Dogs
By way of contrast, here is Richard Chappel at Philosophy Etcetera actually thinking about the subject instead of just issuing dictats. Makes a change. He takes empirical evidence into account, linking to the New Scientist, and he looks at some feeble arguments. It’s good stuff. He also takes on a rather unpleasant analogy of Keith Burgess-Jackson’s. I was especially interested in that because a couple of readers have recommended KB-J to me, thinking that he and B&W have a lot in common. But I don’t think so. I haven’t bothered reading him much, but that’s because what I did read struck me as pure boilerplate. Uninspired, familiar, and peevish. The post Richard discusses is (in my view) somewhat worse than that.
I have said in this blog many times that the very idea of homosexual marriage is incoherent, which is why I put the word “marriage” in quotation marks. I do the same for dog “voting.” If we took our dogs to the polls and got them to push levers with their paws, they would not be voting. They would be going through the motions of voting. It would be a charade. Voting is not made for dogs. They lack the capacity to participate in the institution. The same is true of homosexuals and marriage.
Oh very droll. But actually I don’t think it’s meant to be droll, or not entirely; I think it’s meant to be insulting, and with a creepy undertone of – you know, weird stuff, bestiality, dirt, stupidity, animalness. The kind of thing the Nazis (and other people) liked to say about Jews. And it’s also an echo of that patronizing-insulting joke of Johnson’s. You know the one.
Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
Nasty stuff. If anybody ever recommends K B-J to me again I think I’ll have to have a temper tantrum.
You obviously haven’t read enough of KB-J. He’s a big animal rights guy who has pet dogs. Comparing gays to dogs for him is a compliment!
Also, you were the first to yell “Nazi”: “nasty stuff”, indeed!
He’s most certainly a dog. I’d rather die before I get a KB-J “compliment”.
“He’s most certainly a dog.” And a Nazi, too! This blog is going to the dogs!
I think OB’s point stands irrespective of whether KBJ loves dogs (as he does) or hates them.
(KBJ doesn’t seem to be very honourable debater. I just read a piece by him at TCS in which he paints all liberals with the broad brush of the crudest of vulgar marxism. Which is silly.)
Anyway, if “marriage is between a man and a woman”, just expand the definition of the word. What’s the problem with that?
What difference does it make whether KB-likes dogs or not, when he says things like this:
“If we took our dogs to the polls and got them to push levers with their paws, they would not be voting. They would be going through the motions of voting. It would be a charade.”
The point of this passage is obviously that gays marrying each other is as farcical and dishonest as letting dogs vote. In other words, dogs don’t have the capacity to vote and gays don’t have the capacity to have real marriages. That is so self-evidently an insult to gays that it’s pointless and desperate to try to defend this guy’s comment.
Phil
“Comparing gays to dogs for him is a compliment!”
But not for many gay people I should imagine.
“Also, you were the first to yell “Nazi”: “nasty stuff”, indeed!”
Funny you should say that because Hitler liked animals and his mum too. You seem to be trying to establish the principle that people who like animals (or dogs at least) must be good people. Only one counter-example is needed to blow this silly notion out of the water, which I think is provided by hitler. If you wish to defend someone who has been attacked for being a bigot, you will have to do better than state he likes dogs.
Dreadful. Typical, too.
How everyone who writes for Tech Central Station is such a dick?
“Dreadful. Typical, too.
“How everyone who writes for Tech Central Station is such a dick?”
Dreadful! The level of discourse on this board has actually sunk lower! It’s getting typical, too.
Don’t be silly, Shadow. I didn’t “yell” Nazi. I didn’t accuse KBJ of being a Nazi. I did accuse him of making an analogy that has creepy undertones, including Nazi ones. I still do. I don’t think he picked the dog analogy at random, I think it was meant to be creepily insulting. That’s an opinion; I could be wrong; he could have been thinking fondly of his own dogs trying to vote when he wrote it, smiling in an affectionate, indulgent, amused manner. But I doubt it.
“I just read a piece by him at TCS in which he paints all liberals with the broad brush of the crudest of vulgar marxism.”
Just so. That’s what I meant about the boilerplate; the uninspired, familiar and peevish. He sounds like any old Fox news hack. Not all conservatives sound like that; that’s why I was slightly surprised when people recommended him to me.
OBJS,
Having a friendly little troll under your bridge is a good indication that there is lots of good traffic over it. I just wonder what sort of responses should be used in dealing with them; however, I may be overfond of etiquette. Do we just ignore them, do we let you deal with their inanities, or do we address them willy-nilly if we feel up to the fight?
While you allow everyone to act like this is a public stage, I myself would prefer to act in a manner respectful of the people who spend their energies maintaining this bright spot. Any directives?
“How [come?] everyone who writes for Tech Central Station is such a ****?”
Because it’s not a real journal. It’s a PR front put up by ADM Corp to promote its own agenda. That’s why you’ll never see an article contradicting the standard pro-corporate line. Plus, they pay peanuts, so only the most desperate, pathetic, attention-seeking types would keep publishing their stuff there.
