Sunday, May 3, 2009

O'Reilly's Hyperbole Gone Wild

I know its like shooting fish in a barrel, but sometimes Bill O'Reilly sticks his glass jaw out so far I just can't resist, as he comments on James Dobson's declaration that the culture war was being lost:

All over the USA, secular progressives are on the move promoting gay marriage, legalized drugs and unfettered abortion, and attacking almost all judgments on personal behavior.

One thing we can always count on when Bill O'Reilly describes SPs is a gross exaggeration of their views. Nowhere near "almost all" judgements on personal behavior are being attacked. The three judgements from the 10 Commandments that actually are relevant to our legal system (murder, lying and theft) are still held strong, as are those against rape, incest, child molestation, vandalism, being chronically late, and most any other values one cares to name.

No, the only judgements against personal behavior under attack are those based on particular religious views, and those particularly out of touch with the rest of the world and with the science. O'Reilly can't deal with these arguments honestly of course, so he pretends the objections are something they aren't.

And nowhere is the movement more intense than in the nation's most liberal state: Vermont.

The legislature in the Green Mountain State recently voted to legalize gay marriage, overriding the veto of Gov. Jim Douglas. Vermont is the first state to actually legislate in favor of homosexual nuptials, as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa all had gay marriage imposed on the citizenry by judges.


One would think O'Reilly would cheer the Vermont action, since it came from elected officials rather than being "imposed" on us by unelected judges. It is worth noting that every ruling from judges is imposed on the citizenry: that's their job. People like O'Reilly only complain about that when the ruling doesn't go in their favor.

It is worth noting that Vermont is one of the few states that voted down "Jessica's Law," the tough mandatory-prison-sentence legislation against child sexual predators. An investigation into Vermont's criminal justice apparatus reveals the state embraces "restorative justice," whereby criminals often receive "holistic" treatment as part of their sentence for even heinous crimes like child rape. The goal is not so much to punish the offender, but to "restore" him or her to their rightful place in society. That is a secular-progressive hallmark.

The idea of restorative justice is to "repair the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour", and given that we house 25% of the world's prison population, it is hardly a radical notion. If a man has a brain tumor which causes him to act violently, surely even the staunchest conservative would favor removing the tumor over simply adding another prisoner to our overcrowded system. Yes, it's a hallmark of secular people to attempt to fix the root of a problem rather than only paying attention to the symptoms. This stands in stark contrast to the social conservative hallmark exhibited by O'Reilly, where the limitations and costs on our system are ignored, and thoughtful analysis is casually dismissed in favor of tired bromides like "get tough on crime" and "save the children".

While Vermont is coddling child predators, it is also sending a message to kids: Hey, you can do pretty much whatever you want. Somewhat incredibly, the Vermont senate has passed a bill decriminalizing consensual "sexting." That is the process where children send sexual pictures of themselves to other children using cell phones or computers. The proposed Vermont law says that children ages 13 to 18 will be allowed to do that, but not to distribute the photos to more than one person or to an adult.

It takes a mind like Bill O'Reilly's to interpret allowing ONE new behavior as "you can do whatever you want". And in a sense, its not even new: children have always been allowed to do many things with each other that they are not allowed to do (or be done with) with adults, including various forms of harmless sexual play. What makes this different? Prude O'Reilly considers exploring one's sexuality "dopey".

Supporters of the sexting law say it's necessary so that teenagers will not be prosecuted as sexual offenders and have their lives ruined. There is some validity to that as dopey kids do dopey things. However, the sane solution would be to categorize sexting as a misdemeanor breach of the peace, thus sending a message that it is unacceptable for kids to send other kids sexual images. But secular progressives are loath to make that judgment.

We aren't loath to make it you dishonest hack. We simply make a different judgement than you. Ah yes, those silly dopey kids learning about themselves should be kept out of prison. How kind. One wonders from his tortured reasoning whether O'Reilly would support this if he considered sexting a wise move. But more importantly, why should we send a message that exchanging sexual images is unacceptable? In typical social conservative style, O'Reilly leaves the crucial point of contention assumed, just like those who oppose gay marriage and porn do. Where is the justification for the oppression of these children and their natural growth into sexual beings? O'Reilly provides not one shred of an answer, and instead goes on irrelevant tangents:

Remember, these are the same people who believe a girl has the right to an abortion without telling her parents. So if a kid can undergo a major life-altering operation (especially for the fetus), why should it be a big deal to do a little sexting?

There's your non sequitor of the week.

With a liberal federal government and media, there is little opposition being voiced to what is happening in Vermont and other secular-progressive enclaves. Culture war issues have been forced to the back room by the awful economy, and the S-Ps are taking full advantage. If American children are legally allowed to send explicit pictures of themselves to other kids, then say goodbye to traditional boundaries of behavior.

The slippery slope is here.


It's no slippery slope, it's a new era of more rational principles when it comes to our sexuality. Thousand year old noodlings written by goat herders simply aren't sufficient any more (as the continued failings of abstinence-only programs attests). Our sexuality is part of who we are, and there is nothing wrong with exploring that part of us in a responsible way. Yes, Bill, say goodbye to irrational, body-hating boundaries of behavior. But don't worry: allowing people to own dildos isn't going to lead to allowing people to steal them. We aren't changing all the old standards, just the stupid ones.

14 comments:

memphisto said...

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a daughter.

ronaldo said...

"No, the only judgements against personal behavior under attack are those based on particular religious views, and those particularly (A) out of touch with the rest of the world and (B) with the science."

Would you mind giving examples of (A) and (B)? I'm having a hard time coming up with examples. Thanks.

ScienceAvenger said...

Memphisto, why would you say that? Surely you can do better than ad hominem.

Ronaldo, simply compare the US's position on the three mentioned issues with the rest of the first world, and the position of the pious among us with the rest of us. The US is far more uptight about them than the norm, because of Taliban-like religious-based resistence to the science behind them. Space considerations prevent a detailed description here, but I've covered these in detail before and no doubt will again.

Troublesome Frog said...

memphisto,

Do you think that somebody whose daughter was just humiliated due to poor judgment with a cell phone camera would be saying, "Well, at least she gets to do some time in jail so she learns something from it"?

Some stupid behavior is its own punishment. Adding criminal penalties to it for kids is just ridiculous.

ronaldo said...

According to wiki "Same-sex_marriage," a mere seven countries and five US states allow same-sex marriage. (And civil unions are allowed in 16 countries.) Are the other 170 some-odd countries out-of-touch?

Also, how is someone who opposes certain "personal behaviors" (not scare quotes, I'm just quoting you)
out of touch with science? Their opinions might be objectionable to the more liberal-minded, but to say they're out of touch with science makes about as much sense to me as saying they're out of touch with ice cream. (I don't mean to sound snarky here; I was just trying to argue my point starkly.) I mean, one's knowledge or even care of science is not even on the table when judging personal behaviors such as gay marriage, legalizing drugs, 'sexting', and unfettered abortion. It's all about the value system we grew up with or adopted.

ScienceAvenger said...

Yes, Ronald0, most of those nations are out of touch, being infected with religious influences sometimes even worse than our own. But in the first world, US attitudes lag behind the rest on most of those issues.

Value systems work best when applied to to the best knowledge we have, ie science. When one has a tenuous grasp of the science (say on the effects of marijuana use, or when brain function begins, or the effects of homosexual relationships), one's position can indeed be described as out of touch, even with those who share one's value system. GIGO.

Troublesome Frog said...

I mean, one's knowledge or even care of science is not even on the table when judging personal behaviors such as gay marriage, legalizing drugs, 'sexting', and unfettered abortion.I see your point, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. A lot of the arguments are being made with some claim to empirical authority.

