Shugart's 'Gay Basher' Article

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Tell me, ye who tells secrets to small cayuses, which of these two opposing parties are “the decent people?”

Tell me how liberty has been expanded. Do it without all the emotion for once.[/quote]

Make sure you read the other side too, and set aside any biases:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/brint/almost_everything_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false

Most of that article actually cites text from the BOL docket, which was the decision by the Oregon administrative labor/industry bureau, and that is available here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

So to cut through all of the media bias, the BOL indicated that they awarded the monetary fine for emotional damages because the couple that owned the bakery had engaged in doxing, i.e., they posted the original legal complaint that the lesbian couple filed online, on Facebook, including the couple’s name and address, and that the lesbian couple’s legal representation was able to provide evidence of “death threats and other harassment” after the story went viral in 2013, as there were a number of right-wing media moguls, as well as anti-gay ones, that really ran with the story and further helped their identity to go viral from that FB post with their address. It further noted that the amount of damages was consistent with “an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.”

So was the amount excessive? Maybe, but we have no idea what sort of harassment ensued after the doxing, but regardless, there can be very real criminal and civil liabilities for doxing.

162

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And don’t forget the unruined response that the field of psychology is one of the most ruined so called “branches” of science. So ruined it can’t honestly be called science.
[/quote]

Spoken like someone who does not understand what Science is. Other than your opinion, what do you base this baseless (and completely incorrect) claim on?

Before you answer with some of your homegrown brilliance and knowledge of what makes science, answer me one question— Does psychology use the scientific method for determining the nature of reality? YES or NO?

jnd

163

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And don’t forget the unruined response that the field of psychology is one of the most ruined so called “branches” of science. So ruined it can’t honestly be called science.
[/quote]

Spoken like someone who does not understand what Science is. Other than your opinion, what do you base this baseless (and completely incorrect) claim on?

Before you answer with some of your homegrown brilliance and knowledge of what makes science, answer me one question— Does psychology use the scientific method for determining the nature of reality? YES or NO?

jnd[/quote]

It’s perhaps a bit exaggerated, but push has a point. It is still technically a science, but the rigor and honesty of the scientific method in psychology has been degraded, heavily I am afraid. It is my field of study and it is sad to see what has happened to it.
The APA was infiltrated by some bad people. People who put their personnel agenda over the raw honesty of science.
It isn’t that the scientific method is not used, it is. It is not that the methods are even bad, the introduction of taboo into science is what happened. Certain topics are not up for discussion.
If your proposal for a study is not either benign or in line with the wishes of those in charge you will not be granted the permission to conduct it.

Where you can say that there is no ‘Russian Physics’ or ‘American Physics’ or ‘Iranian Physics’, there is just physics the same cannot be said about Psychology. There is branding in psychology. The science is different in different parts of the world. The problem is the hierarchical structure that most other sciences suffer less from. Its epidemic in psychology.

What this does not mean is that psychology is useless or bad, or that it is not making valuable contributions still. Those do get through. But it is tainted. It’s a science still in it’s infancy, I don’t even think I can say it’s made it to toddler stage. And sadly it’s been hi-jacked in large part. That does not mean the findings are false, they are just incomplete. Studies are often partially done. Once a criteria has been met further exploration is discouraged. I have seen it, in action. To many scientists walk away dejected because they have been refused. And perhaps more so than any other science, cooperation is a necessity. The numbers do not speak for themselves and studies cannot go forward independently.

So Push has a point about psychology.
The reasons mentioned above are why I ended up giving up on it, after completing my studies. I saw no future other than to be somebodies robot. And if I was going to be a robot, I was going to make more money being a robot doing something else.
Neurophysiology is where it’s at. That’s where lots of progress is being made and is far less tainted. They do not have to answer to the corrupt as shit APA.
There’s lots of stories about the corruption in the organization. Having seen it operate from the inside, I am apt to believe many of the accusations.

