Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Belk]

Its only controversial if you make it that way. I dont look at it that way. I,m only relaying what is said about the optimum setup that would be best for a child by the experts. They are just stats and they are not having a go at anyone. But its not good to not acknowledge what is the best thing to do either. If you dont acknowledge things then you can address things either.

No, it is controversial because multiple studies have shown it to be incorrect. When you have studies that claim two mutually exclusive things it is controversial.

 

[stevevw]

The study must be right if its Australian then. I dont want to get into a competition about how many surveys we can find to support what we say. But I think all things equal most people would say a child needs a father (male) and mother (female) for optimum development.

 

[quatona]

Not denying any of that. I'm just saying that research shows that a child needs both a mother and father in their lives in a happy marriage to be in the best possible situation for life.

I can´t even think of a way of conducting a study that could possibly lead to such a resulting statement.
Or, to say it the other way round:
If a study is interpreted in such a way, that must be a pretty sloppy interpretation.
There are too many variables.



(Apart from the fact, that even if we could determine "the best possible situation" that wouldn´t constitute a reason to dismiss the second or third best options - particularly when we know that the best possible situation is often not available.
If it could be shown that "the best possible situation" for a child would be to have parents that have a certain age and to have X siblings - would we try to figure this into legislation?)

 

[quatona]

I,m only relaying what is said about the optimum setup that would be best for a child by the experts.

See, I have been raised by my - even religious - parents (male and femaie) who lived a marriage "until death us do part". And yet, I have become an atheist without - as you so often emphasize - any ground for morality, who advocates positions and behaviours that you consider contributing to the apocalypse.
So, growing up with your male and female parents doesn´t seem to warrant anything.

 

[stevevw]

Its an Australian survey so it must be right. I dont want to get into a competition about surveys on this subject.

 

[Euler]

I can´t even think of a way of conducting a study that could possibly lead to such a resulting statement.
Or, to say it the other way round:
If a study is interpreted in such a way, that must be a pretty sloppy interpretation.
There are too many variables.



(Apart from the fact, that even if we could determine "the best possible situation" that wouldn´t constitute a reason to dismiss the second or third best options - particularly when we know that the best possible situation is often not available.
If it could be shown that "the best possible situation" for a child would be to have parents that have a certain age and to have X siblings - would we try to figure this into legislation?)

Now, now. You're using common sense and valid research instead of prejudice and bigotry.

You're really not supposed to do that you know.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

quatona

See, I have been raised by my - even religious - parents (male and femaie) who lived a marriage "until death us do part". And yet, I have become an atheist without - as you so often emphasize - any ground for morality, who advocates positions and behaviours that you consider contributing to the apocalypse.
So, growing up with your male and female parents doesn´t seem to warrant anything.

I was just talking about all things equal a kid needs their mum and dad. Didn't your president talk about the importance of the father recently. Or aren't they important anymore. Maybe nothing counts anymore. Maybe a mother and father dont hold any position anymore then. I,m not discounting any good and the particular benefits that come from any and all situations with a family. But I just think a mum and dad are the best for a kid if they are in a happy relationship. Of course we know that the tradition couple can have problems and the divorce rate is very high. A broken family is no good for a kid either, unless you think thats OK as well. But stats do show that kids from single households dont fair as well either on average and thats not saying that there are plenty of single parents doing a great job. Boy I tell you you cant even suggest something nowadays without opening a can of worms.

As for the moral thing well thats another debate and we dont want to go there do we.

 

[Belk]

quatona
I was just talking about all things equal a kid needs their mum and dad. Didn't your president talk about the importance of the father recently. Or aren't they important anymore. Maybe nothing counts anymore. Maybe a mother and father dont hold any position anymore then. I,m not discounting any good and the particular benefits that come from any and all situations with a family. But I just think a mum and dad are the best for a kid if they are in a happy relationship. Of course we know that the tradition couple can have problems and the divorce rate is very high. A broken family is no good for a kid either, unless you think thats OK as well. But stats do show that kids from single households dont fair as well either on average and thats not saying that there are plenty of single parents doing a great job. Boy I tell you you cant even suggest something nowadays without opening a can of worms.

As for the moral thing well thats another debate and we dont want to go there do we.

And we are just saying it is not that black and white. The studies seem to show that two parents are important but that their genders are not really an issue.

