I am utterly burned out on politics, but I will never ever be burned out on feminism and feminist issues, so here is my take on the Bristol Palin debate. The gist of this was originally written as a response to an ill-thought-out comment on a friend's note on Facebook, and now has grown to Rational-ready proportions. I have Sarah Palin to thank for me blogging here again, and I think that the only other thing for which I hope to thank her is a Republican loss this November.
Palin is anti sex-ed, which is ironic considering that her 17 year old daughter is now expecting. With an anti sex-ed mother, there are any number of reasons why Bristol got pregnant: her boyfriend could have told her that she "couldn't" get pregnant the first time or if he pulled out, she didn't know her options when it comes to birth control, or any other unfortunate yet all-too-common circumstance that often occurs when you are kept ignorant about your own body and biology. I feel sorry for her more than anything, as well as for the boy with whom she had sex; Palin's anti sex-ed crusade probably left them ignorant and shamed about their sexuality, and how else to cure ignorance than by experimenting to find out for yourself? Human curiosity is unquenchable.
It is doubly ironic that the new representative to the whole world of the American "family values" party, whose socially conservative members often advocate strict and authoritarian parenting, cannot even ensure that her own daughter makes age-appropriate decisions. There are rumors that Palin was going to force her daughter to have a shotgun wedding. Speculation aside, the situation just proves what sex-ed advocates have been saying, and studies have been showing, all along: keep teens ignorant and shamed about their bodies and sexuality, and they are more likely and not less likely to have children while they themselves are still children. More specifically, girls from strict, tight-lipped-about-sex, authoritarian households are more likely to have sex at a younger age and in a context that felt uncomfortable to them, like a drunken hook-up, as well as to feel bad about it and conceive as a result. Well-informed, body-positive girls are more likely to wait to have sex and to do so in a context in which they feel comfortable, and usually in the absence of alcoholic intoxication.
The facts are why I made the decision to call myself pro comprehensive sex-ed. Informing teens about condoms and other BC methods doesn't make them have sex, it simply aids those who would have sex in having a safer and healthier experience. Our Republican VP nominee's daughter couldn't "just say no;" how can Palin expect the rest of America's teenagers to?
Some might claim that Palin is "standing up for her beliefs no matter what". That is only relevant on the topic of abortion. She is not allowing her teen daughter an abortion, and that is definitely in line with her beliefs. I am not touching abortion, only sex-ed. It will be interesting to see if
[update] I don't know where I was going with that. I really don't. That was all.
Showing posts with label fallacies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fallacies. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, November 6, 2008
some cliche about the battle and the war
I spent all of yesterday in mourning. I had planned on writing a big ol' entry on my work with No on 8, complete with refutations of Yes's arguments. However, I've come up with something much more succinct. That entry is in the works, but right now, I do have a few points to make.
First of all, kudos to the city of Irvine for being, out of all the cities in Orange County, the only to have a majority No on 8. It surprised me almost more than Obama's win surprised me.*
Secondly, I have good reason to assert that voter confusion played a big role in 8's small margin of victory. Many voters to whom I spoke in the educated, white, conservative Huntington Beach neighborhood in which I volunteered on Election Day were confused -- imagine how bad it could have been for voters who are less educated and of lower socio-economic status. So many voters simply follow a voter's guide and do not ever read the actual text of propositions. The information assessed on the part of average voter in making his or her decision about voting usually consists of the number of signs he or she sees, the often inflammatory ads broadcasted on television and radio, and his or her own personal tastes and distastes -- in other words, the situation is utterly appalling. I am not even referring to the twists on truth favored by some of Yes on 8's proponents, I am referring to pure confusion as in what Yes or No on 8 means in the purely legislative sense, which manifests in two ways. Some people think that gay marriage is the change to the California Constitution, whilst in reality, 8 is new legislation that changes the current state of affairs to favor heterosexuals. The other way is that some people were called by deceptive Yes on 8ers who told them to vote Yes on 8 when they responded that they were for gay marriage. Double negatives really are confusing.
Thirdly, the entire point of a constitution is to protect minorities from being handled rough-shod by the tyranny of the majority. A simple vote is not what is required to change it -- there has to be a super-majority as well as approval by the state congress. 8 is being challenged on these legal grounds.
Fourthly, 8 is not a "restoration to traditional marriage" and actually hurts the cause of families. The tradition of marriage, in the vast majority of human society, was founded to ensure paternity in children and to create a system in which to exchange women, who were considered property. Additionally, marriage helped to keep religions stocked with new members, as it was unthinkable to marry outside one's community and religion and thus marriages (in the vast majority of cases) produced people of the same faith as their parents. Marriage has since evolved into a contract between two people and the state, which is why interracial, interreligious, and intercommunity marriage is allowed. Marriage in the United States is a secular affair in which even those without a religion can participate; the only people not allowed are couples who happen to be of the same biological sex. The gay community is often criticized for being promiscuous, flamboyant, juvenile, and rash. Much of this stems from the fact that people who are LGBT do not have the option of a more mainstream lifestyle, i.e. "settling down"; not allowing them to marry essentially forces them into the fringes again.
This brings me to my fifth and final political point. Whether 8 is allowed to be instated or not is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Something to bring it down can be a proposition for the next election, which gives those on the side of equality time to educate voters as well as simplifies voting (Yes for agreeing with equal rights, No if you disagree). If that fails, well, the fight for rights will never end and will hopefully bleed the intruding Utah Mormon church of the funds on which they pay no taxes (don't even get me started on that). On another topic, We have a Democratic majority congress, which hopefully means that another fight for rights will be more successful. I am referring to equality in hiring (and firing). It's legal in 30 states to fire someone for being gay, and the Human Rights Campaign is actively working to make that history. Additionally, 8 might be found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits targeting minority groups for discrimination.
Finally, I will breathe in a nice hint of humanity. Whatever those who want legislate based on personal distaste and ancient religious texts do, human nature will win out. Non-hetero people will continue to reproduce and adopt (if not in a marriage if 8 wins) and their kids will turn out to be the strongest sort of Ally -- ones with personal and loving links -- to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) community. Additionally, those Ally kids will grow up next to kids who are the products of "traditional" marriage, and 10-20% of kids from either background equally will grow up to be LGBT themselves. More and more people are choosing to live out of the closet, and in a manner authentic to themselves instead of conforming to straight-created gay stereotypes. I predict that the day is coming soon where everyone will have a friend, neighbor, loved one, teacher, employer, or coworker who not only is LGBT or the product of an LGBT family, but is "normal" but for that part of their life. Exposure to good role models and examples always helps with such causes that relate to minorities.
So again, that cliche about the battle's outcome versus that of the war. 8 has simply hardened my stance and reactivated my long-dead love of politics and activism. I am planning on working, volunteering, and doing all that I can to promote the recognition of the humanity of non-straight people. Someday, I'll see you in a more tolerant world.
* I'll admit it, I was a complete cynic about Obama's chances until I heard McCain's concession speech. I knew about Obama's presidential aspirations long before the election, but dismissed him because he, like me, is a non-white kid with Muslim-ish origins, a few years of life abroad under his belt, at least one immigrant parent, and a very funny, hard-to-spell-and-pronounce, terrorist-sounding name. Even when pre-election polls showed him in the lead, I believed in the Bradley effect and was sure that people's secret racism would come out in the privacy of the voting booth. I was, mercifully, quite wrong. I suppose that I quite underestimate my fellow Americans sometimes.
First of all, kudos to the city of Irvine for being, out of all the cities in Orange County, the only to have a majority No on 8. It surprised me almost more than Obama's win surprised me.*
Secondly, I have good reason to assert that voter confusion played a big role in 8's small margin of victory. Many voters to whom I spoke in the educated, white, conservative Huntington Beach neighborhood in which I volunteered on Election Day were confused -- imagine how bad it could have been for voters who are less educated and of lower socio-economic status. So many voters simply follow a voter's guide and do not ever read the actual text of propositions. The information assessed on the part of average voter in making his or her decision about voting usually consists of the number of signs he or she sees, the often inflammatory ads broadcasted on television and radio, and his or her own personal tastes and distastes -- in other words, the situation is utterly appalling. I am not even referring to the twists on truth favored by some of Yes on 8's proponents, I am referring to pure confusion as in what Yes or No on 8 means in the purely legislative sense, which manifests in two ways. Some people think that gay marriage is the change to the California Constitution, whilst in reality, 8 is new legislation that changes the current state of affairs to favor heterosexuals. The other way is that some people were called by deceptive Yes on 8ers who told them to vote Yes on 8 when they responded that they were for gay marriage. Double negatives really are confusing.
