Me: The Huffington Post really has a tendency to fly off the deep end. Check out this article.
You: Vaccines Produce Homosexuality?
Me: Crazy right? Some old Italian (so-called) doctor still thinks being gay is a disease. Some days I just can’t wait for these old bigots to kick the bucket so their lame prejudices can die with them.
You: That’s a little harsh. You can hardly blame the elderly for their prejudices. It’s the way they were raised. Fifty years ago, being gay was practically synonymous with being a pedophile. Is it any wonder they have such differing opinions.
Me: This isn’t a differing opinion. It’s morally wrong.
You: I’m not disagreeing with you on that point. But from their perspective, if being gay is akin to pedophilia, can you blame them for thinking that being gay is the morally wrong choice?
Me: Yes. They need to update their world view. Homosexual behavior is nearly universal in the animal kingdom.
You: Come on. You know most people don’t stay abreast with current scientific news. Especially the Baby Boomers, an entire generation of elderly and soon to be elderly, with a world view filled with skepticism for authority figures, like scientists.
Me: Don’t get me started with the Baby Boomers and their New Age – Egalitarian – Everybody’s opinion is equal bull crap. Some people become experts and their opinions bear more weight than others. They should deal with it.
**SHOUTS** Hey old people: Science! It works bitches!
Getting back on point, this isn’t new news. I first started hearing about traits of homosexuality being universal over a decade ago. This research has been ongoing since the 80′s. That’s 25 to 30 years they’ve had the chance to acquaint themselves with modern science and reality in general.
You: Try not to alienate too many people will ya? I thought you wanted people to read this blog. Your thoughts are all over the place. What point is it you’re trying to make?
Me: Hmm, what point indeed… I think I’ll go right back to to the top: The Huffington Post. I firmly believe printed news is effectively dead. Which means those of us who want quality news are going to have to look for it online. Unfortunately, the masses tend to shun actual science news. Even worse, most people will head straight to the low hanging fruit when it comes to news aggregation. I think it’s the responsibility of modern news organizations to report the news accurately. They should filter out obvious nonsense.
Just because someone writes a press release, it doesn’t mean you have to print a story based on that press release. On the contrary, you could even print a story saying: “Hey! Look at this old bigot and his fake scientific bologna.”
You: Now who should update their world view? Besides, the article isn’t uncritical. The author states, “Some of Vanoli’s arguments, however, have been disputed for more than 30 years.”
Me: True, but not really true. This style of reporting is uncritical in my opinion. By treating “all opinions as equal” this automatically lends credibility to a guy who is an obvious fraud as a doctor. Consider his own words:
“The problem will especially be present in the next generations, because when gays have children, the children will carry along with them the DNA of their parent’s illness. Because homosexuality is a disease,…”
He’s talking as if being gay is a disease that one can contract, but he’s also talking as if being gay is genetic and passed on through DNA. Which is it?
You: In his defense, their are some diseases that can be passed on from mother to unborn child. But I get your point, most of those diseases are passed through the blood and if being gay is a disease that passes through the blood how does it also get passed through DNA? Of course, you’re also missing the point that gay people don’t breed in the numbers that heterosexual people manage, so how are we going to be inundated with gay people in the coming generations?
Me: Oh, I wasn’t forgetting that. I just found it too obvious to mention. Like if being gay is passed through the blood, say from mother to child, why don’t EMT’s, doctors, and nurses who get exposed to other people’s blood suddenly become gay?
You: I’m sure he’d say that heterosexual people so exposed are adults and already have their sexual identity set, or something along those lines.
Me: That’s called “special pleading“. It’s a logical fallacy that people should be taught to see through and respectable news organizations should reinforce proper logic in their readers by asking the “next question” rather than taking his comments at face value. There are plenty of experts out there that can refute this guys nonsense and expose it for the mystical mumbo-jumbo that it is.
I’m not even a medical doctor and I can see through this crap. What’s wrong with the reporter? You see, I do live in the real world, and I know most people aren’t going to critically read that article. Which means that even if they don’t buy into it, they’ll have the nagging suspicion that maybe, just maybe, there might be something to what this quack says when very obviously there is not.
You: So what do you suggest? People stop reading the news?
Me: No. People should stop reading generic news aggregation sites like the Huffington Post. I know they’re convenient, but getting your news from more specialized sources, written by appropriate experts that take a more critical look at the news can only improve one’s understanding.
You: Basically, you’re asking people to push themselves mentally? You got out of education because the average student all but refuses to intellectually push themselves and you want people to do it with their daily news because it’s good for them?
You: I thought you said you were living in the real world?