes harm to children (ie, adults forcing sex upon them or tempting them into sex with adults). What such people are speaking about (and which point is debatable) is that we need to destigmatize pedophilia SO THAT pedophiles can get the help they need AND NOT CAUSE HARM TO CHILDREN.
SO, I reiterate: What you're fearmongering is not happening. It's simple (and simple-minded) fearmongering of the sort that has ALWAYS been used to attack and demonize LGBTQ people. We ought not oppress those who have been historically oppressed and we ought not add to the demonization, as you are doing here with these nonsense claims.
Understand?
On the flip side: Conservative Christians - including those who are not advocating killing or imprisoning LGBTQ folk, but who only demonize and attempt to marginalize them as you're doing with this post - have and still are engaging in these sorts of attacks and oppressions in the real world. It's happening daily, and while it's gotten better, it's happening still.
No thanks to you.
Craig...
"Dan won't accept anything unless he personally approves of the source. Or unless it comes from an "expert" that he considers an "expert"."
Two more stupidly inanely false claims and attacks.
1. It has nothing - NOTHING AT ALL IN ALL OF GOD'S GOOD CREATION OR THE HELLISH LANDSCAPES OF TOO MANY CONSERVATIVES - to do with whether or not I "approve" of the source and EVERYTHING to do with whether the source is reputable and reliable. Because of course it matters. Integrity and reliability matter and the wholesale abandonment of such basic decencies is part of the problem with modern conservatism, where the source truly doesn't matter as long as the claim aligns with your religious bigotries.
A source could be, for instance, wholly unknown to me, but if it's even-handed, factual, not given to extremism in partisanship, then it doesn't matter that I approve of it or not. Its reliability and integrity will speak for itself.
Because integrity, facts and basic decency matter. Don't you get that?
2. Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not I approve of a given expert. It has to do with their integrity and reliability, whether or not their opinion can withstand peer review, whether or not they are transparent in their sources and whether or not they demonstrate some basic level of reasoning and writing ability.
Because of course it does.
And I've never said that pedophilia is not an "innate" orientation. I've always been abundantly clear that if an orientation is natural AND causes no harm to others, then people should get the hell out of their business. But Trump is almost certainly to some degree or another narcissistic and perhaps sociopathic... conditions which are often innate. That doesn't mean that what is innate is automatically acceptable or good.
I've never not been clear about this.
"I'm not sure if it's intentional dishonesty as much as it is selectively hearing, seeing, and remembering only that which he believes helps his cause."
The irony is like a hammer struck hard upon a gonad.
"as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally alright..."
Please give some examples of pedophilic expressions that are not harmful to children?
"Understand?"
Yes, I understand that I've posted multiple other links on this topic that contradict your opinion.
"Because integrity, facts and basic decency matter. Don't you get that?"
Yet strangely you regularly deny that stories are credible ONLY because the source doesn't meet your unknown, secret standard. In these cases you never seem to deny the facts being reported, you simply dismiss the story based on your hunches about the source.
Your implied claim to intimate knowledge about the "integrity and reliability" of every source I've ever posted would be amusing if it wasn't so laughable. From now on, if you're going to dismiss any source I provide, I'll expect a list of specific actions, with sourcing, that prove that the source doesn't have "integrity and reliability".
Thanks for agreeing that pedophilia is just one more "innate sexual orientation".
If you see Truth as irony, then you've been whacking your balls with a hammer too often. Just one more instance where Dan focuses on male genitalia.
Now I know why you haven't commented on my recent Black Voices Matter post. It's your way of acknowledging that the Black Voices quotes have "integrity and reliability", so it's easier to ignore them and their data, than to demonstrate that their data is wrong.
Craig... "Please give some examples of pedophilic expressions that are not harmful to children?"
Some might argue that a pedophile fantasizing in their minds about children but never in any way actually touching or harming real children is literally not harmful to children.
Craig... "Thanks for agreeing that pedophilia is just one more "innate sexual orientation"."
Well, that's the reality, or so it appears. I'm not saying it's a good reality - any more than being a narcissist or sociopath is - but it is reality, at least in some instances. Am I mistaken?
There are, of course, cases of pathetic perverts like GOP politician Roy Moore, who appeared to pursue young teen-aged girls simply because they were more likely to be impressed with him than actual adult women. But the research points to some cases being innate.
"Research increasingly suggests that a paedophilic orientation is innate. "
https://theconversation.com/the-causes-of-paedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are-more-complex-than-the-public-believes-94915
Craig... "Yet strangely you regularly deny that stories are credible ONLY because the source doesn't meet your unknown, secret standard."
I'm quite sure I've covered this before.
When I visit a website that is
a. over-the-top partisan (left or right)
b. not using basic journalistic tools or practices (ie, no author, no source, no reliable links to data)
c. that is written in an immature, non-professional manner
d. that is clearly offering unsupported opinion, not facts
e. that is from an overtly untrustworthy source (KKK News, Flat Earth Digest, etc)
f. that has a history of regular false and unsupported claims
g. that is not a known journalistic outfit (Washington Post, NPR, FoxNews, etc)
...like that, then rational people SHOULD be wary of any reports that come from that source. Because, of course we should. This is not a partisan issue, or should not be. In the real world, there are Russians and others actively purposely spreading misinformation. There are politicians who have been clear they don't give a damn about facts and are glad to spread "alternative facts." These sources are not just "not good" sources. They are dangerous if and when and to the degree that regular people give them ANY credence. They are a threat to a free republic.
Surely you can agree with this?
Integrity and facts matter.
Craig... " Just one more instance where Dan focuses on male genitalia. "
Of course, just another stupidly false claim. I'd be willing to bet that in ALL of my writing (that you've been following for over a decade, I imagine) - no doubt, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words - you could not find ONE instance of me referring to male genitalia.
What is wrong with modern conservatives that they don't care about facts?
Craig... "it's easier to ignore them and their data, than to demonstrate that their data is wrong."
Yeah, that's it. You've got me.
Perhaps it's the case that I don't care when you cite the outlier black voice occasionally while ignoring the mainstream of black voices. That's just another tool that racists have used over the years - Finding a "black voice" that agrees with them and disagrees with the majority of black voices. Perhaps I don't want to give power to that sort of racism or give it any credence. Perhaps it's the case that I don't (or may not) disagree with some of what they say, insofar as it's their opinion. Perhaps it's the case that I'm dubious that you'd represent or fully understand their position and just don't want to bother when you make so many other points that are more important (and mistaken and potentially undermining of the rights of others). Perhaps it's the case that I don't consider memes on Twitter the highest of rational expression.
Look, I know that very conservative black people exist. I work hand in hand with some on justice issues here in Louisville. We agree, for instance, that housing shortages are a real problem and we look for solutions. And, at the same time, some of these conservative black people also disagree with some of us about being accepting of LGBTQ people. They have a range of opinions on how to resolve violence problems. Black conservatives and ultra-conservatives exist.
News flash!
But they aren't the mainstream of black opinion on many issues. When white folk are glad to quote black folk but ONLY on issues where those black people are agreeing with them, I'm just not that impressed. I agree with my black friends and writers who find such "agreement" condescending and utilitarian.
But think what you want. "Alternative facts" are all the rage in your camp these days.
"Am I mistaken?"
Given the fact that you're just throwing out opinions, who knows. Pretty impressive that you came up with that pedophile fantasy thing all on your own. Of course the original quote, as well as other pro pedo stuff I've quoted make it clear that they are arguing in favor of actual sexual contact with human children that isn't harmful. Hell, NAMBLA has been advocating for that for decades.
Ahhh the old Roy Moore gambit. The problem with your Roy Moore gambit is that if pedophilia is simply one more innate sexual orientation, then he was just following his orientation. Again with the party affiliation bullshit. It has noting to do with anything, but you're big on guilt by association when it comes to folks you disagree with.
"Surely you can agree with this?"
Surely you can agree that the ONLY things that matter when it comes to a specific story about a specific incident is whether or not the FACTS are reported correctly. The problem is you use your other (biased) criteria to dismiss the story without determining if the facts are correct. Yes, integrity and facts matter. Unfortunately, you tend to be quick to dismiss facts because you don't like the source.
I can't speak for modern conservatives.
Craig...
"Surely you can agree that the ONLY things that matter when it comes to a specific story about a specific incident is whether or not the FACTS are reported correctly."
No. That's not all that matters. Not at all! Integrity matters. Reliability matters. If a KKK newspaper correctly and factually reported on one story, I'm still not gonna cite that source because integrity and reliability matter. Because of course they do.
And if a source makes up stupidly false claims a full 50% of the time, I'm not going to cite that as a source because it's not reliable. How do we know this story is correct when the last 5 stories were not correct? How can we trust their reporting? We can't. Come on, this is not hard.
I never thought it would come to a day when conservatives were actively arguing against integrity and reliability as unnecessary. I never thought there would come a day when conservatives were overtly OK with citing incredibly untrustworthy sites and and so called alternative facts.
God have mercy.
This is the problem, one of them, with utilitarianism. We're finding it way too often in conservative opinion.
"you tend to be quick to dismiss facts because you don't like the source."
This absurdly stupidly false claim is Exactly the sort of empty headed utilitarianism claim claim modern conservatives way too often make. Of course, of course, of course! I'm not saying I dismiss a story because I don't like the source. I've never said that. This is a false claim. I've said repeatedly and clearly that it's stupidly false claim and is not the case. But you make this claim over and over again. As if you just don't give a flying damn about truth or facts, integrity or reliability. Shame on you. Stop it. Stop it. Be better.
"There are, of course, cases of pathetic perverts like GOP politician Roy Moore, who appeared to pursue young teen-aged girls simply because they were more likely to be impressed with him than actual adult women."
Talk about an immature, unsupported claim! As has been reported by actual journalists of integrity, the culture of the time and place of Moore's search for a mate does not suggest your perversion (interesting how perversion is so ubiquitous in Dan's little world) of the events. When he returned from military service to his home area, there were no adult women (presumably you mean anyone over 18 at least) to pursue. Age of consent in his home state might still be lower than most others, but at that time, it wasn't unremarkable of a man in his thirties dating a girl of 16 or 17. Dan wants to pretend it's a horror because it allows him to attack the GOP. That's how he rolls.
I've also submitted links to "experts" who believe kids are sexual and can be "groomed" (my word, not theirs, but it's what they're saying) and likely should be. Given how common rape and incest with young girls is, to say the concept is not widely accepted already requires an incredible degree of willful ignorance.
Craig...
"Of course the original quote, as well as other pro pedo stuff I've quoted make it clear that they are arguing in favor of actual sexual contact with human children that isn't harmful."
1. What "original quote?"
2. I've seen nothing except the suggestion of destigmatizing pedophilia SO THAT pedophiles do NOT CAUSE HARM to children. Of course it's harmful and I don't see anyone seriously suggesting otherwise.
I suspect what is happening is you're reading quotes from sources like this and MISINTERPRETING them/failing to understand the meaning and intent of the words, as you so very often do, even with my words. But by all means, CITE some source of experts (or others) who are advocating letting pedophiles have actual sex with actual children and then, you and I can unite against such advocacy.
I suspect you can't and won't provide such a quote because it doesn't exist and I further suspect that you won't admit you misunderstood and attacked something that doesn't even exist.
As far as I know, NAMBLA is not accepted by any mainstream experts or groups. They are outliers. You know, like Roy Moore.
I bring up Roy Moore (and teen-aged oglers and fantasizers like Trump) because very often when we see actual adults taking advantage of actual children or teenagers, it's from conservatives. Like the creeps currently being exposed in the Southern Baptist Convention.
