« Obama Okays Keystone XL | Main | James Q. Wilson, RIP »

Thursday, March 01, 2012


larry kurtz

Given that you believe the President is capable of great treachery you still seem to have little confidence that his campaign won't annihilate whichever earth hater your party erects.

Sometimes, i am very sad for you: flee the chemical toilet before Andrew Breitbart shows you the door.


In 1992 nobody wanted to run for President on the Democrat ticket. So, they got some guy from Arkansas to be the sacrificial lamb. Bill Clinton went on to win the Presidency. In 2008, a Senator from Illinois decided to run, not so much to win, but to get into the race for experience. BHO went on to win the Presidency. In 1980 a guy from California who was too conservative went on to defeat Jimmy Carter and become arguable the most effective President of the 20th Century. I would not rule out either Santorum or Romney. Most polls show both of them either in the margin of error or slightly ahead of BHO. When this is decided, if the Republicans can rally around the nominee, BHO is history. Also, according to Gallup, the Republicans have an enthusiasm advantage. Those who are writing off the Republicans for winning this year are either afraid and not want to admit it or trying to make the Republicans depressed. I like their chances.

Stan Gibilisco

In recent days I've begun to have a thought that I never imagined my three brain cells could harbor simultaneously: In November, I might actually vote for Barack Obama.

john davidson

Bill and DDCSD-wxyz, please see the archive post http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2012/02/the-routes-to-same-sex-marriage.html#comments

Sorry again to piggy-back on a new post for an old one, but the old one isn't quite dead.

John Davidson

Kody K

Well put! The farther I read, the more depressed I had gotten. It really is true. Either victory will continue the trend of a very unhappy public. At this point, voters need to be able to choose the man of lesser evils. Not that identifying such "qualities" is a possible task. Obama,Romney,or Santorum, I wish you luck. You will need it.

larry kurtz

jd: join us at Madville Times; don't expect us to be any kinder or gentler there, either.


larry kurtz

Sorry, Ken: it's not that your blog is becoming irrelevant..."Lou Reed is 70 today: take a walker on the wild side." @GlennRush

Bill Fleming

I'm done with that post, Davidson. It's fine with me if you want to marry all three... your mare, your stallion, and your mom. I'm a liberal, remember? Good luck finding a legislator who will sponsor your bill. Maybe if you get a billionaire to waxe a few big super pack bucks around you can get the Romney or Gingrich team behind it.

Bill Fleming

(...wave, not waxe... sorry)


Keep twisting the argument, Bill. You don't have an answer so you have to twist his argument beyond what he said.

larry kurtz

earth haters in panic mode: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/democrats-suddenly-in-better-shape-to-hold-the-senate.php

Bill Fleming

I don't need to have an argument against an absurd straw man assertion other than to point out the fallacy. No one except people who oppose same sex marriage is proposing marriage to horses or to parents. And even those proposals are obviously disingenuous, so what's to argue? They are nothing but distractions from the real issue.


30 years ago, nobody was suggesting that infanticide would be considered when abortion would become legal, but our own President has argued in favor of it as a state senator. That is the point. They are not disingenuous. It is what happens. You are proposing removing standards and that is what happens. But you know you do not have an answer, so you just suggest the person pointing out what happens wants to do something that today is considered sick, but liberals will consider normal in 20 years.

D.E. Bishop

Davidson and Duggersd:

Life begins at ejaculation. Those little swimmers are human! So if you are planning to ejaculate, first you must have a transpenile ultrasound, followed by counseling at Unruh's totally scientific, AMA-sanctioned, little business. And of course, you must be legally married to a member of the opposite sex - but only one of them, of course.

If you don't follow that Bible-based law, you are bound for hell!!!

john davidson

Bill - If that's the best you've got then the conservative movement has nothing to worry about. Comments like yours are part of the reason the country remains center-right and continues to move rightward, thankfully for all involved. The 2010 elections are a lot more telling than 2008. You know that and you fear it.

Here's Bill, everybody:

"I don't need to have an argument against an absurd straw man assertion other than to point out the fallacy. No one except people who oppose same sex marriage is proposing marriage to horses or to parents. And even those proposals are obviously disingenuous, so what's to argue? They are nothing but distractions from the real issue."

Bill, you've moved the discussion back 3 squares. I've explained your misinterpretation of fallacious logic (see original post, everybody) and all you are doing is conveniently dodging the debate. That's telling. It's also a waste of time.

