Thursday, August 13, 2009

Stifling Opposing Viewpoints

This article (I hope it opens for ya) showed up in my email yesterday. It seems like it's getting even harder to find "fair and balanced" in everyday life. Where does it say that libraries should be the purveyors of morality?

The linked article demonstrates how the infiltration of homosexual enablers has taken hold in what should be a bastion of free thought and diverse points of view. They have embraced the notion of homosexuality as just a downright matter of happiness and rainbows.

Leaving aside for a moment one's personal opinion of this abhorent, unnatural and perverse behavior, either pro or con, can we not agree that in a setting such as a library there should be no push to one opinion or the other? That in a library we can find viewpoints of either position in order to learn and understand and thereby formulate our own opinions?

Obviously, as we can so easily see in every other aspect of the pro-homosexual movement, truth isn't the end game. Facts are of little value. All that matters is winning, damn the consequences. That this attitude has now infected even our public AND school libraries illustrates not only the depth of American Descent, but of human descent as well.

39 comments:

Jim said...

"Leaving aside for a moment one's personal opinion of this abhorent, unnatural and perverse behavior, either pro or con, can we not agree that in a setting such as a library there should be no push to one opinion or the other? That in a library we can find viewpoints of either position in order to learn and understand and thereby formulate our own opinions?"

Or how about in a church?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Are you trying to equate a church, a place that deals in a specific notion of right vs wrong, with a library, a place that is a storehouse of a variety of opinions regarding right vs wrong?

When one goes to a church, one should expect a particular understanding of an ancient holy book. In order to consider one's self a true follower of the tenets of that religion, one must adhere to the interpretations taught and explained by that church. Ideally, as far as Christianity is concerned, one is being exposed to that church's understanding of God's Will. There's no debating, per se, and should one formulate one's own opinion, and that opinion differs from the church, a parting of ways in required barring an explanation of the differing interpretation that differs. Should that explanation lead to a better understanding, the church will indeed change, but more often is the case that the person with the personal opinion leaves to find a church that feels the same way.

Regligion, and their houses of worship, are nothing like libraries, which are public and serve a populace of diverse beliefs and opinions. For a library to push a particular belief of it's own liking is not in keeping with the purpose of being a library. Of course, if the average library is run by people of a more leftist ideology, squashing dissent is par for the course. They fear the other voice.

My point is that libraries should be neutral. Churches can't be neutral without being neutered. That is, a church is charged with evangelizing and spreading a specific message. Libraries have no such mandate, either ethically or in reality. The opposite is truer, that they are to provide all points of view.

Jim said...

OK, I will admit to being provocative and not reading the entire link. And I can't find much of anything to disagree with in your response.

I would agree that diverse opinions should be represented in a public library. However, I would like to read the library's full reason for not including the subject books, not just someone's cynical rant or interpretation about it. Then I feel I could have a better informed opinion on the situation.

I will also have to agree that it is odd that the ALA would have an official position on same-sex marriage. Who cares what they think about that?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Thanks for owning up. And I agree with you that an honest explanation from the ALA would be helpful. However, based on the interpretations, I'd wager we wouldn't hear anything much different than the links within my link have offered. In addition, it might not be ALA policy to "overlook" conservative pieces on these subjects, but the personal biases of those charged with actually making the purchases of the conservative works or placing donated books on the shelves with all the rest.

The opinions expressed indicate a form of censorship that would be hard to correct as it doesn't appear to be the expressed policy of the ALA. This makes it more sinister in its impact.

When you think about it, the same sort of thing occurs in bookstores. They will carry conservative titles because they sell. But they are often not placed or marketed in the same manner as the more liberal titles. One may have to ask for or make a determined search for a conservative title which should be if the book just hit the market. But it does happen with a certain regularity.

Jim said...

Well, bookstores are another thing altogether.

A public library should serve the public and provide a diversity of content.

A bookstore serves its customers and the owner of the bookstore has a right to stock or place content as they choose (free market and all that). If it doesn't "serve" conservative customers, they are free to go elsewhere: other bookstores, online sources, or ironically, the public library.

Dan Trabue said...

Leaving aside for a moment one's personal opinion of this abhorent, unnatural and perverse behavior, either pro or con, can we not agree that in a setting such as a library there should be no push to one opinion or the other? That in a library we can find viewpoints of either position in order to learn and understand and thereby formulate our own opinions?