 

[quatona]

quatona
I was just talking about all things equal a kid needs their mum and dad.

And I was talking about it being impossible for a study to show that.
Plus, I am tending towards the notion that with all things being equal a child doesn´t need their mum and dad.

Didn't your president talk about the importance of the father recently.

He´s not "my president", and, yes, a lot of people do a lot of talk.[/quote]

Or aren't they important anymore.

Not sure what "they" refers to here. There wasn´t a plural so far in your post that it could possibly point to.

Maybe nothing counts anymore.

I´m sorry, but when the claim that X isn´t that important is countered with "Mabe nothing counts anymore." I am sensing that pointless rambling has started.

Maybe a mother and father dont hold any position anymore then.

They certainly "hold a position", but that doesn´t necessarily mean they hold the position you would like them to hold.
The significance of family isn´t principally denied - it might just not be the one you are claiming.

I,m not discounting any good and the particular benefits that come from any and all situations with a family. But I just think a mum and dad are the best for a kid if they are in a happy relationship.

It´s perfectly ok that you think that. Whether this is supportable by studies (as was your proposition) is an entirely different question, though.

Of course we know that the tradition couple can have problems and the divorce rate is very high. A broken family is no good for a kid either, unless you think thats OK as well.
But stats do show that kids from single households dont fair as well either on average and thats not saying that there are plenty of single parents doing a great job.

If it is true that there are stats showing this (which, btw., has a lot to do with what the stat presupposes to be "fairing" (sic!) well), in order to carefully arrive at implications, we would first ask "What is it that leads to this result." Correlation, causation - you know the problem.
E.g. the reason for this could be that the core family is the traditional value upheld in the environment, and therefore functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just to name one of the possible sources of noise induced when confusing correlation and causation.

Boy I tell you you cant even suggest something nowadays without opening a can of worms.

You sound like an old man rambling, again.
But you aren´t so far off: People have suggested that gay couples should be allowed to marry and raise kids, and apparently they have opened a can of worms.

 

[JackofSpades]

I think it's important point that gay couples don't make accidental childs anywhere near as likely as straight couple. For a male couple, that's just not going to happen and for a female couple, that would need third party involved. That fact alone is a huge plus for wellbeing of average child in SSM, they're practically all wanted.

 

[stevevw]

And we are just saying it is not that black and white. The studies seem to show that two parents are important but that their genders are not really an issue.

The studies are inconclusive as yet and more needs to be done. There hasn't been a long established history of same sex relationships with many long term families. Same sex couples have a high rate of separation as well sometimes even higher than the average. So there needs to be more time to establish solid data. There has been peer review done on the data that has shown that same sex esp gay women have little difference to heterosexual couples which has cast doubts on the results.

The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the "No Differences" Claim
The Kids Aren?t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse

 

[stevevw]

quatona

And I was talking about it being impossible for a study to show that.
Plus, I am tending towards the notion that with all things being equal a child doesn´t need their mum and dad.

Studies have shown that kids are better off with their biological parents. Thats not saying anything about gay parents either. Just biological blood connection. There is evidence that this is important. There is some sort of connection between blood. I mean what are we really saying that nature doesn't matter anymore. Just get a man and women to donate some sperm and eggs and anyone can be their parents. We are already going down that track of playing God and we have already seen what can happen with the rent a womb situation. Where do you draw the line. Like I said it maybe early days but there is a small amount of data. But we may have to wait years to see what the end results will be. But I know and society knows from past experiments and playing God its not always a pretty one. We humans have a tendency to make decisions now and pay the price in the next generations.

He´s not "my president", and, yes, a lot of people do a lot of talk.

I though he made some sense. What is a father, is he not needed anymore. If you go into some of the psychology of it fathers are needed for young boys growing into men. Women are needed they have a maternal instinct and a connection with their babies. They can breast feed and that bond is important. I would think you dont need surveys for that. That is just natural.

They certainly "hold a position", but that doesn´t necessarily mean they hold the position you would like them to hold.
The significance of family isn´t principally denied - it might just not be the one you are claiming.