For example, gay marriage is always all about the children. So where is the evidence that gay marriage harms children? The research I've seen to date has not been able to find any harm to children who are raised by same sex parents.

If your argument is, "Gay marriage is upsetting to me because it's something I didn't grow up with," that's fine. If it's more along the lines of, "It will harm children," then you're arguably out of touch with the data. At the very least, you're letting the results of your thought experiments weigh more heavily than the results of actual experiments.

memphisto said...

>Memphisto, why would you say that? Surely you can do better than ad hominem.

Nice evasion of the question. Surely you can do better than that. That wasn’t intended to disparage your position by making a personal attack, it was an attempt to point out that fathers have certain very real feelings about protecting their daughters from sexual advances before they are able to safely deal with the responsibilities of being sexually active. At least this father does, and all the other fathers I’ve ever known do. I’ve supported and helped raise a baby born to a 15 year old (step)daughter, so I’ve put my money where my mouth is. She was living with her real father who sent her to a foster home when he found out because he thought it would be an embarrassment to his ophthalmology practice in the small southern town where he lived. My wife and I took her in when we found out (from her, not her father, and after she was placed) and supported her and the baby while she finished her schooling.

I usually find myself on the liberal side of most issues but the idea that children ought to have sex before they are able to deal with the consequences just because they might want to is one of those things that keeps me firmly independent. I find that idea just as crazy as the idea that children ought to go to jail for BEING sexually curious (and thank you Troublesome Frog for bringing up a straw man in no way implied by my observation). You seem to be espousing the idea that a child who cannot legally drive a car should be able to make decisions about the rest of her life without the involvement of her parents. If that’s what you are saying then it implies you have no daughter and you have no concern for people who do and want to spare those children from a traumatic event that might haunt them for the rest of their lives. Perhaps the Latin phrase you should have used was “quae nocent docent”- things that injure, teach. But no parent is going to agree that there aren’t better ways to teach children than by letting them make mistakes and be hurt by the outcomes.

Human mores aren't scientific but they are often (not always) the way we steer human behavior into less egregious paths. You could just as well espouse the strong inflicting their will on the weak by saying it's natural selection.

ScienceAvenger said...

I "dodgd" the question of whether I had a daughter because I've found questions like that usually come loaded with presumptions, few of them well founded. You justified those suspicions in spades, presenting to me positions I supposedly hold that I find unrecognizable.

Needless to say, the reaso I kept putting the "responsible" adjective in there when speaking of children exploring their sexuality is because I agree with you that children should not be having sex prior to being able to deal with the consequences. OTOH, though it is foolish for us to pretend that is how it is all going to go merely because we have protective feelings for them, and play the ostrich routine as O'Reilly and those up in arms about sexting do.

memphisto said...

>I "dodgd" the question of whether I had a daughter because I've found questions like that usually come loaded with presumptions, few of them well founded. You justified those suspicions in spades, presenting to me positions I supposedly hold that I find unrecognizable.

So you assumed that I was assuming. And you got defensive about the "positions" I presented to you when, in fact, I was careful to qualify my statements by saying it was how they seemed to me. I'll put it another way. While we both seem to agree that children shouldn't be having sex (and since the definition of "responsible" here is open to interpretation to say the least) and we both seem to agree that kids shouldn't go to jail for sending pictures of their genitals to each other, do you think it's a good idea for them to do it? While sending kids to jail for sexting might be draconian I don't feel that trying to stop it is "oppression" and I don't think it's unfair that parents are afraid of the consequences of their children having too much sexual freedom before they are able to deal with it. Bill O'Reilly is a megalomaniac who will apparently say anything for effect, but to couch your opinions about sexual freedom for children as scientific or enlightened is the same kind of hyperbole that he indulges in.

So without assumption I will ask a couple of questions:

Do you think a 12 year old girl sending naked pictures of herself to boys is normal part of sexual awakening?

Do you have a daughter?

If you don't, is it possible that you may not fully understand the feelings of parents in regards to this question?

Does "science" really enter into it?

