“Evil exists. Good people should fight evil. But government is often the wrong instrument to fight evil. The people doing sick and contemptible things to children in the name of “curing” homosexuality very likely feel as strongly as I do, and might — if they got their way — use government to achieve their ends. People who love liberty must fight with their heads, not just their hearts.”
—– Ken, the First Amendment besotted lawyer/blogger/libertarian/wit who reigns at Popehat, writing about his doubts regarding California’s ban of so-called “conversion therapy.”
I recommend that you read the whole post, and everything Ken writes, basically.
I’m somewhat less conflicted than Ken in my opposition to this legislation, and wrote about the ban earlier this year, here, and here.
12 thoughts on “Ethics Quote of the Month: Ken At Popehat”
I’d like to agree with you. Counter bad speech with good speech and all that, but conversion therapy is not speech. It’s treatment. It’s invalid, dangerous treatment. A doctor who was bleeding people would be sued for malpractice, lose their license, and be arrested. What’s the difference here?
That said, I’m not sure how this topic should be treated. How can a government determine what is appropriate treatment? How much say should they have? I’d like the Government to back good science, but I have no belief they actually would. See Terry Schiavo. See Indiana’s House trying to define the value of Pi. See North Carolina trying to define the physics of rising sea levels.
I think that the laws banning the practice are inappropriate, but the performers of the practice should be civilly responsible for any harm they do, just like anyone else that psychologically tortures someone.
Does that include the practitioners of pseudo science for the purposes of political agenda and/or personal profit, TGT? If so, look in your own back yard. Terry Schiavo was the victim of legitimized euthanasia… by being literally starved to death. The “physics” of global warming are easy enough to figure, once you see that it’s a shame from the onset. And that item from Indiana (which happened many decades ago!) is another of your recurrent “strawmen”.
We don’t need government in science other than that which is of direct concern to national security. All that does (and has done) is increase the competition for generous federal grants into politically correct predisposed research which is either of dubious value or a payoff to connected individuals or colleges. In other words, another taxpayer funded money pit.
Does that include the practitioners of pseudo science for the purposes of political agenda and/or personal profit, TGT? If so, look in your own back yard.
Terry Schiavo was the victim of legitimized euthanasia… by being literally starved to death.
The science said she was brain dead. She was kept alive by legislators against medical advice. I agree that starvation is a horrible way to do that…but that can be blamed on legislators being scientifically stupid as well.
The “physics” of global warming are easy enough to figure, once you see that it’s a shame from the onset.
Yes, it is a shame. Not sure what that has to do with anything.
And that item from Indiana (which happened many decades ago!) is another of your recurrent “strawmen”.
How is this a strawman? It’s an example of lawmakers trying to legislate science. The value of Pi had been known for thousands of years.
I’m ignoring the second paragraph as stupid beyond belief besides being irrelevent. Government backing to do science is very different than government determining what is true.
2. Was she? And by what right can someone be slowly starved to death?
3. Typo: “Sham”
4. It’s a strawman because you placed it in the middle of two spurious allegations in order to lend them implausibility.
5. It depends on HOW government “backs science”. If some group or institution knows that the prevalent power in the federal government wants, say, global warming to be upheld to their political advantage, guess who will get some lucrative government research grant at the taxpayers’ expense?
1. Uh, what? What psuedoscience is going on in my realms?
2. Yes, she was braindead. There’s no question about that.
2.5. I don’t see the problem with not wasting money on a braindead person.
3. So, you ignore science. Nice! There’s no question that the temperature is rising. None. There are some people that complain that it’s not man made, but they’re as far out there as the people who think we faked the moon landing. Even if global warming was not man made, the physics of sea level rise wouldn’t change.
4.That’s incoherent. First, how would that make it a strawman? Second, the allegations are not spurious. Third, I was pointing out that government abusing bad science is very plausible.
5. Pure conspiracy theory. Especially with your example. Global warming is not in question.
If you want slavish and expensive devotion to pseudoscience, TGT, I suggest you look in your own backyard. Don’t try to palm the process off as “conspiracy theory”. It’s just a matter of a proferred opportunity for money and notoriety from the federal government. When the outcome of the “research” is practically confirmed from the onset by the conditions of the grant, the entire project is, as I said, a sham. And a shame, indeed. Just follow the money. There’s nothing “incoherent” about that.
I still see no examples of psuedoscience.
If you pointed one out, I might consider treating you like you’re arguing in good faith again.
Try: She was alive.
I assume this is referring to “The science said [Terri Schiavo] was brain dead. She was kept alive by legislators against medical advice.” Nothing else seems remotely related.
So, what do you see as psuedoscience? I used the wrong term (Terri Schiavo wasn’t actually brain dead, just “consciousness dead”), but the science of the situation is settled. There was essentially no chance of a change.
You don’t just euthanize (a kind word of legal killing) someone like this. She was STARVED to death, TGT.