D. E., try to set aside your resentment at not being born male, it will make you much happier.

Duggersd - Thanks!

Ken - Thanks for allowing me to speak my peace. Duty calls, it's time to move on. I'll check in every now and then. Best of luck.


Ken Blanchard

This thread is nuts. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Bill Fleming

Point of order. I didn't dodge the debate at all. I agreed with Davidson and DuggerSD that if they really wanted to marry their horses and their mothers that would be fine with me. I like it when we can all agree.

Bill Fleming

Meanwhile Davidson and DuggerSD, take a look at these poll numbers.

I notice they don't have your ideas of marrying your horses or your moms on there yet, but they do show how society in general feels about gay marriage and civil unions.

(That is what we're talking about, right? I got a little distracted when duggersd started talking about how it would maybe be okay for him to marry his mare but not the stallion.)

Anyway, boys, the real deal is, you're probably going to have to have poll numbers along these lines before society in general will be willing to make legal what you both appear to have in mind. Good luck with that.


D.E. Bishop

Oh Davidson. You were doing so well. My post is no less ridiculous than some of the latest birth control/abortion bills that have been offered by various state legislatures and on blogs like this. Evidently their requirements for transvaginal ultrasounds are okay. But one dare not touch the man! I know that you know that a sperm MUST penetrate an egg for conception to occur. A sperm is Human! It does have human Potential.

Can you deal with that? Or just make cracks to avoid this reality. C'mon, you can do it. You've done much better before.

john davidson


It's not worth the time to attempt to carry on a rational discussion/debate with you. It's like debating with a nine year old. So...you win, OK? - Everything you say is true! My wife said to ask you what elementary school you attend. I did look at your poll link and noticed how virtually all the pollsters are leftist media outlets. That's some real credibility you've got there. Also, check back with me when your side has actually won something meaningful, fair enough? I believe you have a much tougher row to hoe then you realize.

Lastly, I suggest you find someone to teach you the meaning of logical fallacies. It really isn't that difficult. Perhaps even for a nine year old.


john davidson

Oh Bishop! Now that we're on a last name basis we can be so much more honest with each other, I like that.

I haven't researched the abortion bill you are referring to, though I'll say I am virulently against abortion. I like what the good sister, Mother Teresa once said about abortion when she was asked how she could live amongst so much poverty, in the slums where she tended to the weakest of the weak - "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Did you know the tide has been turning AGAINST abortion in recent years? Per Rasmussen, a pollster I trust, 55% now say abortion is morally wrong most of the time (August 2011).

The only comment I've made on this blog about abortion was a reference to the "latest thinking" now being touted by SOME elements of the left, namely "post-birth abortion." This from the current Journal of (so-called) Medical Ethics (parentheses mine): "The authors...argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible."

Miss Bishop, THAT reasoning is being used to defend smashing the skull of a full-term, brand new, just-born baby girl! How does that grab you? What say you, Miss Bishop? I hope you disagree.

I have no idea what your reference to a sperm being human means. You totally lost me there. I also don't know what you mean by "...one dare not touch the man!" You still sound a bit envious, though.

God bless you.

Bill Fleming

Yes, John, I win. Glad you finally noticed.

larry kurtz

@billmaher: "Religion is selling an invisible product. Mormonism is so crazy Tom Cruise wouldn't even join it. A third of Americans think Darwin was the husband on Bewitched. Americans are now tenth in the American Dream. Republicans can't get laid, so they fuck the Earth and have zero tolerance for the facts. John Boehner should have to show his dick to prove he's a man."


D.E. Bishop

Mr. Davidson, I am not a proponent of any kind of abortion. What I do support with all my heart, is a woman's right to control her own body. It's not your body, it's not your decision. You have no part in this. Yet you and others seem to believe that you do.

If a woman is not allowed to control her own reproductive function, the same should hold for a man. You are not allowed to ejaculate except in specific circumstances which will be decided for you in various state and national legislative bodies and in courts of law.

Apparently, if the state, and some religious bodies, can control my reproductive functions, they can also control yours. You dismissively laughed that off as ludicrous. You can do that. You do get to control your own body. You get to be a fully autonomous human being. I, as a female American, do not.

That is what is wrong with all this anti-abortion, anti-birth control legislation.