There are, of course, liberals and Democrats who have taken advantage of children or teens and that's wrong, too, of course. I just hear about that MUCH less than I do hear about it from conservatives.
So perhaps Jesus' advice to remove the log from the collective eyes of conservatism would be a good place to start.
Craig...
" The problem with your Roy Moore gambit is that if pedophilia is simply one more innate sexual orientation, then he was just following his orientation."
And once again, with this failed attempt at reasoning: The problem with your "orientation" gambit is that I/we have ALWAYS been clear that one's orientation - when it's freedom to make your own decisions and be your own self in ways that don't harm others in consensual, loving, healthy relationships, IN SPITE of what conservatives might try to spin - is a good and lovely thing.
When one's orientation is towards causing harm, especially to innocents, then it's diabolical. It's why Trump and Roy Moore and Catholic pedophile priests and Southern Baptists pedophile preachers, etc, are actual perverts and deviants who should be shamed and perhaps imprisoned, if they broke any laws.
When one's orientation is merely wanting to be one's own self IN WAYS that do not harm others, in ways that say, "I would like to be married to my beloved of the same gender and live together in a consensual, mutually respectful relationship," it's a beautiful thing, because of course it is!
"Orientation" is not a get out of jail free card. When one's orientation or desires or inclinations causes harm to innocents, one should be stopped. Period.
But I've pointed that out to you over and over, so feel free to just pass on stupidly false fearmongering. But do so at the risk of causing harm to innocents and you will be judged accordingly. And expect to be held accountable.
"as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally alright..."
This original quote. The fact that this quote clearly doesn't exclude sexual contact with children as long as there is no "harm". As I've posted elsewhere, there is ample evidence of MAP's arguing in favor on consensual sex with children.
"De stigmatizing" or normalizing pedophilia (along with a catchy new name) is a first step towards making MA just one more letter in the alphabet soup. Again, I've posted at least once with multiple examples, I see no reason to repeat myself when it's available.
"I suspect what is happening..."
"I suspect..."
When you decide to treat things you "suspect" as if they were reality, you virtually always end up in a stupidly wrong place. Maybe someday you'll learn.
Ahhhh, the "It's the conservative's fault." ploy. Along with the by acting as if there are a tiny minority of libs engaged in this. Yet strangely enough, the folks advocating publicly for the normalization of MA aren't conservatives, they sound just like you in their support for any and every sexual orientation.
You're just obsessed with shifting responsibility from individuals onto groups so you can paint everyone in that group with a broad brush is it suits your purposes.
"No. That's not all that matters. Not at all! Integrity matters. Reliability matters. If a KKK newspaper correctly and factually reported on one story, I'm still not gonna cite that source because integrity and reliability matter. Because of course they do."
Who cares. The point is that the FACTS being reported accurately is the primary issue. Disputing the "accurately reported" facts, because you don't like the source is simply absurd.
"And if a source makes up stupidly false claims a full 50% of the time, I'm not going to cite that as a source because it's not reliable."
Again, if that source is "accurately reporting" the facts, it's idiocy to dispute the facts.
"How do we know this story is correct when the last 5 stories were not correct? How can we trust their reporting?"
There's the amazing thing called the internet, it's like magic. You go to the magical portal called Google, and they'll let you search literally anything. It's like the Encyclopedia Britannica on steroids, and up to date. It's simply miraculous.
"I never thought it would come to a day when conservatives were actively arguing against integrity and reliability as unnecessary. I never thought there would come a day when conservatives were overtly OK with citing incredibly untrustworthy sites and and so called alternative facts."
The above attempt to move this from me as an individual (to dehumanize me) and instead define me as part of a group, is simply absurd and pathetic. I'm the one arguing that accurately reporting the facts is the most important factor. You know, reporting The Truth? I'm not the one arguing in favor of multiple truths, and in favor of ignoring accurately reported facts because one source doesn't meet your high standards.