Do the opinions of others really determine how a parent feels they should raise their children?

Where did you quote "dodgd" from?

I don't want this to seem too confrontational. Your blog is one that I read everyday and find enlightening and thoughtful. But while I may be misinterpreting your opinion on this matter, I appreciate a chance to clarify your ideas.

Troublesome Frog said...

I find that idea just as crazy as the idea that children ought to go to jail for BEING sexually curious (and thank you Troublesome Frog for bringing up a straw man in no way implied by my observation).
So it sounds like you're *not* against decriminalizing some of the things that were decriminalized here, yes? Do you have a clear position on the various topics, or are you just proud of being a parent?

I usually find myself on the liberal side of most issues but the idea that children ought to have sex before they are able to deal with the consequences just because they might want to is one of those things that keeps me firmly independent.
Speaking of straw men... The idea is not, "Yay! Kids having sex!" The idea is that there's a large percentage of them who will do so regardless of the law, so criminalizing their behavior simply makes a bad situation worse.

Decriminalization is not approval. It's simply a policy decision that should be made without whackjobs like O'Reilly tying a bunch of completely separate policy decisions into some kind of overarching pedophilic conspiracy.

ScienceAvenger said...

Memphisto said: "...to couch your opinions about sexual freedom for children as scientific or enlightened is the same kind of hyperbole that he indulges in."

Bullshit. I'm basing my views on the best scientific information I have, whereas he couldn't give a rats ass about any science, because he is pursuing an ideological agenda. That doesn't make my opinions right, since errors in reasoning are always possible. But our epistemologis aren't remotely similar.

"Do you think a 12 year old girl sending naked pictures of herself to boys is normal part of sexual awakening?"

I'd say it's healthy, yes, far more so that a 12 year old girl who thinks there is something wrong with people seeing her body.

"Do you have a daughter?"

Irrelevant.

"If you don't, is it possible that you may not fully understand the feelings of parents in regards to this question?"

It's possible the parents themselves don't understand their own feelings, or each other's for that matter. But it is all moot since I don't consider any of that relevant to the issue.

"Does 'science' really enter into it?"

Yes, it really does. There's no value system I know of that works better with less information.

"Do the opinions of others really determine how a parent feels they should raise their children?"

No, and that illustrates a huge part of the problem with all such issues: that a considerable portion of the population act as if procreating automatically endows one with knowledge of what is best for the kids and the society in which they live, and too many of our laws tacitly make that same absurd assumption.

memphisto said...

So if I’m reading this right, you think that there is “science” that supports the idea that sexting is a good thing (what you responded to renaldo with is called comparative sociology- a poor excuse for real science), that there is nothing wrong with 12 year olds being displayed in a sexual manner, that raising children can’t possibly broaden your knowledge of parenting, and that it’s more likely that parents don’t understand their own minds than that you don’t understand parenting better than someone who has actually done it.

Wow. I had no idea that a simple conjecture that you weren’t a parent would spark such a slide into absurdity. At some point the wheels came off the wagon.

Saying that you can know as much about raising children as anyone who has actually done it is like saying that you know as much about swimming from watching people do it and reading books as someone who has actually learned to swim. I’m going to drop this because when you start saying things like parents might not know their own minds but not that you might not fully understand parenting without having children I don’t see the conversation being reasonable anymore. We’ll agree to disagree.

ScienceAvenger said...

No Memphisto, what's absurd is that you think that massive pile of straw you just weaved (none of your representations of my arguments are accurate), along with more ad hominems, amounts to any sort of argument. It seems all you have is "I'm a parent, and you're not".

Yes, best to end this now, for I have precious little patience for people who insist on ignoring my actual positions in favor of easier-to-attack made up ones, and I'd hate to lose your interesting comments on other issues simply because you are apparently incapable of being rational on this one. But then, that's par for the course when someone begins the discussion with "I guess you don't have a daughter", as if no one with my opinions could. Sory to disappoint you.