No way... what happened that made phylo so grouchy?

"However, a key factor is that the Bay Area attracts hardcore extremist liberals who are much more likely to make noise and get noticed. Ironically, those same extremists who preach tolerance have zero tolerance, sometimes expressed violently, for anyone who does not agree with them 100%."

I agree with you there, Bill. It's a shame some people gotta be like that. On the bright side, they all live in the Mission. (I avoid that place like the plague).

Scott wrote: "In my humble opinion, the bay area is successful because of its extremely liberal social climate. It attracts talented people from all walks of life, and from every corner of the globe. And talent attracts talent. This trumps the progressive economic policies that the left here tries to push on everyone."

That's an overreach, IMHO. Silicon Valley became a VC and high tech hub for multiple reasons that, over time, became a self-sustaining competitive advantage (talent attracts talent). I lived in SF for ten years and only worked for venture backed firms.

The liberal:conservative ratio is not as slanted as you might think. However, a key factor is that the Bay Area attracts hardcore extremist liberals who are much more likely to make noise and get noticed. Ironically, those same extremists who preach tolerance have zero tolerance, sometimes expressed violently, for anyone who does not agree with them 100%.

My personal opinion of why SF is so attractive to talented people is the moderate weather and incredible physical beauty. You can go snowboarding Saturday in Tahoe, go mountain biking Sunday morning in Marin, and windsurfing Sunday afternoon at Crissy Field. That's a magnet for Type-A adrenaline junkies.

Using Google's site search capability, I looked up two terms on the NYTimes site.

"liberal democrat" = 3,810 hits
"conservative republican" = 6,340 hits

While Democrats currently outnumber Republicans in Congress the difference probably evens out over time (depending on how far back in time Google searches). Thus, it's hard to conclude anything other than bias to explain why Republicans are twice as likely to get the (intended) pejorative label versus Democrats.

So there you go, liberal media bias explained by the numbers.

and why is he dogging out a Democrat instituted policy, attempting to be repealed by a Democrat President and Democrat Senate and House? And as a conservative, re Prop 8 - when framed in the context of the challenge before the court, how can any conservative not support the issues of liberty and equal protection - unless that said conservative's position is based on some theological edict that has nothing to do with constitutional protections.

Okay Gestell, I'll try to be a liberal. Where do I sign up, so I can get my group-think discount card and my talking points memos via email?

;-)

I've now read your various posts and the back-and-forth between you and other TH readers. I hope you do not regard yourself as a conservative; in fact, your position and the arguments you use to support it are right out of the liberal playbook. As such, it's totally unsurprising that real conservatives among TH readers are attacking you. I suggest that you recognize that you're really a liberal. It is also unwise to assume that arguments and evidence can prevail when you're battling conservatives. Conservatives just plain KNOW that all gays choose to be gay because they're evil sinners. Conservatism requires that a Biblical standpoint be used on all important moral and ethical issues. You do not seem to buy into such a premise. Again, that's great--I don't either--but I also don't claim to be a conservative.

So, Scott--you'll need to choose: either stick with your current positions and be a liberal, or be a conservative, and reject those positions. The choice is really that simple.

All of those companies started out small and grew to be giants. Of course they're going to expand out of California. That's the way it works.

The San Francisco metro area in particular is one of the most remarkable economic engines ever. With only 6 million people, it currently scoops up almost 50% of world-wide venture capital. It's of importance to the health of our country cannot be understated. We'd all be wise to respect it as such, regardless of your political views.

In my humble opinion, the bay area is successful because of its extremely liberal social climate. It attracts talented people from all walks of life, and from every corner of the globe. And talent attracts talent. This trumps the progressive economic policies that the left here tries to push on everyone.

Responses to some of your statements, Ohio Scott

It was Rebecca who posited that gays currently have equal rights, and that gay marriage would entail special rights. I leave it to you to search through the posts to find it. I've also heard this argument several times in the past, but I have no way of proving that to you. You don't seem to take my word on anything I say, and it's not in the Bible, so convincing you that indeed this argument has been made in the past is probably futile.