I would have a guess that yours is not to far off mine. See I just made a statement of my belief. I didn't say anything about anyone or qualify it in any way. I think its others who are taking it there more than I am. I just think because a believer states something in these matters people have to go on the defensive and disagree no matter what. But what am I saying thats so radical. I am just saying that the two most natural people , thats the ones that make love to have the baby are the best people to have that child if all things are equal and they are in a happy relationship. I think people in the US have to many extremes that they think everyone must have some sort of agenda.

It´s perfectly ok that you think that. Whether this is supportable by studies (as was your proposition) is an entirely different question, though.

Well thank you that I can have this view. I stated that view and some shot me down. But the point is I should be able to have that view without going to extremes. See you assumed that just because I made that statemnet that I was rejecting anyone who didn't fall into the accepted group. When I clearly said I am not saying anything against gays or single parents. I was just stating my opinion and what I believe what the data is indicating. This is what I was saying you cant even express an oponion without people jumping up and down. But its others who turn it into an us and them issue not me.

If it is true that there are stats showing this (which, btw., has a lot to do with what the stat presupposes to be "fairing" (sic!) well), in order to carefully arrive at implications, we would first ask "What is it that leads to this result." Correlation, causation - you know the problem.
E.g. the reason for this could be that the core family is the traditional value upheld in the environment, and therefore functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just to name one of the possible sources of noise induced when confusing correlation and causation.

For me I can go and get plenty of stats and I would have said what I said if I hadn't done the research first. But its more about the simple logical point of view that the natural thing of the mother and father of the baby are best if they are in a loving happy relationship because its just natural and healthy in may facets. There are many issues and its not just about gay couples. Just even the child growing and wanting to know its biological parents is one that cuts deep for many.

But even just on fathers and sons and that special relationship that is needed for a boy as well they are the same and are the only ones and more suited to discuss certain things. But these are only some of the things if you add them all up then you have to say they will have some affect and set backs if they are missing. Its stands to reason. So a lot of it is based on natural common sense and you dont need an expert or survey to tell you. I know I would like a dad to turn to as I grow up. I would feel left out simple as that.

You sound like an old man rambling, again.
But you aren´t so far off: People have suggested that gay couples should be allowed to marry and raise kids, and apparently they have opened a can of worms.

Yes but I can talk about these things without going into some personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me its just a topic that should be able to be discussed. I thing the US especially have many extremists and they get polarized where as in Australia we could talk about this topic at the table with even gay people and it would get to out of hand. Just people expressing their views.

 

[quatona]

quatona
Studies have shown that kids are better off with their biological parents.

I have given you some hints what my doubts are concerning the validity of such a broad conclusion. Simply repeating your opinion in return doesn´t help the discussion.

Just biological blood connection. There is evidence that this is important.

And I am asking: Important for what? Important in which way? Important towards which goals? Important with which hidden criteria in mind? Etc.

There is some sort of connection between blood.

Yes, there is certain "some sort" of it. But that there is "some sort" of connection doesn´t help establishing that it is the very sort you are assuming and claiming it to have.

I mean what are we really saying that nature doesn't matter anymore.

There is it again: A whiny "the sky is falling" strawman that is simply a discussion stopper. Nobody said that "nature doesn´t matter anymore", nobody even said that blood relations don´t matter at all.
Why do you keep doing this with me?

Just get a man and women to donate some sperm and eggs and anyone can be their parents. We are already going down that track of playing God and we have already seen what can happen with the rent a womb situation.

Irrelevant ramblings and slippery slope strawmen.

Where do you draw the line.

That´s exactly the question: Where do we draw the line, and why?
Your habit of presenting broad generalisations, slippery slopes and apocalyptic scenarios of "nothing matters anymore", however, are not helping to discuss this question - it is a reliable way of shooting it down.

Like I said it maybe early days but there is a small amount of data. But we may have to wait years to see what the end results will be.

Then don´t jump to conclusions based on inconclusive data. Don´t pretend the data allow for such conclusions.

But I know and society knows from past experiments and playing God its not always a pretty one.

This is a thread about secular arguments - so God doesn´t belong here.
Besides: If humans have done wrong decisions in the past, this is not an argument against a specific proposal for the future, anymore than against any other proposal.
It reeks of fundamentalist traditionalism.

We humans have a tendency to make decisions now and pay the price in the next generations.

Yes. Is that an argument against making decisions in general? If it is not, you would have to show how this would be a decision that we will regret in the future. This is the very topic we are discussing, and bringing up a good reason for why a decision needs to be considered thoughtfully is obsolete in a discussion in which its aspects are being considered.