D.E. Bishop

There is clearly something many of you remain blissfully unaware of. You are unaware of the rage among millions of women regarding this whole abortion/birth control argument. Nope, not all women feel this way. I am one of those who do. Let me tell you about it:

You assholes sit there calmly in front of your computers tapping away on your keyboards as you consider various scientific evidence and debate particular theologies and "rights."

Listen you dumb fucks! You are talking about real people! We are not cattle or imbeciles in government-controlled institutions. Here were are. Look us in the face. What the fuck makes you think that You have any fucking business in my life at all!?!?!

You don't have a clue because no one has ever told you that you may not do certain things because you have so little value. No one ever told you that you could not play because you are "just a girl." No school leaders ever laughed in your face when you wanted to go into science. No one has debated whether you should be "allowed" to enter the military, work construction, etc.

You look at a photo of the state legislature and you see so many faces that look like yours. You see the same in Congress, the Supreme Court, law enforcement, business. You are the standard.

No one is urging a CEO to be more like a woman, but the opposite happens all the time. This is a Man's World, down to it's core. But you are not satisfied with that. Most of human history men have had control of women's bodies. It's slipped a bit so you want that back.

Of course we are outraged! Of course we are afraid!

There is so much more, but I don't have the time and energy to educate you. You can now make arrogant comments about "angry women." Damn right I'm angry! Of course I'm angry!

You can disregard all that I've said because it's merely the "rantings" of a woman. You can do lots to avoid acknowledging the merits of this comment.

You are probably unaware of the overwhelming nature of male privilege, because you are surrounded by it. You think it's normal and how the world is meant to be. You say you don't do anything to have male privilege, that it's not your problem. Of course it's your problem. And no, you don't have to do anything for it. It's like the air you breathe. It's that pervasive. It's that oppressive.

No, this is not an attack on all men. Not at all. It is for the thick-headed, arrogant, grandiose, fuck-heads who have so internalized cultural superiority that they laugh off the pain so many of us live with.

Over and over lists have been offered of all the things you could do to decrease the number of abortions, but you ignore that and say - "Laws! Let us post more laws to control her body!"

Fuck you.

(Now let's see if you can address the role of WOMEN, rather than your control of her. I am so fed up with you arrogant bastards, I don't know if I can even come back to this post.)

john davidson

Hi D. E.,

Well said. These are confusing times for people of both genders.

I would like to deeply consider, meditate, on what you posted.

I hope to have something meaningful left to reply to you.

God Bless You!


john davidson

Larry - Bill Maher? ok, man whatever you want to push..jd

Bill Fleming

Meanwhile Davidson, on your arguments against same sex marriage legislation, thanks for the suggestion about Logical Fallacies. I Took a minute to review a list of them and your arguments are more fallacious than I had first suspected. By my count, your suggestion that leagalizing marriage among LGBT's will result in people marrying animals and parents represents fallacies in a significant number of these catagories. I'm not going to go into detail. You and your wife can figure it out. Seems like you enjoy working together on these types of things, yes?

The areas where your argument fails include:
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7*, 9*, 10*, 11*, 12*, 14*, 16*, 18*, and 19*. (* means especially relevant)


p.s. way to run it down, D. E. Good job, sister. Time to let 'em have it.

Bill Fleming

Some new data, KB. The GOP definitely hasn't done itself any favors since you created this post, it seems. Time will tell. But right now the "mighty Mo" is in Obama's court, yes? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Bill Fleming

...another big thing happening. Obama was outpolling Romney 55% to 37% BEFORE the whole Rush Limbaugh thing. With Mitt's refusal ro renounce him, he's probably toast in that voting segment. (53% of all registered voters are women.)

john davidson

D. E., while I do not agree with you that women as a gender are "mistreated", I can tell you are in pain over the issue, and my heart goes out to people in pain. So, I will pray/meditate for you to ease your pain. But I'm afraid nature is not on your side of the argument. To me, as to many people, gender equality has nothing to do with gender interchangeability. I believe women and men were designed for different, complementary reasons. Together, they form a fundamental unit of the family, and the family is THE fundamental unit of a healthy society. Neither the male nor the female in the relationship is superior, as I said they complement one another. No barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, but no combat roles, either, sorry. This model has worked for a wide variety of cultures over many millenia. I don't understand your desire to be just like men. I always used to think of women as being superior to men until women asked to be treated equally. Now I treat you guys equally...but not interchangeably. I also think your examples are a bit dated, think Title IX.