The vast majority of people do not choose their sexual orientation, and your acceptance of this fact is not required. In the past folks might have looked upon homosexuality as a 'lifestyle choice' akin to smoking or tennis, but that viewpoint is quickly fading. If you need some evidence of the biological nature of sexual orientation, there are twin studies on the matter that you can find online. Indeed, the only people I know who cling to the belief that it's a choice are fundamentalist religious folks who would otherwise look bad after all their abuse and condemnation.

I was furthermore not appealing to emotion in my post. I encourage you to re-read it. Nowhere do I appeal to you to become angry or feel sorry for the hypothetical abused kid. (Who btw is not all that hypothetical). I'm giving you the opportunity to understand how others come to view the situation and the emotional reaction they might have. And it's this reaction...this ever increasing repulsion to the way social conservatives treat the gay people in their lives...that will make this issue toxic to you and your political allies. It's just a warning...an encouragement to wake up and smell the coffee.

Scott said:
"I want to point out that this is also the birthplace of Apple, Google, Intel, Sun, HP, NVIDIA, Genentech, Electronic Arts, Yahoo, Ebay, AMD, Disney, Oracle...I could go on but I hope you get the point.
So where are many of those companies choosing to locate new operations and/or business expansions? Hint: It ain't California.

Hi Valora,

I just want to respond to your comment about California, and how it offers an indictment of progressivism. Now, I'm a fiscal conservative, so I understand where you're coming from. The state takes way too much from those that produce to give to those who don't. And at the state level, we're staring at bankruptcy as a result.

That said, I want to point out that this is also the birthplace of Apple, Google, Intel, Sun, HP, NVIDIA, Genentech, Electronic Arts, Yahoo, Ebay, AMD, Disney, Oracle...I could go on but I hope you get the point. The nine-county San Francisco bay area, if it were a country, would have the highest gross product in the world, *double* that of the current number 1...Finland.

For every dollar Californians give to the federal government, we get back 80 cents in federal spending. The difference amounts to $60 billion a year, dwarfing our state budget deficit. (Texas, by contrast, runs just about even...states like Louisiana and Mississippi get back $2 for every dollar contributed).

So my point is that despite the progressivism, we are an incredibly productive group. We do more to strengthen this country...not only through our industry but also through the taxes we pay to Washington...than most folks would like to admit.

Scott

I know when a writer or speaker resorts to a bunch of name calling, they probably don't have a good argument. I read the blogs and those spouting the worst are those on the left. I suspect they are all schooled in Alinsky's tactics and are attempting to use ridicule and name calling to silence us. How is that workin out for ya?
We no longer are offended by all the name calling. Call me whatever, I am on a mission and that is to preserve the America that was the dream of our Founding Fathers and will fight against turning our country into some progressive utopia. Those have all been tried, and all failed miserably. Look at California if you want an indictment of progressivism right here in America.

Mr. Prager has been more than willing to redefine torture, but not marriage. Could it be that his last 2 marriages were torture enough and he is merely trying to save his many gay friends from the pain?

Explain how "Judgement Day," virgin birth, "His only begotten son" is logical in any shape or form since logic implies proof. These are all emotional appeals to an ancient god you happen to believe in and use to support your vile, bigoted views. You want to deny people the rights you freely enjoy and you're using "religion" to do it. That is illogical and fallacious.

"Virtually every piece is filled with anger, filled with ad hominem responses to arguments, filled with insults of opponents and at the same time devoid of intellectual arguments."
Dennis has described most of the articles written for TH. Open your eyes and ears people.

Scott in CA writes: "So he hides it...he worries about losing his friends and family if he's found out."

You are appealing to emotion again, and it is still a logical fallacy. If you cannot make your argument without using logical fallacies, then you have no argument.


~~~


Scott in CA writes: " When he get old enough to finally realize what's going on and comes to terms with it, he finds himself alone, with years behind him wasted. And it's your fault...you evil b*stard."

On Judgment Day, who do you think this hypothetical child will call an evil b@stard? The person(s) who told him the Truth about sin and warned him away from it?

Or the person who encouraged him in a life of sin, culminating in his eternal damnation?

Who's evil now? You see, the 'evil' never changed; only the face which you chose to put on it."