Do you think, in an effort to give equal time to all sides involved, libraries ought to be required to have books that both criticize AND praise Charlie Manson? How about books that are pro and con genocide?

I would suppose that you would agree that libraries have a responsibility to weed out irresponsible, ugly books at some level, yes? I mean, at least at extremes, you probably agree that there is no real reason a library needs to represent both "sides" of the Civil Rights debate - both books by Dr King AND by the Grand Wizard?

Libraries can't stock EVERY book and they make choices every day. They don't need to give equal representation to all viewpoints, just because they are a public library.

Now, as to whether or not anti-homosexual books are on the same level as a book by a KKK bigot we could debate, I suppose, but I don't think you really think the library ought to have every possible position represented in their books. I, for one, would be extremely unhappy if the library regularly stocked KKK manuals and propaganda as would most people in my community/city.

Just because the KKK has a right to free speech does not mean we need to support it on the public dollar.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I don't disagree with your response. But my point was simply that the same sort of thing happens in bookstores. Of course they are private businesses and can do as they please.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I understand the point you are trying to make. Here's the problem with it, however. You use a number of bad behaviors to make your point. Many people, if not most, view homosexual behavior as a bad behavior. So if your point is that a public library needn't carry books promoting bad behavior, you don't seem to mind them carrying books promoting a sexual behavior opposed by so many.

And this is the concern expressed by the author and the links to others within the piece, that the libraries are promoting a bad behavior without presenting "equal time" for the opposing view.

I would also say that the behaviors you offer as examples are also not endorsed by large sements of society.

I suppose it might be true (though I don't know for sure) that libraries can carry whatever they wish, even to the point of promoting a social or political viewpoint above all others, but I would think that it is likely that most people have an expectation of balance and neutrality in their book selections. At least as far as the contentious issue of homosexuality, this appears not to be the case.

Jim said...

OK, we've got a good discussion going here, but I think there are some fine points to debate.

"Many people, if not most, view homosexual behavior as a bad behavior."

Some may, but I don't think it's "most" or even the majority. Most just don't care to practice those behaviors themselves.

On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of people would regard KKK activities as bad behavior.

That said, I wouldn't have any problem with a library having KKK content available if it weren't "featured".

"but I would think that it is likely that most people have an expectation of balance and neutrality in their book selections."

I have to disagree here if you mean that KKK content should receive the same "shelf space". As far as neutrality, I don't know how that would apply except to say that I wouldn't expect librarians to say KKK behaviors are bad, only to say where it's located. Likewise, I wouldn't expect librarians to comment on homosexual behaviors when directing patrons to that content.

Neil said...

My wife is a librarian (the good kind). One of her ALA magazines had a cover story and lengthy article full of pro-gay propoganda. There are many good librarians but the leadership appears to be comprised of moral freaks, just like many churches.

The link explains it well. They can't even pretend to be offering a balance.

Dan Trabue said...

Neil said...

There are many good librarians but the leadership appears to be comprised of moral freaks, just like many churches.

So, that's Good Librarians = agree with Neil

Moral Freaks = disagree with Neil.

Way to take the high road and further intelligent conversation, Neil.

Dan Trabue said...

Looking into the article further (the source being a right wing organization with an agenda), we find...

1. that they are citing a request by PFOX, which is a group that advocates "converting" gay folk to straight;

2. This is a practice that the medical, mental and scientific communities believe to be harmful;

3. I am not entirely sure, but it seems like they are wanting the library to include a book from them about advocating such "conversions;"

4. It appears that the library did not want to give "equal opportunity" to a group that advocates harmful psychological practices;

5. If a group that advocates child molestation was protesting the library hoping to have equal opportunity and have one of their books advocating adult/child sexual practices, I would suppose that the library would not give in to pressure to give them equal opportunity, and rightly so - they would be wrong to stock books that advocate harm to others;

6. So, again, it comes down to, are the books being requested to be stocked more like harmful child molestation treatises or more like mere difference of opinion on gay marriage, for instance. It would be my guess that they probably include conservative authors in the library, and even conservative authors who have opinions about homosexuality...

Do you know the answer to that? That is, is it the case that there are no conservative authors talking about homosexuality, or is it the case that the complainants are complaining because of specific types of books not being included?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I may not be wise in my choice of sources, but the overwhelming opposition to "homosex-marriage", where the people are allowed to vote their opinions, even with the somewhat narrow margin for the Prop 8 victory, justifies my opinion that still most people find the behavior to be wrong.

Where libraries decide the worthiness of a book for placement on its shelves, there will always be some room for debate. That is, we might not agree with the worthiness of books placed as well as the unworthiness of those not. This is not the problem or the issue.

What the article points to is a seemingly concerted effort to promote homosex behavior over anything that might oppose it. That there are books from those who left the lifestyle is without question. Indeed, I would assume there must be a book or two that speaks intelligently on the condition and its cause from a conservative, or more specifically, "non-promoting" perspective. The article suggests that there is little if any of such books while at the same time there are many promoting the behavior. At best, to say this is suspicious is not a stretch.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Your shot at Neil was unnecessary. You know full well how he arrives at his position on the issue. A more accurate take would be:

Good librarians = agree with God.
Moral freaks = those who disagree with God.

The worse you can say is who agrees or disagrees with Neil's understanding of Scripture.

Regarding your opinion of the article, you seem to focus on one book the organization PFOX likes. But even if this is their primary motivation, it led to the understanding that the libraries aren't offering ANYTHING like it at all, and THAT'S the point being discussed. What IS on the shelves and how they are selected.

In addition, you say, regarding coversions, "This is a practice that the medical, mental and scientific communities believe to be harmful". That's a nice AlGore impression, but I doubt there's any consensus on this issue except among those who enable the homosexual community. Indeed, you've yet to present anything in support that wasn't itself slanted in that direction.

Thus, your point 4 assumes they know for sure one way or the other, which I highly doubt, since they are not psychs themselves, but librarians.

You then go on with a favorite tactic of yours and offer a horrible "apples/oranges" example of child molestation as if there's any comparison. YOU believe conversions are harmful so you equate those who promote it to anyone who might support child molestation. This is a slanderous accusation to make against a group of people who's conclusions you don't like. In addition, you also accuse all those people who HAVE left the lifestyle of being liars or worse for daring to suggest that they indeed left a life of homosexuality and now live happy heterosexual lives. Bad form all around. It's bad enough that the homosex activists lie to further their agenda. You shouldn't join them.

Dan Trabue said...

"Using therapy to try to turn gay people straight has no basis in science and can actually be harmful, the American Psychological Association says."

"We found that there was some evidence to indicate
that individuals experienced harm from SOCE." [Sexual Orientation Change Efforts]

source

"For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias."

source

Dan Trabue said...

My point with Neil is that his comments are not educational, nor are the constructive. If one legitimately disagrees with a group, one can say, "I disagree with them for these reasons..." and list legitimate reasons. If one merely wants to demonize a group and only wishes to engage in slander, one can say, "They're moral freaks..."

But one ought not confuse actual conversation and disagreement on a subject with demonization and slanderous attacks. I'd suggest Christians ought not be in the business of slanderous attacks.

One man's opinion.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

If someone wishes to equate a group that supports a sinful behavior with being "moral freaks", they are free to do so. It would then be my job to attempt to procure an explanation as to why they feel that way, if I truly wanted to know. In Neil's case, I think we both know why he'd make such a statement. From the perspective of a Christian, it is not slanderous to properly label such people. You choose to believe that Scripture somehow condones that behavior. We know it does not. No need to comment on this now. Perhaps when you've finished with Bubba we can continue OUR discussion on what the Bible actually says.

Regarding your links, you earlier dismissed my article as a "source being a right wing organization with an agenda". I consider the APA to be a left wing source with an agenda regarding this issue for reasons explained in past threads. You've even provided me with evidence of their pro-homosex leanings. Activism within its ranks leaves no doubt that they cannot be viewed as objective on the subject.

Further, without taking the time to go through your links, one of which I know you've presented in the past, I would hazard a guess that they speak of those who do not wish to change their orientation. There are many, many examples of those who sought relief and have found it, many with the help of God. I would concede that those who refuse to change would likely be troubled by attempts to force change upon them. But this does not mean they are incapable of change. Human potential is darn near limitless, and with God's help all things are possible.

Unfortunately, with the recent strong push by enablers in the APA, media, entertainment and now apparently even in the ALA, many will never even come to know the truth of their situation. I thank God that there are still people and organizations willing to take the heat for making sure the truth is still available.

Mark said...