165

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
You think people are backing same sex marriage or against gay bashing because it’s “what all the cool kids are doing” when it is actually what the “decent people are doing”. [/quote]

Or you could realize this will have ZERO impact on 95% of population and not give a fuck either way. The amount of attention this insignificant issue gets is what i have a problem with.

166

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
You think people are backing same sex marriage or against gay bashing because it’s “what all the cool kids are doing” when it is actually what the “decent people are doing”. [/quote]

Or you could realize this will have ZERO impact on 95% of population and not give a fuck either way. The amount of attention this insignificant issue gets is what i have a problem with. [/quote]

Whole lot of people who consider themselves “decent people” rather than hooping a bandwagon weren’t so “decent” 20 years ago. Shit it didn’t even flip until 4 years ago… Maybe Push was right…

Anyway, I’m just sitting back and happy we have more liberty and waiting for this same massive flip flop on slicing up and vacuuming out babies.

167

[quote]debraD wrote:
picture
[/quote]

So does that mean every politician that supported “traditional marriage” as early their last election cycle, like 90% of them, belong in the same group as segregationists?

Should history remember Obama as the non-decent person he was? Romney was the first American governor to order SSM recognition, is he to be lionized? Why didn’t he win 100% of the LBGT vote in 2012?

All these facebook meme’s are cute and all, and I bet the confirm the shit out of your biases, but they lack in the thinking department. I’m a huge fan of the “love wins” ultra horse shit. The push in the courts wasn’t about love. Love doesn’t require government approval or special benefits afforded by that government. The entire push was about money and benefits. Nothing wrong with that, but be fucking honest about it.

168

That is such a bullshit picture Beans. I’m surprised you responded to it.

169

One thing most of us have noticed is that objections to gay marriage are almost always slippery slope arguments. The person with the objection argues that gay marriage will lead to X and Y (e.g., polygamy, incest), and then talks about how X and Y will be calamitous, or at least inconsistent with civil society’s pursuit of the public good.

Can anyone make a convincing case that gay marriage itself – not some hypothetical next step – is inconsistent with civil society’s pursuit of the public good, or harmful to our social interests in any way? Because if you can’t do that, but you can do it for polygamy (etc.), then, by definition, no slippery slope exists.

170

^ *A valid case. This excludes things like “marriage has historically entailed the union of a man and a woman,” which reasoning, mutatis mutandis, would have upheld anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.

Edited.

171

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Can anyone make a convincing case that gay marriage itself --[/quote]

The two things that I can think of:

  1. obvious implications to religious liberty, which I don’t think need to be explained. And I’ll note that in MA this WASN’T an issue at all. We all just said, “okay, wtf was the big deal”. If the rest of you fuckers in the country can’t do it, it’s on you, not us. We didn’t “discriminate” against same-sex couples and didn’t force churches to perform weddings. We just… Lived on.

  2. Semantics. I would caution (and I’ve been over and over and over this) using “gay” marriage rather than “Same-Sex”. Because the former leads to Form 6238 where one has to declare their sexuality and file it with their timely filed return every year. And let’s not pretend that isn’t a realistic thing our government could end up into. We regulate and then regulated everything, over and over again. Can we PLEASE just say “same-sex”? This isn’t to take away from LBGT people or anything like that, it’s to prevent it actually only being “gay” marriage, or “gay” 2nd amendment rights, or “gay” voting rights, so on and so forth.

I’m really tired of being broken down into demographics…

173

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Can anyone make a convincing case that gay marriage itself --[/quote]

The two things that I can think of:

  1. obvious implications to religious liberty, which I don’t think need to be explained. And I’ll note that in MA this WASN’T an issue at all. We all just said, “okay, wtf was the big deal”. If the rest of you fuckers in the country can’t do it, it’s on you, not us. We didn’t “discriminate” against same-sex couples and didn’t force churches to perform weddings. We just… Lived on.[/quote]

Oh, I don’t mean mandatory church performances of marriage. I mean two guys/gals who want to get married can get married and if a church wants to do it then that’s fine, and, if not, that’s fine too – they can go elsewhere.