~~~


Scott in CA writes: "This is why this issue, one that until now the Republicans could rely on for votes, is about to become toxic to you folks."

The Truth is not toxic, but lies are. Your assertion is just another lie, and unless you have a compelling argument that does not rely on the logical fallacy of 'Emotional Appeal', then your whole position on this subject is false.

And denied.

Scott in CA writes: "So a kid's born gay..."

No, he's not. I reject your false premise on its face. You might as well say the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

The rest of what you wrote is a logical fallacy called an "Appeal to Emotion".

"...then from the time he's a tot folks like you...whether you realize it or not...send him the message that he's evil, perverted...that God Himself hates him. That he's going to eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell."

A) Children are not born gay.

B) The "message" should be the truth: fornication is sin, homosexual fornication is sin, and sin is evil. Homosexual fornication is indeed a perversion of the marriage relationship between a man and a woman as determined by God.

C) God does hate sin. His only begotten Son, Jesus, was crucified to pay the price for our sin.

D) God's Word does say that unrepentant sinners will be damned. Would you hide that Truth from a child in order to validate your own sin, helping that child toward eternal separation from God in the process? Is justifying your sin worth corrupting children?

Scott in CA writes: "Imagine it this way. You have a kid that's born gay, just like some other kid might be born left-handed."

That is a false hypothesis, and all your wishful assertions and protestations won't make it true.


~~~


Scott in CA writes: "(You might not believe it works that way, but I personally trust the millions of gay people who claim they had no choice in the matter. Seriously...did you choose your orientation)?"

Did you just get out gay talking points convention? You need to come up with some new material, seriously.

A) It doesn't matter what I believe, because the truth is not dependent on my belief. We can accept the truth, or we can reject it, but the one thing we cannot do is change it.

B) What you personally "trust" is your business, but it could not be more irrelevant to this discussion. Do you also personally "trust" the millions of felons who claim they're innocent? You do realize that a person engaged in the sin of homosexual fornication has a personal interest in rationalizing and justifying their sinful behavior in whatever way they can?

Scott in CA writes: "As a fiscal conservative and social liberal (like most Americans),"

That is an assertion without substantiation. It may make you feel better to think most people are socially "liberal", but you have established no such thing, and you cannot, because it is not true. It may be true about the specific area in CA where you live, but you can't generalize that to all of CA, much less the other 49 states.


~~~


Scott in CA writes: "...I just want to tell the socially conservative folks on this board that you'd do well to listen to Frank Rich on this one."

Why not just listen to Satan instead? The sin which Frank Rich advocates did not begin with him.


~~~


Scott in CA writes: "As more gay folks are finding the environment hospitable enough to come out, and the more people realize and accept that they have gay friends and relatives, the more the average person will view your behavior toward them as, well, downright evil."

You have not said what "behavior" you're referring to. Furthermore, willful confusion about good and evil does not change what is good, and what is evil.

You don't really believe you will be the first to call 'evil' good, and good 'evil', right?

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20, KJV)

"The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV)

Scott in CA writes: "I see that argument once again posited that 1. gays currently enjoy equality because they can enter opposite sex marriages like everyone else and 2. legalizing gay marriage would create a special right for gays."

Unless you attribute a specific quote to a specific person, how is it possible to put your argument into a meaningful context, either for or against? I don't know if anyone actually made those arguments as you posited them, neither do I know if the same person made both arguments.


~~~


Scott in CA writes: " If 1. is true, then 2. is false, as straight folks could enter into same-sex marriages if they so choose."

This clearly belies a fundamental misunderstanding about one of the privileges and duties of the marriage relationship as instituted by God:

"Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (1 Corinthians 7:5, KJV, see all of chapter 7 for context)


~~~


Scott in CA writes: " If 2. is true, then 1. is false. Opposite-sex marriage constitutes a special right for straight people, and there is not yet a comparable right for gays."

Untrue. If you are of legal age, you have the same "right" as everyone else to marry a member of the opposite sex. You don't have any "right" to marry a member of the same sex, or a cow, or a reptile, or a goldfish, or any number of other things.

It is never going to be "right" to do any of those things, and passing a new law based on emotional appeals won't make it "right" either.

Rich is a writer with an elegant style, whether you agree with him or not. He makes arguments and backs them up with facts, especially in this piece about allowing gays to serve their country openly. Dennis "I wore this suit to the White House" Prager on the other hand, has the most lumpen, stilted, humorless, witless unimaginative prose style on the planet. And his arguments are pure beliefs which he never feels compelled to back up with facts. Rich is in the big leagues, writing for "the paper of record," the NYT. Prager plods his unoriginal bigoted ideas along with a pack of other hacks on this "fair and balanced" site. The vile ideas that Prager trucks in are revealed for what they are by the despicable posts they elicit from his fans.

end up on the underbelly of history again on this one. It may take a hundred more years, but it will happen.When the crap hits the fan civilization will be utterly dependent on familism.

pm wrote: "In a post of a dozen sentences, you can only find 3 that are not blatant ad hominems or insults?"

It was 9 full sentences. I chose three (33.3%) which even you could not argue were 'ad hominem'. So you're wrong, your accusation was wrong, and now you're deflecting.


~~~


pm wrote: "And those only because you are setting yourself up with rhetorical questions so the next sentence can be an insult?"

If you are going to insist repeatedly that every sentence of my initial post was ad hominem, when you will not (cannot) even dispute that at least fully a third of the sentences in my initial post were *not* ad hominem, then how can anyone take you seriously?

You had a point worth considering, it might have been better to have worded my initial post less caustically, but then you sabotaged your point with demonstrably false claims and finished it off by engaging in the same conduct you denounce.


~~~


pm wrote: "It's just funny. At least you can admit that it's funny, right? Even if you maintain that you're correct, you can at least say that responding to an article about how the left only uses insults WITH INSULTS is a little bit funny?"

I understand the point you're trying so hard to make, but I don't find anything about the Left "funny" - at all - and you make the same mistake Leftists always seem to make, taking disparate situations out of context and then attempting to draw moral equivalence between them.

It's like quoting Matthew 7:1-5 without reading the rest of the chapter, in context, and then wrongly concluding that nobody should "judge" anything. The truth is, we have to judge - between right and wrong, between good and evil - not by the standard of moral relativism or by the ever-changing wisdom of men, but as determined by the unchanging Word of God in the Bible.

I see that argument once again posited that 1. gays currently enjoy equality because they can enter opposite sex marriages like everyone else and 2. legalizing gay marriage would create a special right for gays.

If 1. is true, then 2. is false, as straight folks could enter into same-sex marriages if they so choose.

If 2. is true, then 1. is false. Opposite-sex marriage constitutes a special right for straight people, and there is not yet a comparable right for gays.

As a fiscal conservative and social liberal (like most Americans), I just want to tell the socially conservative folks on this board that you'd do well to listen to Frank Rich on this one. As more gay folks are finding the environment hospitable enough to come out, and the more people realize and accept that they have gay friends and relatives, the more the average person will view your behavior toward them as, well, downright evil.

Imagine it this way. You have a kid that's born gay, just like some other kid might be born left-handed. (You might not believe it works that way, but I personally trust the millions of gay people who claim they had no choice in the matter. Seriously...did you choose your orientation)?

So a kid's born gay...then from the time he's a tot folks like you...whether you realize it or not...send him the message that he's evil, perverted...that God Himself hates him. That he's going to eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell.

So he hides it...he worries about losing his friends and family if he's found out. When he get old enough to finally realize what's going on and comes to terms with it, he finds himself alone, with years behind him wasted. And it's your fault...you evil b*stard. (Thinks the hypothetical gay guy in this example, followed soon after by his friends, family, neigbors, co-workers, etc).

This is why this issue, one that until now the Republicans could rely on for votes, is about to become toxic to you folks.

"If one had to read one columnist to appreciate the state of contemporary left-wing commentary, my nomination would be Frank Rich of the Sunday New York Times."

Really? I'd nominate Tom Friedman, Nick Kristoff, or Matt Yglesias. But seeing that Prager asked and answered his own question, the fact that Frank Rich isn't representative of his demographic doesn't seem to bother anyone. . .