I though he made some sense.

Of course you did - he agreed with you, after all. I´m just not seeing how saying "See, this guy agrees with me" adds any weight to your opinion - unless he were an authority on the matter.

What is a father, is he not needed anymore.

A more precise question would be: What is the inevitable consequence of growing up without your blood father?
If you´d interested in investigating the issue (instead of grabbing for everything that might confirm your preconceived notions and asking discussion stopping strawman-questions, you´d be interested in asking and answering such precise questions.

If you go into some of the psychology of it fathers are needed for young boys growing into men.

Needed? There are war generations in which a considerable amount of boys grew up without fathers, and they did grow into men. So what exactly are you talking about?

Women are needed they have a maternal instinct and a connection with their babies. They can breast feed and that bond is important. I would think you dont need surveys for that. That is just natural.

There is a difference between pointing out advantages and claiming necessities. Children do have grown up without mothers, so "they are needed" is way too broad a statement.

You should try to say what you mean to say, and as precisely as possible.
I would have a guess that yours is not to far off mine. See I just made a statement of my belief. I didn't say anything about anyone or qualify it in any way.

Well, you talked about studies and their alleged results. I entered the discussion to point out why I wouldn´t believe a study to allow for such broad conclusions as you made it. That was all. You are the one who doens´t focus on the points made. Your or my beliefs are irrelevant here.

I think its others who are taking it there more than I am. I just think because a believer states something in these matters people have to go on the defensive and disagree no matter what. But what am I saying thats so radical. I am just saying that the two most natural people , thats the ones that make love to have the baby are the best people to have that child if all things are equal and they are in a happy relationship. I think people in the US have to many extremes that they think everyone must have some sort of agenda.

You may want to complain about that to people who think all this and do all this. Whining to me about stuff I haven´t done while ignoring what I actually said leaves me frustrated.

Well thank you that I can have this view. I stated that view and some shot me down. But the point is I should be able to have that view without going to extremes.

Quite obviously you are able to have your views and you are able to express your views. What you are not able to is expressing your views without people disagreeing with you.

See you assumed that just because I made that statemnet that I was rejecting anyone who didn't fall into the accepted group.

Where did I assume that?

When I clearly said I am not saying anything against gays or single parents.

Well, when you point out that a blood-father and a blood-mother are "needed" for a child to grow up, you are saying something against single or gay parents: That children do not get what they "need" when growing up this way.

I was just stating my opinion and what I believe what the data is indicating.

This is not what you did. You claimed that this is what the result said. You made it even look like the researchers concluded so.

This is what I was saying you cant even express an oponion without people jumping up and down. But its others who turn it into an us and them issue not me.

Yes, most every issue finds some people to make them jump up and down, on both sides.
However, you neither have any indication that I am jumping up and down nor that I am turning this into an us vs. them issue. So what´s the point in bringing your perceived victim status up in our conversation, instead of addressing the arguments?

For me I can go and get plenty of stats and I would have said what I said if I hadn't done the research first.

So you presented inconclusive stats as being supporting your views. I do not see the point in doing this. That´s all I meant to say right from the start.

But its more about the simple logical point of view that the natural thing of the mother and father of the baby are best if they are in a loving happy relationship because its just natural and healthy in may facets.

So you are appealing to what oyu feel is "common sense", and you can do that all you like. (You are just not going to convince anyone by saying "it´s obvious to me, that...").
However, it´s a different thing when you start talking about studies confirming your view.

So a lot of it is based on natural common sense and you dont need an expert or survey to tell you. I know I would like a dad to turn to as I grow up. I would feel left out simple as that.

Your common sense, you personal wishes and your anecdotes are just that.
Pointing to them, however, is stopping a discussion rather than helping it.

But I really don´t know why I have myself drawn into these unfocussed exhaustive tangents.
I made a simple point: What you presented as research results confirming your opinion can´t do what you claimed them to do.
That´s all.

Yes but I can talk about these things without going into some personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me its just a topic that should be able to be discussed.

Well, I am here to discuss it, so what am I to do with your endless complaints about the inability to discuss, about your victimization, about the sky falling etc.? All these ramblings leave me with the impression that you actually do not want to discuss it. On top, appeals to common sense are discussion stoppers also. So I am increasingly left with the impression that you don´t want to discuss it because you have no arguments.
If you want to discuss it, start doing so already.

