Comments on: More on Dobson: Time (or someone) corrects Jennifer Chrisler

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:03:38 +0000

The rhetoric flies on both sides. Re-read Chrisler’s editorial side-by-side with Dobsons. They both seek to persuade readers in a very small space. Arguably both use data in a slanted manner to support a position. As far as rhetoric goes, Chrisler did not need to write an email, she already used strong language about her opponent in her Time article.

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:52:23 +0000

FYI – I am pursuing the issue you raised above, first by Wayne Besen, then on exgaywatch and then here by CK about the Angela Phillips misquote. I have had some trouble locating Trouble with Boys to see exactly what she does say about the matter.

Getting things wrong is human but these things can be corrected. I would like to see Chrisler simply excise that reference since comparing households with children to those that do not have them takes the reader far from her point. Mom and dad intact families are statistically more common, but this does not prove much when it comes to the point at issue. In my view, she should stipulate the obvious and move on to whatever arguments or data she wants to make.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:24:58 +0000

Dobson – misquotes researchers – going so far as to state that one believes that there’s some increase of homosexuality in Europe caused by fatherlessness. When his error is pointed out, becomes defensive and goes on the attack against the very people he quoted.

Chrisler – misquotes the Census – confusing “households” with “households with children”. When her error is pointed out, she appologizes and sends a letter to both the person who corrected her and to Time.

I think this is a valuable lesson in character. Who would you like your children to see as an example?

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:11:05 +0000

CK – I’m glad you pointed that out. Goes to show that these activist groups need English majors!

Seriously, it is like cowbell in rock and roll, you can never get too much English. 🙂

By: Devon

Devon — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:13:54 +0000

What is the point of showing that 75% of households are not the traditional model? This says nothing about what might be optimal for children. Talking about the characteristics of homes without children says nothing about what might be good for children.

Any accusation that Dobson slanted research to suit his point was weakened substantially by Chrisler’s rebuttal.