Libraries are free to stock books with opinions that aren't necessarily the norm. Being a library, a soon to be antiquated source of information, they are obligated to provide resources that cover the entire spectrum of opinion equally, if possible.

The only exceptions to that, I would say, are books that are deemed detrimental to human life, such as books on how to construct bombs, etc.

If the Library refused to stock pro-gay information, I'm sure Dan would have a problem with that, but isn't it interesting that he has no problem with them stocking pro-gay books?

Mark said...

I disagree with the pro-homosexual people because they are moral freaks.

Bubba said...

Briefly, I'm not sure the library's behavior qualifies as a censorship as the article implies: it's obviously biased and I believe a disservice to the community it ostensibly serves with public funding, but the editorial control that even a public library exercises over its collections isn't technically censorship.


Dan, I certainly don't wish to endanger the quite constructive conversation we're having elsewhere, but there are two things I would like to address here, areas where you display an inconsistency that I am inclined to describe as hypocritical.


First, you note disparagingly that the article Marshall cited comes from "a right wing organization with an agenda," but it is not as if you refuse to appeal to articles from organizations with their own left-leaning biases.

In one of our more recent conservations, you wrote about how you're keenly aware of "when something smells of partisanship and overly one-sided," but when asked to substantiate your claim that conservative writers are frequently dishonest, the only evidence you produced were articles from the explicitly partisan Media Matters. You seem to have a bias only against bias that you don't like.


Second, you criticize supposedly slanderous demonization when what you've written here arguably qualifies as the same.

"But one ought not confuse actual conversation and disagreement on a subject with demonization and slanderous attacks. I'd suggest Christians ought not be in the business of slanderous attacks."

Well, you presume that what is being discussed is "anti-homosexual books," without any apparent justification, and when it would be more precise to describe the literature that's being excluded as against homosexuality rather than individual homosexuals.

And, beyond that, you compare the defense of traditional sexual morality and the traditional definition of marriage with positions and books that are, to say the least, more controversial and less mainstream BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

If you're really interested in keeping slander and demonization out of a discussion, you probably shouldn't compare the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman with the lionization of Charles Manson.

(That's a particularly interesting choice of analogy: did you know that Weather Underground actually did express solidarity with Manson? If you want to get on the bandwagon that William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn should be ostracized, their books boycotted, their desire to educate others refused, and (ahem) their close political associations thoroughly scrutinized, be my guest.)

"Now, as to whether or not anti-homosexual books are on the same level as a book by a KKK bigot we could debate, I suppose, but I don't think you really think the library ought to have every possible position represented in their books."

"I suppose"? Are we supposed to be grateful for this tiny concession?

The lionization of Charles Manson; the defense of genocide; KKK propaganda; and even (as Marshall rightly criticized) the advocacy of child molestation.

The defense of traditional sexual morality is not remotely comparable to any of these. If you're really concerned about the slanderous demonization of others, you should probably not go to comparisons that are this incendiary, so quickly and so frequently.

Mark said...

Bubba, pointing out Dan's hypocrisy is like shooting fish in a barrel. Without water.

Dan Trabue said...

The defense of traditional sexual morality is not remotely comparable to any of these.

I'm not critiquing the "defense of traditional sexual morality," I'm criticizing the unhealthy and damaging practice of trying to "force" changes to orientation. That is specifically what Marshall's link is complaining about - that the library is not admitting SOCE-themed books, and THAT, they're calling censorship, which as you noted, it's not.

If you wish to advocate against gay marriage, that is one thing. If you want to advocate coercing people to change orientation, that comes much closer to the KKK-type comparison. It is a harmful practice. Can you imagine the harm that would be done to your psyche if you were pressured into becoming gay?

Criticize me if you wish, but criticize me for what I've done, not something I haven't done.

Bubba said...

Dan, I simply note without further commentary that you don't defend the apparent inconsistency with which you disparage organizations with agendas, that you seem to do do only when you don't share their agenda.


You write:

"Criticize me if you wish, but criticize me for what I've done, not something I haven't done."

Well, first, you're criticizing PFOX for "the unhealthy and damaging practice of trying to 'force' changes to orientation." Are you QUITE sure that that's what they're doing, or are you running the risk of criticizing them -- even comparing them to Klansmen and child molesters -- for something that THEY haven't done?