[quote]
2) Semantics. I would caution (and I’ve been over and over and over this) using “gay” marriage rather than “Same-Sex”. Because the former leads to Form 6238 where one has to declare their sexuality and file it with their timely filed return every year. And let’s not pretend that isn’t a realistic thing our government could end up into. We regulate and then regulated everything, over and over again. Can we PLEASE just say “same-sex”? This isn’t to take away from LBGT people or anything like that, it’s to prevent it actually only being “gay” marriage, or “gay” 2nd amendment rights, or “gay” voting rights, so on and so forth.

I’m really tired of being broken down into demographics… [/quote]

My thoughts are cloudy today, and I’m not following this (I haven’t been following the thread, so I haven’t encountered it yet). But I don’t have a problem calling it same-sex marriage – it’s just that “gay” is so much easier to write. I suppose I could use SSM.

174

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

My thoughts are cloudy today, and I’m not following this (I haven’t been following the thread, so I haven’t encountered it yet). But I don’t have a problem calling it same-sex marriage – it’s just that “gay” is so much easier to write. I suppose I could use SSM.[/quote]

It’s not a problem you have shown here, and I don’t even remember seeing it in the thread, but that’s because I only scanned it looking for the ridiculous, which I found plenty.

I’m saying, in general, we as a society should be keen on using “same-sex” rather than “gay” marriage, for a handful of reasons, the biggest being, let’s not fuck up this liberty, this one new thing the government can’t dictate about your life, and invite more government in by making it a purely sexuality issue and not a contractual issue from the government’s perspective.

175

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

My thoughts are cloudy today, and I’m not following this (I haven’t been following the thread, so I haven’t encountered it yet). But I don’t have a problem calling it same-sex marriage – it’s just that “gay” is so much easier to write. I suppose I could use SSM.[/quote]

It’s not a problem you have shown here, and I don’t even remember seeing it in the thread, but that’s because I only scanned it looking for the ridiculous, which I found plenty.

I’m saying, in general, we as a society should be keen on using “same-sex” rather than “gay” marriage, for a handful of reasons, the biggest being, let’s not fuck up this liberty, this one new thing the government can’t dictate about your life, and invite more government in by making it a purely sexuality issue and not a contractual issue from the government’s perspective.
[/quote]

Ah, gotcha – emphasize the act (on which restrictions have been lifted), not identities, groups, classes. Like I said, my brain is cloudy today!

176

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
no slippery slope exists.[/quote]

But it does. We’ve dun slipped. The Oregon baker’s gag order is an example.[/quote]

There is no necessary logical connection between same-sex marriage and the bakery question. This is not to say that there won’t be (enormous) overlap among those happy to let gays marry and those happy to infringe upon the rights of bakers – there will be, and this is not a good thing. However, it is perfectly valid for a person to – as I do – support gay marriage while also supporting the right of a Christian (or whatever) baker to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between two men or two women. Thus, the two are not logically entwined, and there is no valid (i.e., logically necessary) slope down which to slip.

But anyway, I was referring to the gays-to-polygamists argument. I’m not denying that polygamists will try (or are trying). What I’m saying is that the anti-gay-marriage arguments always move away from gay marriage, arguing instead that what might come later (e.g., polygamy or plural marriage or whatever) is harmful to the public good for this or that reason. What we never get – and this is telling – is a direct, positive, valid-and-sound argument in support of the proposition that gay marriage itself is specifically harmful to the public good.

Now, if you can convincingly argue that polygamy is harmful to the public good, but you cannot convincingly argue the very same thing about gay marriage, then the two are not qualitatively comparable – they are not cases of the same kind. Therefore, no reasonable slippery slope connects the one to the other.

177

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And don’t forget the unruined response that the field of psychology is one of the most ruined so called “branches” of science. So ruined it can’t honestly be called science.
[/quote]

Spoken like someone who does not understand what Science is. Other than your opinion, what do you base this baseless (and completely incorrect) claim on?

