* * *

You put forth your default position regarding sexual experimentation and promiscuity and so you have undertaken your own burden to fetch and carry.

If you had expressed interest in something your TA had mentioned, or that your professor had mentioned, either one of them would reasonably suggest that you pursue your interest at the library.

If you stomped your foot and demanded that you be spoonfed, then, yes, you'd be considered in light of the standards for a competent 'Stanford student'. Moreso if you undertook a burden and then refused to carry it while demanding that the TA or professor do fetch and carry for you.

End of conversation.

Hypothetical Situation #2:
Mairm: According to research done by Dr. Schadenfreude and her peers, people who eat only one type of cheese are more likely to explode. (www.url)
KC: I checked out that website. It's really interesting how they found that gouda causes more explosions than gruyere. I hope they do more research soon, since the study says that this is based on preliminary evidence. I don't really understand your reasoning. How does this relate to dog treats?
Mairm: Well, if you refer to page 6 of the study, you can see the animals used in the test groups have the same physiology as dogs (www.url). Some investigative journalism by Rick Soandso found that many dog breeders use cheese as treats for their dogs. Here's the article (www.url). So if cheese causes explosions and these breeders are feeding their dogs cheese, it could be very dangerous for us to legalize cheese as an ingredient in dog treats, as you were suggesting.
KC: Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out and giving me those links. This really shakes up beliefs on the issue. But we still have to think about the cheese manufacturers, and how they would...

NOMers, Which situation do you think is better?

Wow, now you're asking me if I'm someone by the name of "J Stone," and telling me that expecting a basic level of research etiquette is lazy. Anything to get out of posting the source of the study you cited.
If I wrote a paper, didn't cite any evidence, and then told my TA that they're asking me to "fetch and carry," when they ask for sources...well, I would be kicked out of Stanford. Heck, any competent high school student knows better than that.

So stop avoiding the issue. Stop questioning my identity. Show some basic human decency (although that may be hard to ask of someone who actively supports denying rights to other tax-paying, law abiding human beings). Seriously, Chairm, if you can't even copy and paste a URL, I think it's *your* competence we should be questioning, not mine.

Readers will note that you do not deny evidence exists for my earlier comment, just that it has not been fetched and carried for you.

You have pre-emptively discarded evidence, anyway, and you've taken on the burden of explaining your previous and speculative remarks about the concrete way that promiscuity and experimentation is an advantage.

Besides, youj laid your cards on the table and admitted that whatever evidence you'd find would not matter to your viewpoint.

A competent 'Standford student' would not declare predrawn conclusions to be the default position and then demand others do fetch and carry. You did.

A competent 'Standford student' would not make political statements disguised as social scientific statements and use "therefore" as a link to a non sequitor.

Meanwhile, what you did do in your earlier pro-SSM comment was to take on the burden of arguing in favor of the default positon that promiscuity for youngsters is a positive advantage, in some 'concrete' way. You took on the burfden of providing a logical explanation for society showing preference for sexual promiscuity and experimentation. And by association, you have tied it to your viewpoint on SSM.

You did that. Not I.

* * *

LT, for the record, do you also comment in the blogosphere under the monikers "miles" and "J. Stone"?

Sorry if my background leads me to expect proper citations. You see, Stanford students call using unsupported evidence "B.S." The administration calls it "plagiarism." Either way, if you're going to claim a study as key evidence for your argument, you should have a source. It doesn't have to be MLA/APA formatted. Just a simple URL would do.

Also, have you heard the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"? This principle is plays a key role in the judiciary system, but also in classical argumentative structure. When someone makes a claim, they should be able to back it up with at least two pieces of (cited) evidence and strong reasoning. Therefore, until *you* can prove why a study about promiscuity is relevant to the issue of marriage equality and why promiscuity is a bad thing, you're simply capitalizing on the sex-negative attitudes of pro-family groups.

P.S. To any prospective college students reading this: Do not use the "Chairm research method." Practice good research skills. Cite your evidence. Develop a clear, supportable, argumentative thesis.

P.P.S. Education should be America's highest priority. Please donate money to a school district in need.

"In the same-sex household scenario, the higher levels of promiscuity and experiementation take a same-sex turn. That is a difference."

Very telling indeed

Your curiousity is no doubt sincere. It is a very worthwhile topic to dig into as your time permits. But I'm not playing fetch and carry for you. If you are interested you will find more than enough to get a good start on the mechanisms worthy studying.

It is interesting, to me at least, that you so readily agreed with the big ole shrug that I expected from SSMers.

While I referred to promiscuity and to experimentation, you added socialism into the mix. And then you immediately went for a knock against religion while proposing that reason and faith are incompatable.

I did not say "that sexually active girls who live with same-sex parents are somehow worse than sexually active girls who live with opposite-sex parents".

But I detect that you are averse to making judgment calls that would position you as anything but indiscriminate.

Can you live up to your own stated standards? Instead of just declaring, on blind faith, "why not?", howzabout setting forth the case that promiscuity and experimentation are benefitial, as a general rule, for young people?

If you think it is a positive advantage, in some 'concrete' way, as you say, and can provide a logical explanation for society showing preference for sexual promiscuity and experimentation, then please feel free to do so. No dogma, please.

You could add socialism to the mix if you think that might help as part of the societal preference, too.

These are your own parameters for discussing promiscuity and experimentation. Morality, you suggested, is not decisive and perhaps is to be eschewed.

I suspect you won't be up to the task since you've shown your ideological hand by smearing my comment as relying "completely on scare tactics and stirring up the volatile flame of moralizing sex panic."

Also, if you read my comment more carefully, you'd realize that I referred to the mechanisms and did not refer to gayness.

An intellectually rigorous use of a good library would fortify you for meeting your own stated standards, LT.

All the best,
Chairm

* * *

PS: Homer, if you have an authentic dispute of facts to discuss, please be more forthcoming.

Question: At what age do these girls supposedly "experience higher rates of promiscuity and sexual experimentation"? Can you link to this study? I'm actually legitimately interested in reading it.

Now, the criticism: Oddly, when social conservatives whip out the "fear terms" like promiscuity, socialism, experimentation, I'm never afraid. We live in such a Puritan country that sexuality of any kind is deemed immoral. As long as these girls are using protection/have been through a comprehensive sex education course and are at the age of consent, what is the big issue? In fact unless you can explain to me, and the other members of this thread, why promiscuity and sexual experimentation is a *concretely* bad thing (that means no "the bible tells me so" or "because it's wrong," those aren't concrete, logical, arguments), and that sexually active girls who live with same-sex parents are somehow worse than sexually active girls who live with opposite-sex parents, then your arguments fall flat. Your arguments, like most arguments against gays, rely completely on scare tactics and stirring up the volatile flame of moralizing sex panic.