Bill, I see you Googled "logical fallacies", good job on that! Your use of the CARM list leaves much to be desired, however:

Item 1 - Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
A. Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
B. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

Bill - the examples given make it clear this becomes a fallacy when the individual is attacked IN PLACE OF the argument. The key words are "INSTEAD OF." Check the examples - I quite clearly disputed your arguments, hence there is no fallacy. Whether or not I should have called you a "nine year-old" is another question, part of me wishes I had kept that to myself.

Item 2 - Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
A. Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
B. Example: Convert or die.

Bill - the examples given make it clear that the fallacy is a result of threatening the hearer with physical harm or death for not accepting (my) argument. Are you kidding?

Item 3 - Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
A. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
B. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

OK, Bill, how did that make your list?

Item 5 - Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
A. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
B. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

Bill - I do not believe anyone should accept something for either of the reasons as stated in these examples. However, the arguments against same-sex "marriage" have considerable merit not for these reasons, but because of the empirical evidence. It so happens that one-woman one-man has a long tradition across MANY cultures, including the Catholic Church. But the latter fact does not de-legitimize the former argument. Subsitute "murder" for same-sex "marriage". Do the 2 examples discredit the case against murder? Of course not.

Bill, my good friend I could go through the rest of your list but what's the point? The examples you give do not hold water. If you take that as an ad hominem attack, so be it.

This seemed rather obvious, but the story of the man marrying his horse that you have made the focal point of your counter-argument was an example of using humor to make a point. Duggersd is correct - you twist meanings rather than address topics head on. The next step in your development is to acquire a sense of balance and objectivity in your reasoning, or at least in your writing.

You have essentially stated that when it comes to marriage you believe anything goes. But you might comment on the impact such a change would have on our society, if it's not too much trouble.

BTW, this might be a better website on logical fallacies, your CARM site is a bit shallow: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html.

Regarding my wife, no we do not "work together on these types of things." She sometimes wanders in when she is bored to see which blog I am pontificating on, and I shared a couple of your posts with her. She is extremely intelligent, as are my daughters, and they often provide me with interesting and refreshing insights. My wife also has a very refreshing sense of humor, God bless her.

Guys, it's been fun but we have clearly hit a brick wall! I suggest we give each other the proverbial cigar and agree to disagree. While it has gotten raucous at times, please know I respect both of you.

As Mr. O'Reilly says, I'll give you the last word. I'm sure it will include something stronger than "good riddance", especially from D. E. But, if it will make you feel better, go for it!

Peace to you both, and to the mischievous Larry!

Ken - Great article on affirmative action.

john davidson

Sorry, the period at the end of the link disabled the entire link...here you go.


Bill Fleming

John, you gave up before you got to the good ones!
Let me clarify those you did address, but like I said,
those are not the most egregious of your fallacies.

Item 1 - Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Comparing LGBTs to perverts who engage in bestiality and incest.
And yes, me to a 9th grader. While I don't take that as an Insult, I do have a degrees in philosopy, literature and art history.

Item 2 - Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
I suppose it depends on if you think marrying horses or your mother is bad. I'm assuming that you do.

Item 3 - Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
If your argument isn't an irrational, emotional appeal, what the heck is it?

Item 5 - Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Again, if your argument isn't for the status quo and traditional belief systems, what is it?

We can go on, Jon, but I'm pretty sure you get where it will lead. Your fallacies will only get less subtle.

Bill Fleming

John, let's go a little deeper on the first one, okay? Because as I review it, it may be more significant that I first thought. Isn't your whole argument basically an ad hominum insult? Not only are you comparing LGBTs to perverts who practice bestiality and incest, but aren't you also implying that anyone who defends their rights to have the same privileges as other people in a committed relationship is the type of person who would defend almost any other type of perversion you can imagine? Hey, why not have sex with a gorilla? Why not start a coven and have group sex with the devil, etc. Aren't you basically questioning the moral character of anyone who would dare defend the human rights of his fellow citizens while at the same time comparing people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. (i.e those who have a different sexual orientation from yours) to people who suffer from psychotic mental disorders, and who are basically advocating for an insane society? Is that, or is it not pretty much the whole thrust of your argument?

Bill Fleming

p.s. John, are you saying that the other site that lists fallacies is better and deeper because it lists the titles in Latin? Or just because the language is more stilted in general? FYI, I intentionally picked the one that any 9th grader could read, not knowing your educational background. Wouldn't want to go over your head, John. ;^)

larry kurtz

jd: yer a dinosaur:

Religion and Roman Church circling drain:


"Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland. And in all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction."