Thirdly, the entire point of a constitution is to protect minorities from being handled rough-shod by the tyranny of the majority. A simple vote is not what is required to change it -- there has to be a super-majority as well as approval by the state congress. 8 is being challenged on these legal grounds.
Fourthly, 8 is not a "restoration to traditional marriage" and actually hurts the cause of families. The tradition of marriage, in the vast majority of human society, was founded to ensure paternity in children and to create a system in which to exchange women, who were considered property. Additionally, marriage helped to keep religions stocked with new members, as it was unthinkable to marry outside one's community and religion and thus marriages (in the vast majority of cases) produced people of the same faith as their parents. Marriage has since evolved into a contract between two people and the state, which is why interracial, interreligious, and intercommunity marriage is allowed. Marriage in the United States is a secular affair in which even those without a religion can participate; the only people not allowed are couples who happen to be of the same biological sex. The gay community is often criticized for being promiscuous, flamboyant, juvenile, and rash. Much of this stems from the fact that people who are LGBT do not have the option of a more mainstream lifestyle, i.e. "settling down"; not allowing them to marry essentially forces them into the fringes again.
This brings me to my fifth and final political point. Whether 8 is allowed to be instated or not is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Something to bring it down can be a proposition for the next election, which gives those on the side of equality time to educate voters as well as simplifies voting (Yes for agreeing with equal rights, No if you disagree). If that fails, well, the fight for rights will never end and will hopefully bleed the intruding Utah Mormon church of the funds on which they pay no taxes (don't even get me started on that). On another topic, We have a Democratic majority congress, which hopefully means that another fight for rights will be more successful. I am referring to equality in hiring (and firing). It's legal in 30 states to fire someone for being gay, and the Human Rights Campaign is actively working to make that history. Additionally, 8 might be found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits targeting minority groups for discrimination.
Finally, I will breathe in a nice hint of humanity. Whatever those who want legislate based on personal distaste and ancient religious texts do, human nature will win out. Non-hetero people will continue to reproduce and adopt (if not in a marriage if 8 wins) and their kids will turn out to be the strongest sort of Ally -- ones with personal and loving links -- to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) community. Additionally, those Ally kids will grow up next to kids who are the products of "traditional" marriage, and 10-20% of kids from either background equally will grow up to be LGBT themselves. More and more people are choosing to live out of the closet, and in a manner authentic to themselves instead of conforming to straight-created gay stereotypes. I predict that the day is coming soon where everyone will have a friend, neighbor, loved one, teacher, employer, or coworker who not only is LGBT or the product of an LGBT family, but is "normal" but for that part of their life. Exposure to good role models and examples always helps with such causes that relate to minorities.
So again, that cliche about the battle's outcome versus that of the war. 8 has simply hardened my stance and reactivated my long-dead love of politics and activism. I am planning on working, volunteering, and doing all that I can to promote the recognition of the humanity of non-straight people. Someday, I'll see you in a more tolerant world.
* I'll admit it, I was a complete cynic about Obama's chances until I heard McCain's concession speech. I knew about Obama's presidential aspirations long before the election, but dismissed him because he, like me, is a non-white kid with Muslim-ish origins, a few years of life abroad under his belt, at least one immigrant parent, and a very funny, hard-to-spell-and-pronounce, terrorist-sounding name. Even when pre-election polls showed him in the lead, I believed in the Bradley effect and was sure that people's secret racism would come out in the privacy of the voting booth. I was, mercifully, quite wrong. I suppose that I quite underestimate my fellow Americans sometimes.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
the slope really isn't so slippery
Ah, election time approaches. A time for Indecision and Decision, youth activism, and feelings of importance (rather unwarranted) mingled with despair at the futility of it all (more on-target).
This is the most wonderful time of the four-year span for logicians. I am not a logician, but I love advocating for logic. People hate me for always wanting a reason, but even more so for constantly asking, "What exactly do you mean by that?" which is the main weapon for a student of philosophy.
This brings me to the fallacy I hear most and which I consider the most ridiculous: the slippery slope.
The main context in which it is used against me in an argument is in regards to my secular tendencies. The claim is that without religion, there would be no morality, and the world would degenerate into anarchy. One problem with that is that the theist definition of morality and what morals are most important is usually quite different from the construction of humanist morality. The Ten Commandments are a great example, since all of the Commandments are considered highly important.
So, essentially, the Judeo-Christian theist perspective is that worshiping something besides the Hebrew God, creating art that depicts living creatures, cursing, working on Sunday, dishonoring your parents, murdering, cheating on a spouse, stealing, lying, and being jealous are all on the same plane of badness. Leaving aside the fact that most Christians violate at least one of these, I really can't believe that worshiping a non Judeo-Christian god, creating art, cursing, working on Sunday, or thinking jealous thoughts are truly crimes. Besides, how would the last one be regulated? Additionally, I don't think that adultery and murder are really on the same plane of evil, and American law is on my side, as adultery cannot be prosecuted.
More simply stated: the vast majority of the world's population claims to be religious, and yet not only does man-made evil exist, but certain reprehensible acts are committed using religion as a justification. Secularism only causes immorality if you define immorality via dogmatic instead of rational means.
Another example of the slippery-slope model is one argument that has been adapted by homophobes. Some claim that without religious injunctions against homosexuality, the human race would die out because everyone would "turn gay" and would no longer participate in procreative sex acts. Three simple facts call this assertion into question: the world is overpopulated as it is, modern heterosexuals can live non-procreative yet sexually fulfilled lives, and some LGBTQ community members engage in occasional procreative acts (or turn to artificial insemination) in order to have children. The funniest part of such an argument, to me, is that it would suggest that every person, or at least a majority of people, would "turn gay" if loosed from religious bonds. I love asking people who use this argument if they would "turn gay" if they weren't religious, as they tend to flounder or avoid the question with a great measure of awkwardness.
Some more slippery slopes that aren't accurate:
- Having sex at a young age leads to other socially deviant behavior.
- Marijuana use necessarily leads to the use of harder and harder drugs.
- Legalizing euthanasia would lead to the disenfranchised seeking out death.
BS Factor:
The steepest street in the world (Baldwin Street, Dunedin, New Zealand)
It has a grade of 35%. Impressive, no?
This is the most wonderful time of the four-year span for logicians. I am not a logician, but I love advocating for logic. People hate me for always wanting a reason, but even more so for constantly asking, "What exactly do you mean by that?" which is the main weapon for a student of philosophy.
This brings me to the fallacy I hear most and which I consider the most ridiculous: the slippery slope.
The main context in which it is used against me in an argument is in regards to my secular tendencies. The claim is that without religion, there would be no morality, and the world would degenerate into anarchy. One problem with that is that the theist definition of morality and what morals are most important is usually quite different from the construction of humanist morality. The Ten Commandments are a great example, since all of the Commandments are considered highly important.
1) I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5) Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
So, essentially, the Judeo-Christian theist perspective is that worshiping something besides the Hebrew God, creating art that depicts living creatures, cursing, working on Sunday, dishonoring your parents, murdering, cheating on a spouse, stealing, lying, and being jealous are all on the same plane of badness. Leaving aside the fact that most Christians violate at least one of these, I really can't believe that worshiping a non Judeo-Christian god, creating art, cursing, working on Sunday, or thinking jealous thoughts are truly crimes. Besides, how would the last one be regulated? Additionally, I don't think that adultery and murder are really on the same plane of evil, and American law is on my side, as adultery cannot be prosecuted.
More simply stated: the vast majority of the world's population claims to be religious, and yet not only does man-made evil exist, but certain reprehensible acts are committed using religion as a justification. Secularism only causes immorality if you define immorality via dogmatic instead of rational means.
Another example of the slippery-slope model is one argument that has been adapted by homophobes. Some claim that without religious injunctions against homosexuality, the human race would die out because everyone would "turn gay" and would no longer participate in procreative sex acts. Three simple facts call this assertion into question: the world is overpopulated as it is, modern heterosexuals can live non-procreative yet sexually fulfilled lives, and some LGBTQ community members engage in occasional procreative acts (or turn to artificial insemination) in order to have children. The funniest part of such an argument, to me, is that it would suggest that every person, or at least a majority of people, would "turn gay" if loosed from religious bonds. I love asking people who use this argument if they would "turn gay" if they weren't religious, as they tend to flounder or avoid the question with a great measure of awkwardness.
Some more slippery slopes that aren't accurate:
- Having sex at a young age leads to other socially deviant behavior.
- Marijuana use necessarily leads to the use of harder and harder drugs.
- Legalizing euthanasia would lead to the disenfranchised seeking out death.
BS Factor:
The steepest street in the world (Baldwin Street, Dunedin, New Zealand)
It has a grade of 35%. Impressive, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)