I thing the US especially have many extremists and they get polarized where as in Australia we could talk about this topic at the table with even gay people and it would get to out of hand. Just people expressing their views.

I am not a US citizen, and I am quite able to discuss even the weirdest stuff without flying off the handle.
If you feel uncomfortable with the way your statements are received, that´s one thing.
Accusing others of jumping up and down, of being unable to discuss without things getting out of hand, of having a personal agenda, of turning things into an us vs. them issue (all these complaints you have issued in this one post) is a completely different thing - and all it does is distracting the focus from the topic.
If you want to discuss, bring up arguments.
If you just want to say your opinion, don´t be surprised when others don´t discuss with you - because that doesn´t even allow for a discussion.
And better not be surprised to find people on a discussion board disagreeing with you.

 

[aiki]

Same-Sex Marriage ? Challenges & Responses - Gregory Koukl - Page 1

Selah.

 

[aiki]

Well. The very first thing I notice is that the title "When the Bride Is a Groom" indicates that this is from the viewpoint of males and that it's only acknowledging gay males.

Uh, yeah, riiight...

Next, I notice that it was written in 1999 and claims that none of the remaining laws that criminalize same-sex sexual activity in the US are still enforced. False.

Care to provide evidence for your assertion here?

I'm struck by the very superficial response you've made to the article. Clearly, your aim in commenting on it is to be dismissive rather than thoughtful.

Selah.

 

[stevevw]

quatona

And I am asking: Important for what? Important in which way? Important towards which goals? Important with which hidden criteria in mind? Etc.

Well using what we would observe and what is natural things like the biological child always has a need/want to find their biological parents. This is important, this is the connection. Once again I am not taking anything away from all those who adopt as my brother adopted and indiginous child who is my nephew. But even he wanted to find his roots. There is a deep connection that can make some look for many years and feel incomplete. The same as when a surrogate mother often changes he mind once she has the baby and has bonded. When yo see your blood you see yourself. From you blood/ancestors you can find some true identity that is important. It give you a connection that helps you know yourself. Now all this may have little to do with love and love can make up for many things. A foster parent can give a great connection as well when there is none. So I am only saying this as something that is a best ideal but may not happen all the time.

Yes, there is certain "some sort" of it. But that there is "some sort" of connection doesn´t help establishing that it is the very sort you are assuming and claiming it to have.

you could argue that black is white so no matter what is said you will dispute it even if its correct. These things are not rocket science its common sense and logical. Of course you will have a distinct connect with blood.

Why do you keep doing this with me?

maybe your that type of person. But I fail to see what I do.

Nobody said that "nature doesn´t matter anymore", nobody even said that blood relations don´t matter at all

Could have sworn people were saying real mum and dad dont make any difference.
quote, a child doesn't need their mum and dad.
Now thats telling the majority of kids that they dont need the people that have brought them up from babies. That to me dont make sense.Thats what I'm talking about as normal and common sense and that for the majority of kids it is a given that they need their parents. What you pose would be an alien suggestion.

Irrelevant ramblings and slippery slope strawmen.

Its easy to have throw away lines. But then you believe that quote.
a child doesn't need their mum and dad. So all we need is the sperm and the egg if they are not needed. I assumed you meant that their real mum and dad were not needed. Or were you actually meaning no mum and dad are needed. I pray not, because that would be even more extreme. See what I say isn't so irrelevant after all when you keep track of whats being said.

That´s exactly the question: Where do we draw the line, and why?
Your habit of presenting broad generalisations, slippery slopes and apocalyptic scenarios of "nothing matters anymore", however, are not helping to discuss this question - it is a reliable way of shooting it down.

No its the other way around. My position is quite clear and I have said it all along remember. A kid is better off with his real parents if they are in a happy and loving relationship with all things being equal. I think you are being broad by well I dont know what you think because you question everything like its all wrong or like anything can be argued to be right.