D.E. Bishop

John, I think you took some time and thought about your response, and I do appreciate that. Your comment about my pain was kind. Be sure that you know that it's not an individual thing due to one woman's experiences. Billions and billions of women world-wide feel that way. That is a very important point. Please don't forget it.

When you ponder comments like mine, I hope you are not thinking about how it feels to you, how you think it must be. That is because women and men are not the same. This is not about "your" experiences. It is not about "men's" experiences. It is not about how "men" might feel or react. It is about "women." We are not the same as you. I know that and I like that.

You said,

"I don't understand your desire to be just like men."

I never said I want to be like a man, because I do not. What I do want is autonomy throughout my life. I referenced males, because you have it. Women do not. That is the point.

That Is The Point.

Women want to be autonomous. We want to control our own bodies. We want to do the work and have the aspirations we want. Some of us do want to be in combat.Some of us are and we are very good at it. Some of us do want to be president. We have the ability and would be very good at it.

The limitations you have in mind for women are yours John. You have an absolute right to believe those limitations are correct. You have no right whatsoever to try to force them onto me or anyone else, female or male.

Take a look at the laws that have been offered in the SD legis the past 20 years, and see how many of them include limitations on, or control specifically of women. Then look for the same thing regarding men. Even if you only do it for the past few years, you will see the same.

When women want to work construction, or be a well-paid professional athlete, or referee football, it is not because they want to be men, or even want to be like men. It's because they, as women, like doing that thing, like the money, like the work environment, etc. It has nothing to do with being like a man.

When you see those things as being "like men," that's because you are seeing maleness as the gold standard. If I referee boxing, am I doing it as well as a man? I don't know, or care. That's because the goal is not to be like a man. The goal is to be a woman doing the task as well as it needs to be done. Gender is not in it.

Women play great basketball. Have you watched any WNBA games? They are on ESPN and ABC in the summer. The passing, the defense, the shots . . . Holy smoke! Some will complain that women don't dunk. One or two do, but it's a rare thing. But you see, they are trying to play like boys. They are playing like really outstanding athletes. It's not a gender-based competition. Men are simply not the gold standard.

Most women I know, including myself, have no desire at all to be men. I love being a woman and can't imagine anything else. What we want is freedom: Physically, emotionally, intellectually, culturally, socially, etc.

We don't want to be what YOU want, John. We want to be what WE want, whatever that might be.

D.E. Bishop

Dang typo!

In the paragraph about the NBA, I left out a word in this sentence:

"But you see, they are trying to play like boys."

Corrected here: "But you see, they are NOT trying to play like boys."

D.E. Bishop

What happened to my long, and really well-written post?!?!

john davidson

D. E. - Your long and well written post was received. I think/hope I understand. That said, who will do the really important work when you ladies are all liberated, i. e. the work that Mom's have done for all millenia? In a way it makes me cry..

God Bless!

john davidson

Bill, here are my answers to your questions in the order you present them:

1. OK
2. No
3. No
4. If you say so, probably no worse than a horse
5. Too much, even for me
6. No
7. Nope

Hope that helps.

Bill Fleming

If it helps you, it helps, John.

john davidson

Bill, what exactly does one do with degrees in Philosophy, Lit and Art History? Teach? God forbid, those poor, brainwashed students! ;^)

I get by with a degree in Quantitative Research and Analysis and minors in Finance and Economics. Lots of ‘puters in that mix, too. That said I don’t put much stock in college degrees as a measure of how smart one is. Many people are educated beyond their level of intelligence and they have the degrees to prove it.

john davidson

Bill, you said: "p.s. John, are you saying that the other site that lists fallacies is better and deeper because it lists the titles in Latin? Or just because the language is more stilted in general? FYI, I intentionally picked the one that any 9th grader could read, not knowing your educational background. Wouldn't want to go over your head, John. ;^)

Bill – Thanks for trying to keep it simple for me. No, I honestly just did not care for the CARM site, thought it was kind of lame. No, the Latin had nothing to do with it - I don’t think California State is overly steeped in religiosity these days, much less anything Catholic.

Here’s another one I think is good: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

A couple more pretty good ones:


BTW, the following is from the nizkor.org site under the “Appeal to Tradition” fallacy :

“Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done."

That was item 5 on your list, I believe.

It then goes on to describe/qualify the fallacy in detail. Then, near the end it states the following:

“However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistence does not warrant accepting a claim.”