How many mews organizations have your personally audited and determined that more than 50% of their reporting is factually incorrect (as opposed to a mistake)?
"This is the problem, one of them, with utilitarianism. We're finding it way too often in conservative opinion."
Yes, because advocating for Truth, and accurate reporting of facts is some strange Utilitarian concept.
"This absurdly stupidly false claim is Exactly the sort of empty headed utilitarianism claim claim modern conservatives way too often make. Of course, of course, of course! I'm not saying I dismiss a story because I don't like the source. I've never said that. This is a false claim. I've said repeatedly and clearly that it's stupidly false claim and is not the case. But you make this claim over and over again. As if you just don't give a flying damn about truth or facts, integrity or reliability. Shame on you. Stop it. Stop it. Be better."
Yet you constantly argue that various stories can't be true only because of the sources sited.
The source of a story HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BEARING if the facts are accurately reported.
Craig...
"Yet you constantly argue that various stories can't be true only because of the sources sited. "
And here we have the problem of you reading but failing to understand and being unable to repeat back accurately a paraphrase of what I've said.
I argue that unreliable sites and sources are UNRELIABLE. Many unreliable sources will utter truth and facts half the time (more or less). But that they are so incredibly unreliable makes them, in fact, unreliable. Untrustworthy.
Noting the fact that the source is unreliable is NOT the same as saying "these four paragraphs from the story - or even the whole story as reported - can't be true." It COULD be factually correct. But if it's an unreliable source, then it remains unreliable. How do I KNOW that this story, this time is factually correct when so much of the rest of the stories from this week were false in part or in whole? We don't.
That's the problem with an unreliable source.
Do you understand the distinction and why I literally did not say and do not believe that "various stories can't be true because of the sources cited..."?
It's a false claim. Understand?
And you're just wrong if you think the source of a story doesn't matter. Again, are you going to trust a story from KKK Weekly? Are you going to give ANY credence or credibility to it? If so, why would you do so? Because you can verify it from an actually credible source? Well then, go to the credible source and not an untrustworthy, specious source lacking in integrity and reliability.
"Perhaps it's the case that I don't care when you cite the outlier black voice occasionally while ignoring the mainstream of black voices."
Here again we see Dan defines "truth" on how many people agree on what "truth" is..also known as the Bandwagon Fallacy. It also heavily relies on the Anecdotal Fallacy due to Dan's citing the personal experience of specific black people as if such is proof of a claim. Yet, Dan has no way of demonstrating there is truly a majority of black people who believe what he insists most black people believe, nor that what the black people he presents are expressing objective truth in their tales of personal experiences.
"That's just another tool that racists have used over the years - Finding a "black voice" that agrees with them"
This is another favored fallacious tactic of Dan's. As he chooses to believe a certain segment of a black community, as if they're representative, we hear both those people and the voices of others and decide between the two which is presenting a more accurate picture based on evidence. Those we prefer are fond of presenting evidence...something Dan demands of us at his blog, but isn't providing here.
"Perhaps I don't want to give power to that sort of racism or give it any credence."
Perhaps you don't have the integrity to prove racist intent on the part of anyone, while ignoring your own obsession with race. This is another of your vile ad homs against those who disagree. If the topic is race, you accuse your betters of being racist. If the topic is homosexuality, you accuse your betters of "homophobia". And on and on and on. No actual evidence. No actual argument.
""Surely you can agree that the ONLY things that matter when it comes to a specific story about a specific incident is whether or not the FACTS are reported correctly."
No. That's not all that matters. Not at all! Integrity matters."
Wow! Reporting facts correctly IS evidence of integrity. But then, Dan is a fan of NPR, so... In the meantime, an abject and obvious absence of integrity is manifest in a comment like this:
"If a KKK newspaper correctly and factually reported on one story, I'm still not gonna cite that source because integrity and reliability matter."
...because, you know, we're ALWAYS getting our information from KKK periodicals!!! Here's more evidence Dan doesn't understand what the word "integrity" means:
"And if a source makes up stupidly false claims a full 50% of the time, I'm not going to cite that as a source because it's not reliable."
I did at least two posts listing dozens of false claims put forth in leftist news sources...the very sources Dan cites as noble champions of truth our nation can't afford to see close up shop. I could list dozens more, as I now have quite a collection of lefty sources making false claims. So what follows is some Grade A comedic irony:
"I never thought it would come to a day when conservatives were actively arguing against integrity and reliability as unnecessary. I never thought there would come a day when conservatives were overtly OK with citing incredibly untrustworthy sites and and so called alternative facts."
It's been the lack of integrity in the MSM which has led to the many new news sources now available, all of which Dan has the unmitigated effrontery in disparaging given the constant lying on the part of those he favors. This is a case of a liar defending liars. Thus, the liar bristles at an obvious truth:
"you tend to be quick to dismiss facts because you don't like the source."
Dan objects, claims it isn't true, but it is so common as to be ludicrous for him to deny. But, being the liar he is...
Craig,
" You go to the magical portal called Google, and they'll let you search literally anything."
Actually, this is not true. One need go beyond Google more often than not if what one hopes to find is opinion contrary to leftist ideology. Google is NOT a non-partisan search engine in the least.
"How many mews organizations have your personally audited and determined that more than 50% of their reporting is factually incorrect (as opposed to a mistake)?"
"Mistake" is the excuse upon which Dan relies when his leftist media heroes are caught presenting false information. Mistakes happen even to better sources than those he lauds, but the frequency of "mistakes" from Dan's favored sources means they're incompetent. So that's the choice with Dan's legacy media angels....they're liars or they're incompetent. As with Dan, it's clearly both.
Art,
Obviously Google was but one example. Also obviously news orginizations do make mistakes. The problems is that many of them make these mistakes because they latch on to a narrative, then they refuse to correct their mistakes after the narrative has been proven false. I'm simply pointing out that legitimate mistakes shouldn't disqualify a news source.
"How do I KNOW that this story, this time is factually correct when so much of the rest of the stories from this week were false in part or in whole? We don't."
Then you check other sources you moron and do your own research. This is why I sometimes don't spoon feed you sources, but provide you with enough information to do your own research. Because if you find your own sources, you won't bitch about mine and dismiss facts because of the source. Unfortunately, then you bitch because I expect you to be able to research things on your own.
"Do you understand the distinction and why I literally did not say and do not believe that "various stories can't be true because of the sources cited..."?"
I understand that it's a semantic distinction without a practical difference.
"It's a false claim. Understand?"
It's a different interpretation of the evidence.
"And you're just wrong if you think the source of a story doesn't matter."
No. If the facts are objectively correct, then I don't care about the source.
"Again, are you going to trust a story from KKK Weekly?"
If they've accurately reported the facts, then why wouldn't I? I might check other sources to verify, but if verified, of course I would.
If the KKK Weekly published a story that reported that the sky was blue, and that goats eat grass.
And the DFL ledger posted the exact same story, with the exact same facts>
Are you really going to tell me that you're going to distrust a factually correct. accurate story, from one source but not the other?
"Are you going to give ANY credence or credibility to it?"
Possibly, it depends on the accuracy of the facts being reported.
"If so, why would you do so?"
Because accurately reported facts, are accurately reported facts. Period.
"Because you can verify it from an actually credible source?"
Shockingly my definition of credible might be different from yours. It's why I frequently use sources that I might not find credible, or that I might find overly biased, because they're sources that you'll accept without question.
I'll go with accurate facts over your subjective hunch about what's a credible source all day long.
FYI, as long as you can make this argument about the credibility of sources rather than about the accuracy of the facts, you miraculously free yourself from having to deal with the facts themselves.
It's a reasonably clever tactic, but it's not fooling anybody. I suspect it's why you don;t comment on certain threads or deal with certain things, because you know the source is credible by your definition, and the facts are such that you can't defend them. Hence you ignore those things.
Post a Comment