Then don´t jump to conclusions based on inconclusive data. Don´t pretend the data allow for such conclusions

Do we live on another planet where the babies we have dont mean much. Think about it its not rocket science. The natural thing would be that the baby and the maternal mother has is the one that is closest in bond. There is something special and connected about looking at your child and the child looking at its mum and dad and you see bits of yourself there from your DNA. This is a part of you that you have made. But I have also done the research so I am not making general statements based on nothing. Its that to make a case for gay couples we have to wait longer to see what the results will be. The data already is there for the biological parents and the need for a mum and dad. Its been there for a long time.

A more precise question would be: What is the inevitable consequence of growing up without your blood father?
If you´d interested in investigating the issue (instead of grabbing for everything that might confirm your preconceived notions and asking discussion stopping strawman-questions, you´d be interested in asking and answering such precise questions.

I have already done some research on it have you. You keep refuting and questioning everything like its wrong. Why do you think psychology/psychiatry has such a big part about your relationship with you mother and father. Funny enough it also says the same for girls. It goes without saying that the same thing applies to the mum of course. Its comon sense and this is what the professionals use to fix children. A lot goes back to their relationships or lack of relationships with their mother and father.
Angry Boys: Sometimes, Mom Is Not Enough
Angry Boys: Sometimes, Mom Is Not Enough | Psychology Today
Girls Need Fathers
Girls Need Fathers | Psychology Today

There is a difference between pointing out advantages and claiming necessities. Children do have grown up without mothers, so "they are needed" is way too broad a statement

Pretty sure thats what Ive been doing pointing out the advantages. I have not said that other forms of relationships cannot happen or dont add value. In fact I have even said that in some ways they will have some things that traditional setups dont have. So its been all about advantages. You have taken it that extreme by making it that way. But thats what happens as soon as someone points out what is basically a pretty common sense but traditional point of view its like all hell breaks lose.

Well, you talked about studies and their alleged results. I entered the discussion to point out why I wouldn´t believe a study to allow for such broad conclusions as you made it. That was all. You are the one who doens´t focus on the points made. Your or my beliefs are irrelevant here.

Thats probably right and I think I will leave it at that as it is getting a bit off topic. I didn't want to start posting links to surveys for support as that can just go on with counter claims. My appeal was mostly a common sense one that its natural and its only in the last 30 years or so that things have changed.

 

[quatona]

Pretty sure thats what Ive been doing pointing out the advantages.

No, you said they are needed. More than once.

But thats what happens as soon as someone points out what is basically a pretty common sense but traditional point of view its like all hell breaks lose.

"Hell breaks lose (sic!)"??
You feel that that my (or anyone´s for that matter) reaction to your claims equals hell breaking loose? You have been contradicted, with more or less intensity. That´s all. If you can´t handle the fact that this is not your pulpit where you can preach without being contradicted, you should really ask yourself whether a discussion board is a place for you to be.

My appeal was mostly a common sense

Well, this can´t be rationally discussed (other than by saying "no it isn´t" and be done with it) - and common sense isn´t all that a reliable tool of epistemology, anyway.

one that its natural

"Natural" as in "occurs in nature", or "natural" as in "conforms with my version of common sense", or in what definition of "natural"?

and its only in the last 30 years or so that things have changed.

So you mean "traditional" when you say "natural"?

Rest assured that when we discuss proposed changes, I am aware that it´s about, well, change. Thus, "it´s a change" isn´t an argument.

 

[Cearbhall]

If you were a business owner today and had a great employee, you do what it takes to keep them around. You don't give them a hard time or threaten them or make them wish they didn't work for you. That's how you keep good employees around and keep your business running smoothly. I don't think slave owners (who obviously had money) were so dumb that they couldn't see this.

I'm not saying slavery was a good thing. I'm just saying that I don't believe everything I hear about how it was.

You can't equate employees with slaves and expect the logic to carry over. This is absolutely not a reason to doubt accounts of the atrocities that occurred. Employees can leave. Employees have legal autonomy. Employees are recognized as human beings. Of course you aren't going to see the average boss doing something that will lose him his best employee or even land him in prison.

Slaves played whatever role their masters wanted them to play, including punching bag and free brothel.

Some people rape. Some people torture. Some people beat their kids to death. Does that make sense? No. Some people are just psychotic. Compare it to that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm struck by the very superficial response you've made to the article. Clearly, your aim in commenting on it is to be dismissive rather than thoughtful.

Selah.

There's no need to be thoughtful when the material is the same old garbage that's been refuted countless times.