You didn't seem entirely sure earlier, when you wrote this:

"I am not entirely sure, but it seems like they are wanting the library to include a book from them about advocating such 'conversions;'"

You've gone from tentatively concluding that they're requesting books advocating changes in sexual orientation to condemning them in almost the strongest possible terms for advocacy for "coercing people to change orientation."

Regardless of whether such change is possible and healthy, there's a huge difference between promoting that change and calling for COERCION to force that change, and you're now accusing them of the much more morally suspect position of supporting coercion with, so far as I can tell, no good reason for doing so.


Second, you brought up this particular issue only after "Looking into the article further." The comparison to support for child molestation followed this and focused on this one issue, but NOT your comparisons to praise for Manson, the advocacy for genocide, and Klan propaganda.

Those comparisons came earlier, when it appears that you had (at best) only skimmed the article. The comparisons didn't seem about this article in particular or what this group advocates regarding library inventories, but rather what you call "anti-homosexual books" in general, books which you seem to describe as irresponsible and ugly.


For all that you write about how I should get my facts straight, you do seem quick to presume the very worst about groups with whom you disagree, and for all you've written against slander, you do seem to gravitate to the most incendiary comparisons.

Marshall Art said...

First of all, I looked over the article and it's links a third time and found now evidence of PFOX attempting to get a particular book on the library's shelf. I also went to PFOX's website and from there, to a CNN site with an article on the original Wisconsim situation. I have yet to find anything that speaks to PFOX trying to put a specific book on the library shelf, either supporting forced conversions or otherwise. So I don't know Dan is getting his info. I fear that like in the past, he might be relying on a pro-homosex source.

But let's assume for a moment that he isn't and that his info regarding PFOX's motivation is correct (I don't believe it is). Even so, the article I to which I linked speaks of an overall attitude, not only with the target of PFOX's actions, but libraries all around, both public and public school libraries. Whether or not PFOX hopes to put a book recommending forced conversion is really besides the point when we can easily confirm the ratio of pro-homosex vs pro-normalsex on the shelves of any given library. If this is the norm, and I wouldn't doubt it in libraries in and around metropolitan areas, then there is a concerted effort to sway opinions by stocking books of only one point of view. This is the point of the article.

And when that point of view is considered immoral by a majority of the population, and when that point of view is the only one offered to our young, then we have a major problem in our libraries.

Marshall Art said...

I wish I was drunk or stoned. Then I'd have a good excuse for the number of typos in my last comment.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said...

I have yet to find anything that speaks to PFOX trying to put a specific book on the library shelf, either supporting forced conversions or otherwise. So I don't know Dan is getting his info.

No extra info, just reading between the lines.

1. This PFOX supports SOCE

2. They are wanting a library to stock a book (it does not seem an unreasonable leap that it would be a book(s) dealing with SOCE;

3. Further evidence is found in that the library was not inclined to stock whichever book they're wanting;

4. Librarians are reasonable, intelligent people. They don't randomly say NO to book requests, I am guessing (in my experience with librarians) - if I were to advocate a Right-leaning book on living off the land (and there are plenty of such books out there), I would expect they would give it due consideration; IF, however, I was advocating that they include a Left-leaning book about how to steal money from widows so as to live without working, I would expect that they would not publish it.

5. In short, I don't believe librarians are unreasonable people and, therefore, I expect there are reasons associated with some SPECIFIC books that this group is promoting, not an attack upon right wing free speech. I would expect librarians would be as reluctant to include books that were kooky and harmful from the Left just as much as they would books that were kooky and harmful from the Right.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marshall Art said...

Mark said,

"Dan says, "No extra info, just reading between the lines."

Oh, you mean like the way you read between the lines and decide God blesses homosexuality, even when God clearly says it is an abomination to Him?

You mean like that?"

Marshall Art said...

"1. This PFOX supports SOCE"

I'm sure they support many things that are counter to the pro-homosex point of view. Whether they sought the inclusion of any particular book is irrelevant. All that's relevant is the purposeful inclusion of anything pro-homosex related (including books that are too graphic for any mature adult to offer for a "young adult" shelf), and a decided exclusion of anything that speaks against homosexuality.

"2. They are wanting a library to stock a book (it does not seem an unreasonable leap that it would be a book(s) dealing with SOCE;"

Sez you, apparently, but no one else. Just the sort of false impression for which you would not stand were it about someone you favor.

"3. Further evidence is found in that the library was not inclined to stock whichever book they're wanting;"

There is no evidence that PFOX is demanding any particular book at all, thus no such evidence exists anywhere in any of the articles or links within.

"IF, however, I was advocating that they include a Left-leaning book about how to steal money from widows so as to live without working..."

Again, you are demonizing your opponent by comparing their actions to a wild invented hypothetical. Kind of slanderous, IMHO.

"5. In short, I don't believe librarians are unreasonable people and..."

The only possible evidence of this is only seen within the linked articles by librarians outraged by the practices of the ALA in general. Without those, there's only that which insists they are indeed unreasonable, at least as far as their attitudes regarding the selection of only pro-homosex books. And again, there is nothing that exposes any desire by PFOX or anyone else to insist upon the stocking of "harmful" books.

Bubba said...

Dan, I was under the distinct impression that "reading between the lines" was bad form. After all, you have frequently accused me of bearing false witness against you and for having a literally God-like megalomania, all for the simple act of drawing inferences beyond what you explicitly type.

It now appears that you are attempting to justify your inconsistent behavior regarding slander and demonization, with inconsistent behavior regarding inference.

(Your inference isn't that keen, either: the quoted press release from PFOX precludes the possibility that they're hung up about one book in particular, since it repeatedly mentions "books" in the plural.)

You write that librarians are reasonable and intelligent and that, therefore, they are unlikely to "randomly say NO to book requests," but who said anything about their behavior being random?

Along the same lines, you're being inconsistent, but your behavior isn't random, either. There's a consistency to your inconsistency, and it quite clearly tracks with what serves your arguments, and what doesn't.

Mark said...

Awww, you're no fun, Art.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't have a problem with reading between the lines if you're any good at it. You have not demonstrated that you are, at least in regards to extrapolating accurate information from what I've written. If I am mistaken in this case and these people are actually advocating some book other than some SOCE-themed book, I shall be the first to apologize. If the library actually does not stock books by conservatives, I shall be the first to apologize.

Libraries should not be in the business of only stocking books from one viewpoint.

But neither are they obligated to stock books with fringe viewpoints, especially if those viewpoints are harmful. I expect this is more of the latter case, not the former. If I am mistaken, I shall apologize, as I always strive to do when mistaken.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't have a problem with reading between the lines if you're any good at it."

I'm going to assume this is tongue-in-cheek, since you haven't shown any grand ability in this area yourself, Daniel-san. And any problem there seems to be from this side of the debate stems more from your inability to articulate your position without suggesting that which you claim isn't accurate about your position.

As for the PFOX people, I think you should apologize since there is no suggestion that they are either suggesting a particular book, or that they're suggesting ANY book for inclusion by a library. The whole story deals with the LACK of ANY books that reflect the perpective that counters the pro-homosex agenda. YOUR assumptions are based, in my opinion, on your own knee-jerk defense of all things homosexual and against all things that oppose it's legitimization in our culture.

Next, the articles point out that the libraries are not stocking counter-homosex books, amd not that they are excluding ALL conservative books. I just wanted to make that point clear, whether you were intending to say that or not. The two or three links within the article supports that contention as they are written by librarians who would know. In addition, a jaunt by yourself to your local library or school library (if that's possible) would enlighten you as to the practices in your own area. Check them out and list all the counter-homosex books on those shelves compared to pro-homosex books. (I'd be willing to concede that there are not likely any "anti-homosex" novels to compare against pro-homosex novels. I can't see too many such books existing. We'd only be talking more clinical or socially themed books here.)

"But neither are they obligated to stock books with fringe viewpoints, especially if those viewpoints are harmful. I expect this is more of the latter case, not the former. If I am mistaken, I shall apologize, as I always strive to do when mistaken."

As you've made the charge, you have some obligation to support it. Without doing so, a retraction, if not an apology, is the proper next step.

Mark said...

Dan with these words, "But neither are they obligated to stock books with fringe viewpoints, especially if those viewpoints are harmful. I expect this is more of the latter case, not the former. If I am mistaken, I shall apologize, as I always strive to do when mistaken.", you have officially entered the Twilight Zone.

Fringe? FRINGE??? Dan, in case you haven't noticed, the opinion that homosexuality is natural and normal is the fringe viewpoint. Normal real thinking people know it's a perversion.

Your apparent love and devotion of homosexuality leads one to believe you might be a little bit light in the loafers yourself.

Bubba said...