Before you answer with some of your homegrown brilliance and knowledge of what makes science, answer me one question— Does psychology use the scientific method for determining the nature of reality? YES or NO?

jnd[/quote]

It’s perhaps a bit exaggerated, but push has a point. It is still technically a science, but the rigor and honesty of the scientific method in psychology has been degraded, heavily I am afraid. It is my field of study and it is sad to see what has happened to it.
The APA was infiltrated by some bad people. People who put their personnel agenda over the raw honesty of science.
It isn’t that the scientific method is not used, it is. It is not that the methods are even bad, the introduction of taboo into science is what happened. Certain topics are not up for discussion.
If your proposal for a study is not either benign or in line with the wishes of those in charge you will not be granted the permission to conduct it.

Where you can say that there is no ‘Russian Physics’ or ‘American Physics’ or ‘Iranian Physics’, there is just physics the same cannot be said about Psychology. There is branding in psychology. The science is different in different parts of the world. The problem is the hierarchical structure that most other sciences suffer less from. Its epidemic in psychology.

What this does not mean is that psychology is useless or bad, or that it is not making valuable contributions still. Those do get through. But it is tainted. It’s a science still in it’s infancy, I don’t even think I can say it’s made it to toddler stage. And sadly it’s been hi-jacked in large part. That does not mean the findings are false, they are just incomplete. Studies are often partially done. Once a criteria has been met further exploration is discouraged. I have seen it, in action. To many scientists walk away dejected because they have been refused. And perhaps more so than any other science, cooperation is a necessity. The numbers do not speak for themselves and studies cannot go forward independently.

So Push has a point about psychology.
The reasons mentioned above are why I ended up giving up on it, after completing my studies. I saw no future other than to be somebodies robot. And if I was going to be a robot, I was going to make more money being a robot doing something else.
Neurophysiology is where it’s at. That’s where lots of progress is being made and is far less tainted. They do not have to answer to the corrupt as shit APA.
There’s lots of stories about the corruption in the organization. Having seen it operate from the inside, I am apt to believe many of the accusations.[/quote]

So it is a science- you just don’t like what the APA (who control no one at all) says? The APA does not by itself guide psychology. Who do you think answers to APA? Perhaps some practicing clinicians, but the researchers have very little contact with APA- other than perhaps trying to publish in their journals…

jnd

180

Omg the gays have gone done it!

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
picture
[/quote]

So does that mean every politician that supported “traditional marriage” as early their last election cycle, like 90% of them, belong in the same group as segregationists?

Should history remember Obama as the non-decent person he was? Romney was the first American governor to order SSM recognition, is he to be lionized? Why didn’t he win 100% of the LBGT vote in 2012?

[/quote]

What the fuck are you even talking about? First of all, who gives a fuck what a bunch of politicians say they believe. Their words are more worthless than political rantings on a message board and second of all you are missing the entire point of the toon-the part about being an asshole the wrong side of this debate. That is, if this were still a debate, which it is not.

[quote]

All these facebook meme’s are cute and all, and I bet the confirm the shit out of your biases, but they lack in the thinking department. I’m a huge fan of the “love wins” ultra horse shit. The push in the courts wasn’t about love. Love doesn’t require government approval or special benefits afforded by that government. The entire push was about money and benefits. Nothing wrong with that, but be fucking honest about it. [/quote]

Well gee it confirms my bias? The one against religious retards desperately clinging to a so called morality to discriminate? Sure…

As for the meme, what the fuck do you expect, it’s a meme for fucks sake. Omg a meme isn’t very deep and doesn’t quite capture the complexities of a fucking SCOTUS ruling, golly, ya think? But either way I think it makes enough of a point that it’s got you rustled. Where you get ‘love wins’ out of anything I’ve posted has shown yourself as an over emotional keyboard warrior whose spent too much time arguing on the Internet to think you know anything about what I think about ‘love’ in this regard. Seriously, try talking to real people once in a while and log off the political forums. Or at the very least lighten the fuck up. This is a wanking around forum on a BBing site.