Mark,
Oh, you can address them if you like (how clever they are to do all their posting when I’m offline – the rascals). But I don’t think we have too much of a problem, most of the time. The Shadow was mistaken about the Nazi thing, but mistakes happen.
As for allowing everyone to act as if this is a public stage – well we’ve definitely been known to delete people, and even block their ISPs, if they resort to insults. There’s one very obsessive person who answers that description, but other than that, things are pretty calm.
“Because it’s not a real journal. It’s a PR front put up by ADM Corp to promote its own agenda.”
Yeah and then pretends to be a real journal – that’s the really tacky part. What price truth in advertising eh.
Shadow: You’re right, that was awfully vulgar of me. I’m pretty cranky before I’ve had my customary two cupsa morning joe, so you’ll have to forgive me. Let’s rephrase the question and ask why everyone who writes for TCS is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb.
Karl: Yup. That would explain it.
>> I didn’t accuse KBJ of being a Nazi
Will you accept that you likened him to a Nazi? If you claim it is indirect, likening only the type of argument, then perhaps it is “meant to be insulting, and with a creepy undertone”. It seems to me that you have fallen foul of the principle blog cliche, the Nazi card.
I thought it cute and read ‘I do the same for dog “voting.”’ with a smile as it implied it was something he regularly discussed. The smile dropped on the “They lack the capacity…” – the original doesn’t say what that necessary capacity is! If that criteria is ‘bear children without assistance’ then fine, strike out a load of heteros too and address equal rights without the marriage moniker but we’re left dangling… letting some leap to potentially unpleasant conclusions. Its amazing how convincing and insulting ‘fill in the blanks’ arguments are!
Nevertheless, I share your suspicions and its in part due to the belief that the majority of those against gay marriage are bigots. The suspicion still requires care in how it is expressed – perhaps a little cautious benefit of the doubt since you admit to not having read him more widely?
Am I wrong to think scold’s bridles nasty stuff and hinderlegs deliciously provocative funny stuff?
DW, No, I won’t accept that I likened him to a Nazi. I will say that I don’t think he necessarily meant his analogy to have Nazi resonances, in fact I think he probably didn’t. I think he wanted to be clever and witty and make his point in a vivid way. But the resonances should have struck him before he’d finished typing the first sentence – if they didn’t, I have to think that means he’s a bit stupid. They’re certainly obvious enough.
“It seems to me that you have fallen foul of the principle blog cliche, the Nazi card.”
That might be a telling point if I made a habit of it, but since I’ve written more than 600 of these comments and I don’t make a habit of mentioning Nazi echoes, I think it isn’t. And if Nazi echoes are relevant, it would be a pity to let their clichehood prevent people from mentioning them ever at all.
I mentioned the Nazi overtones because that’s what I meant. There was no other way to say it. The Nazis did compare Jews to various animals – cockroaches for instance – and those echoes are still around. The same kind of language was used of the Tutsis in Rwanda just before the massacre got going. And ‘dog’ is one of the more insulting animals to be called. I simply seriously think Burgess-Jackson was either silly or malicious to use that analogy.
“The suspicion still requires care in how it is expressed – perhaps a little cautious benefit of the doubt since you admit to not having read him more widely?”
I used care. I said what I meant and wanted to say. No, sorry, I don’t think he should get much benefit of the doubt for that particular comment.
“Am I wrong to think scold’s bridles nasty stuff and hinderlegs deliciously provocative funny stuff?”
Yes.
Longer answer – yes, Johnson’s joke is funny. He was a funny guy. But it’s also hateful, because it’s the kind of thing that keeps people in “their place” for no good reason. Ridicule will do that. I wonder how many bluff jovial good fellow men (and women) throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries quoted that line, laughing genially, at any woman with ambition to be more than a wife or governess or seamstress. Thousands, I bet.
It is rubbish to say OB has called KB-J a Nazi. She made an apt comparison to a distasteful form of rhetoric.
“You’re right, that was awfully vulgar of me. I’m pretty cranky before I’ve had my customary two cupsa morning joe, so you’ll have to forgive me. Let’s rephrase the question and ask why everyone who writes for TCS is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb.”
That’s better. Apology accepted.
“Don’t be silly, Shadow. I didn’t ‘yell’ Nazi. I didn’t accuse KBJ of being a Nazi. I did accuse him of making an analogy that has creepy undertones, including Nazi ones. I still do. I don’t think he picked the dog analogy at random, I think it was meant to be creepily insulting. That’s an opinion; I could be wrong; he could have been thinking fondly of his own dogs trying to vote when he wrote it, smiling in an affectionate, indulgent, amused manner. But I doubt it.”
“Yell”, of course, was overstatement, obviously. That’s not silly; as if you never overstate things! And it’s nice of you to admit that you could be wrong. You ARE wrong, whether you doubt it or not.
“I used care. I said what I meant and wanted to say.”