Dan, your ability to read between the lines in regards to this one subject is suspect because you're still writing as if PFOX has been advocating one book (singular) when the excerpt of its press release repeatedly refers to "books" in the plural.

And your ability to read between the lines is suspect in the general case, too, or do you not remember this frankly embarrassing blog post?

There, you lamented, about those who disagree with you and their arguments, "inevitably, it involves their interpretations of my words, rather than what I’ve actually said."

You illustrated your point, not with verbatim quotes of your own, but with YOUR OWN interpretative parody of what we (specifically I) have written. Your interpretation was not only "a much shortened and over-simplified version of what happen," which you admit; it was a clearly INACCURATE version on several key points, where the inaccuracies predictably painted me in a worse light.

If there's a difference between my inference skills and yours, and if that difference favors you (which I sincerely doubt), the difference is not so significant that you can infer with impunity while attacking me for doing what you permit for yourself.

And what you've done regarding this topic qualifies as an attack and not just a criticism -- a repeated insinuation of literal megalomania that, hypocritically enough, you're not omniscient enough to know is true.

"You are not God enough to know my motivations. You are quite simply wrong in your attempt to guess why I bring it up."

"As I am fond of saying [no kidding --b], you ain't God enough to know [more about me than I know about me].

"As I have noted frequently [no kidding --b], Bubba, you are simply not god enough to know my thoughts, nor my motives."

If the problem really is just the proficiency at drawing inferences, bringing up the issue of megalomania -- to say nothing of your other favorite canard, accusing others of bearing false witness -- is sheer overkill.

You were overreacting to the act of inference which you now claim for yourself as wholly respectable, so you should prove your stated willingness to apologize for past wrongs by, you know, apologizing.

Either that, or stop making inferences of your own: if you're so quick to lose your composure over inferences whose accuracy you dispute, you should probably limit yourself to AT MOST those inferences with which all parties would agree.

Mark said...

Yeah, yeah, I know, Art. Go ahead and delete it if you want, but he's still highly suspect.

Bubba said...

For what it's worth, Mark, I strongly object to your raising questions about Dan's sexual orientation. It's unnecessary, it's rude, and it strikes me as a personal ad hominem that cannot help but bring a conversation into the gutter.


Everyone, I know for a fact that Dan Trabue isn't entirely innocent of this sort of behavior himself.

After calling me "sweetheart," Dan wrote this:

"[Bubba] DOES seem sorta sweet on me, don't you think, the way he seems to dwell on my every word?" (Sept 9, 2008)

In another conservation, he wrote the following about our supposedly "fascinating" and "bizarre" focus on his writing:

"Don't get me wrong. It's flattering to receive all this attention, but fellas, I have a wife and frankly, I just don't swing that way. You need to get over this mancrush you have on me and move on with yer lives, bros." (Oct 16, 2008)

So far as I know, Dan has never apologized for this sort of comment, and my reply is as apt now as it was then.


"Not for the first time, you've decided to make comments that would, were they ever to come from a political conservative, be denounced as homophobic. However sarcastically and insincerely, you've decided to question the sexual orientation of those with whom you disagree...

"Are we really supposed to believe you want to avoid personal criticisms, when you're not above implying that your critics are gay?

"Is making comments about our private sex lives really more above-board than the criticisms we have about what you choose to write in public forums online?

"Or is it simply the case that you have no standards for your own comments?...

"You now apparently think it's okay to question the sexual orientation of those who are critical of what you write.

"But what you don't think is okay, is being strongly critical of what you write. That, you dismiss and denigrate as 'off topic attacks, lies, slander and other typical modern Republican behavior.'

"In all this you confirm that you're not decent, honorable, honest, consistent, principled, or even mature."


Marshall, whatever criticism is due Mark -- including deleting comments as appropriate -- we should not forget that Dan has repeatedly traveled down this same low road.

Marshall Art said...

I remember those comments of Dan's. I was going to say to Mark that it is a common tactic of our opponents on this issue to take the "he doth protest too much" approach to suggest that we harbor homosexual feelings. Your reprinting of Dan's comments illustrates the point nicely.

Bubba said...

To make myself absolutely, I don't condone Mark's statement, because it's an unnecessary ad hominem that coarsens the discussion. The reason I bring up Dan's earlier comments isn't to justify Mark's comment, or to dredge up past sins, but only to preempt any sanctimony about how this is a path that Dan never treads.