As I said previously, there is much empirical evidence throughout human history that supports maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Your statement that I am guilty of an “Appeal to Tradition” fallacy is fallacious.


john davidson

Larry - Have you ever heard George Carlin do "The Planet is Fine?" Hilarious, especially from around 2:30 to around 4:30. The rest is good, too. I don't know why I'm bringing this up. Check it out...


Bill Fleming

John, Right out of college after a brief stint as a night time musician and a daytime cerpenter, I got my first job at MBM Associates advertising as a staff artist. Shortly there after I was recruited by a college classmate (now a state senator in illinois) and his boss at the National Farm Worker Ministry to go to work for Cesar Chavez as communications director for the United Farm Workers Union at UFW headquarters in Keene, CA.

Returning home to SD after pressuring the California legislature to pass the state equivalent of the Wagner Act, I returned home and continued to work for various advertising and marketing companies, finally starting my own firm in 1983.

Key accounts included Landstroms Jewelry, Prairie Edge Plains Indian Art and Artifacts, Black Hills Orthopedic and Spine, Black Hills Power, Black Hills Surgery Center, Tom Daschle for Senate, Bobe Kerry for Senate, Ben Nelson for Senate, Alan Hanks for Mayor, The Dahl Fine Arts Center, Currently our primary account is the South Dakota Department of Health where assist in helping people quit smoking.

For fun, I write music, draw pictures, write poems, play with my 7 grandchildren, and argue with goofy people on blogs.

Bill Fleming

... "Bob Kerry" sorry. Looks like we might be helping on this one again this year. Fortunately, I've already got the logo done and spelled his name right. LOL.

Bill Fleming

Kerrey. Kerrey. Kerrey. John is Kerry. Bob is Kerrey. Kerrey for Senate. Nebraska.

Bill Fleming

In brief then, John, I used my academic majors to become a professional communicator. People hire us to help them do it. In words, pictures, ideas, sounds, music, gestures, etc. because we are extremely good at it (...my personal typos notwithstanding. I have assistants at the office who clean up after me. Out here in the blog wilderness, I'm on my own ;^)

Bill Fleming

Now, as to your Traditionalist argument, it is a fallacy because your definition is too narrow, and, as far as humankind is concerned it is emphatically NOT "the way we've always done it. If you want to be emperical, let's actually do it, whaddya say, John?


Bill Fleming

See also:

john davidson

Kerrey on, Bill!

I read the entire Wiki article on marriage. It confirms what I expected, namely that polygamy appears to be the only significant deviation (i. e., departure) from monogamous, hetero marriages over the course of recorded history.

The other deviations mentioned, including group marriage, same-sex "marriage", and polyandry are extremely rare. Percentage-wise we are talking infinitesimal. To the extent that empirical means “provable”, you’re correct that it is not. To the extent that we have a significant written record of history for the last few millennia, it’s probably OK to use that word. My guess, which may be biased, is 99.998% to 0.002% on a marriage-count basis. Can’t prove it, though.

Anyhoo, I vote we leave marriage alone and call SSM what it is, namely cohabitation. The SSM’ers need to get over their persecution complex, we are all such babies these days, stop trying to change the definition for the rest of us, and just enjoy your life. And yes, otherwise, the equal protection clause will almost certainly lead to further deviations (i. e., departures). As I said previously, that provides the “cause” for the slippery-slope argument. Whether or not the man from Missouri is allowed to marry his favorite mare would remain to be seen.

Peace, and more peace.

Bill Fleming

"The SSM’ers need to get over their persecution complex..."

Again, implies that LGBT's have a psychological problem and are sick somehow, rather than acknowleging the real problem which is that that we (as a society) need to stop persecuting them. Marginalizing, minimizing and patronizing. The question I never hear answered is "How does recognizing a SSM threaten yours?" Is it just a semantic thing? If so, I don't care what you call it, John. Why do you? And yes, peace. Please. By all means.

Bill Fleming

For a clearer understanding of the flaw in the proposed Davidson solution to the SSM issue, simply fill in the blank by choosing one of the minority groups as follows:

Those ____________________ need to get over their persecution complex.

a. Christians
b. Republicans
c. Liberals
d. Poor People
e. Black People
f. Latinos
g. Women (...oh wait, women aren't a minority group. Neither are Christians, come to think of it.... and yet...)

The comments to this entry are closed.