Okay, and so did I, and I stand by it. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
It is rubbish to say OB has called KB-J a Nazi. She made an apt comparison to a distasteful form of rhetoric.
Thanks, Chris.
Shadders,
Yes, I know ‘yell’ was overstatement. I’m simply saying that the point that the overstatement was making is incorrect. Of course I overstate things, and anyone is at liberty to say the point I am making thereby is incorrect. I don’t necessarily have to agree though.
“And it’s nice of you to admit that you could be wrong.”
Don’t be silly. Have a look through these comments: you’ll see me admitting that often. Or don’t if you don’t want to, since that would be time-consuming and tedious; but the fact is that I do. Can’t you make your points without being silly? (Perhaps what I call silly you call overstatement – which is what I call hyperbole. Hmm – I’m afraid it’s just silly.)
“so did I, and I stand by it.”
Fine. And you’re still wrong. You read a bit carelessly, that’s all – these things happen.
“I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and move on.”
I’ll decide what we have to do, thanks.
If you haven’t seen it yet, read this approvingly quoted bit of tripe:
http://tinyurl.com/4du7w
What is it about some conservatives that they get so caught up in blowing gales of rhetoric that they fail to notice that their point is irrelevant, fails the rational bar they claim to prize, and ends up, well, reeking a bit?
On dogs: there’s nothing wrong with drawing analogies to make your arguments. When you start using animals expect people to react badly. Stick to pebbles. Then at worst you look silly.
Alex. Hmm. Quite. I often find PJ O’Rourke, who is smarter and funnier than most conservative blowhards, hilarious… but if you apply any analysis to what he’s saying, you often see it’s just a acidly-written circular argument. And PJ never uses animals (well, not as far as I know)
I’ve heard his name a lot – is he an author as well as commentator? And he is supposed to be a funny kinda guy. Any obvious recommendations of his stuff?
I should point out that I don’t think being rhetorically heavy invalidates your argument, and that logically precise, rhetorically drained (read:dry) pieces can be tiresome to public discourse (although indispensable to other kinds of discourse, where any rhetoric is apt to conflict with precision). Making a point while being funny, or memorable, or both, is great and we should all aspire to it. But if you lose the ‘making a point part’ then you can only claim to be a comedian or provocateur.
He is funny, but only if you like an occasionally “flip, sarcastic style” and can laugh at things you may even normally hold dear as well as bug-bears – frankly it can sometimes be a breath of fresh air. He used to edit Rolling Stone in the 70s, but don’t let that fool you into thinking he has any sympathy / liking for liberal baby-boomers… he has since written books and worked as a (very well compensated) journalist. File under political satire – I kind of think of him as the right’s equivalent to Bill Hicks (OK, fire away guys)
You can get a flavour at
http://www.amusingquotes.com/h/o/P._J._ORourke_1.htm
Aside from the Nazi comparison — the comparison of dogs voting and gays marrying doesn’t make much sense. If someone takes a lobotomized gay man to the altar and weds him to another lobotomized gay man, the analogy might have some distant similarity to the situation.
Otherwise, the analogy seems to fail on all counts. Even opponents of gay marriage don’t contend that gays are not rational human beings. They contend that their desires are abnormal — a different thing entirely. In fact, to get back to the Nazi business, the dog analogy certainly implies that the full panoply of the socially sanctioned human sex life depends crucially on a strong model of human reason applying after the age of consent — which was precisely the claim of the eugenicists, in the early 20th century. The case for sterilization rests on the idea that certain humans are subnormal — and that they would, if allowed to breed, propagate the subnormal.
Apparently K-B-J would buy that argument.
However, it should also be noted that if that if the rationality argument is the only one K-B-J has against gay marriage, he could easily be convinced that gay marriage is allowable. It is quite easy to show gays employ the same rational decision making capacity as straights.
I see from a quick scan of the online library catalog that KBJ co-authored a textbook on logic and reasoning that contains a chapter on how to spot faulty analogies. Hmmmm. Dare I spoil this delicious irony with further comment?
“KBJ co-authored a textbook on logic and reasoning that contains a chapter on how to spot faulty analogies.”
Really?! How perfect!
[falls about laughing]
Hilarious. I’ll call my new book The Clean Nobility of the Rational Bigot.
Anyhoo, if the (gay marriage) debate’s all about legal-financial status and wills, estate etc, then it makes sense, becaues heterosexual partners – if married – automatically have an assumption under law of how estate is processed on death etc. And why shouldn’t anyone get that kind of service? In terms of sacred ‘vows’, then we’re talking another load of supersticious feelgood sentinentality; who cares if gays want that ? It’s an even less important issue than hunting with hounds, i.e. not very.
“How [come?] everyone who writes for Tech Central Station is such a ****?”
Because it’s not a real journal. It’s a PR front put up by ADM Corp to promote its own agenda. That’s why you’ll never see an article contradicting the standard pro-corporate line. Plus, they pay peanuts, so only the most desperate, pathetic, attention-seeking types would keep publishing their stuff there.”
Oops, better not mention my pals over there ;-)