Video: Achieve while LGBT, suffer mischievous wrath
Remember earlier when we referenced the way the far-right is constantly warring against any and all of President Obama's LGBT appointees/nominees? Yea, well here's more for the fodder file:
Ya know, if they're going to continue to lie about and unfairly represent the inestimably qualified Chai Feldblum, we at least wish they'd learn to get her name right (pronounced like like "high"). One would think that would be something a filmmaker would care about getting right before entering pre-production. But then again, to the ones they are hoping to rally, her name might as well be Lezzie McLezzenberg. Their true "concern" begins and ends at her sexual orientation -- everything else is just superfluous spin.
And what's with Janice Crouse's unbelievable non sequitur that suggests Amanda Simpson is bad for children simply because she herself has a fifteen-year-old son?! Or forget the non sequitur: What's with this supposed "family protector" having the gall to use Simpson's own son against her for political gain?!? Have they no shame?!
Then there's Jennings, who's suffered nearly a year of character assassination and flat-out lies (Brewster wasn't 15, for instance), simply because his life's work of protecting LGBT kids and teens goes against the far-right's own desire to turn these same kids into "ex-gays." There may not be a presidential selection who's ever had to face as much careless defamation as K.J. These supposedly "moral" folks will not rest until the accomplished leader and author has a reputation that's as muddy as their own presentations of the truth!
"When asked, did she ever see a situation where religious liberty and religious issues would homosexual rights, she said that she couldn't imagine in any situation when religious liberties would prevail. Therefore, the rights of homosexuals prevail against the rights of religious people in her world."
So, let's deconstruct that lie for a minute. First they set up an argument pitting homosexual RIGHTS against superficially similar "religious liberty or religious issues." The construct of that argument would ALWAYS result in one group's RIGHTS trumping anyone else's "liberties", since one group's "liberties" END exactly at the point where any other group's RIGHTS BEGIN. So, the only possible answer to that false comparison is exactly as Chai responded. She couldn't have possibly responded in a way that would not have supported their twisting of the basic fundamental truth into a lying liar's lie.
Based on the false comparison, they then arrive at an unsupportable and meaningless conclusion, a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise can never be argued against, but minor premise and conclusion are false.
But, again, these lying liars are playing to an audience that doesn't care as much about facts, as they do about hearing something that supports their predetermined false conclusion.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 8, 2010 6:09:00 PM
I had to laugh when the narrator mentioned Robert Knight's "explosive new book," Radical Rulers. The first thing I thought was that the book is surely the literary equivalent of an explosive bowel movement.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Feb 9, 2010 9:41:34 AMcomments powered by Disqus