Thursday, August 12, 2010

Douthat continues!


1) wrong
2) utterly convinced he's right
3) pushing to legislate based on his correctness

he holds the standard religious-conservative views, and strings together words in the new york times (why have they given this guy a venue to voice his bullshit anyway?). and he makes claims like

"But I think there’s a pretty good case that they should do it[stigmatize pornography/ally with anti-obscenity advocates] anyway, because other people’s children, further down the ladder of education and income and prestige, might stand to gain from a less pornified society."

might they? how so? explain, and be sure to correlate why the problems these poor kids may face actually justify legislating your religious-moral standards.

" And an elite that was more morally serious about sexuality and its consequences would be willing to confront this problem directly, instead of ignoring the issue and/or sneering at the anti-abortion cause."

what a ridiculously pompous sentence.

"What all of these proposals have in common is an attempt to wrestle with the cultural costs of separating sex, marriage and procreation."

there it is again - infertile people obviously should not be allowed to marry according to Douthat.

"We’re being asked to formally ratify a cultural and legal shift that’s been rather obviously better for upper class Americans than for the country as a whole"

gay marriage benefits the elite more than the rest? again, this assumption is completely unjustified.

what a fucking asshole.

No comments: