My wife will confirm, I am to the right of Attila the Hun on hetero-sexuality.
If you use your brain in properly, you might understand the article is NOT about homosexuality. The context is this doctor’s claimed expertise as a qualified psychiatrist, which you are not, and so his opinion on Ted Cruz’s facial characteristics has 10,000 times more credibility than you because are basically uneducated in this field of study.
What you are doing is using the tactics used by liberals, which is when they can not respond in context, they bifurcate into ad hominem about the person. I have a feeling you may not understand what ad hominem means, so here is the explanation:
An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I was surprised by your post for a second until it came to me that you were likely a Trump supporter, and a die-hard one at that. So I looked it up and saw that for myself, including your remarks referring to Cruz as “Rafael.”
I’ll tell you that I support Cruz as my first choice, but I also support Trump. I’ve argued here for Trump and Cruz and their supporters to tone down their attacks on each other, and I’ve also criticized Cruz. I see quite a lot in him to distrust. But I also do in the other candidates, including Trump. I don’t believe we can change our country just by changing the leader. That’s the wrong approach to begin with. I was a liberal into in my thirties, and liberals look at things in that top-down way, and exalt their leaders as messiahs. Instead we have to work first to change the country and the culture. Then our leaders will have more to work with.
On your “feeling” that I don’t know what “ad hominem” means, you’re incorrect.
And do you know that probably the most common reason why people accidentally use logical fallacies is that there are properly logical reasons for arguing things that are very similar to these fallacies?
For example, it is not an “ad hominem” attack to question if someone has a hidden agenda and is not being impartial. That includes so-called “experts,” whose biases can and do get the best of them frequently.
I would truly be shocked if you say you don’t question the impartiality and possible hidden motives behind the opinion of recognized sometimes. Do you question psychiatrists on other things, including their take on homosexuality? Do you or will you question them when they attack Trump, his supporters and conservatives in general for being mentally unfit? I can think of a whole host of issues where Bible-believing Christians and conservatives challenge medical professionals (does a twenty-week-old fetus feel pain?), scientists (intelligent design and global warming), politicians (who spend their time studying issues and have info the public isn’t privy to), educators, and journalists.
So do you relinquish your right to speak out because people in these fields likely have more education and experience in them than you do? Will you, for instance, not criticize the media for the job they do because you presumably don’t have an education in journalism?
We should be consistent, and not shifting around in the winds according to whether or not a type of attack is leveled at our favored candidate, or an opponent.
Right now, I’d have to believe you would have a polar opposite reaction to this piece if it was about Trump, as it easily could have been, and not Cruz. On the other hand, if it was something similar about Trump, or even Hillary Clinton, for that matter, I would judge it on its merits.
On neurology, actually I do know quite a lot on psychology and psychiatry and some on neurology. God gave me a knack for these subjects, and I’ve been following them for years. I’ve run across different articles on facial expressions before, in fact.
But I also know a political hit piece and PURE PROPAGANDA dressed up and pretending to be just “objective science” when I see it, and that’s what this is.
Is his list of people who dislike Cruz “scientific” or political? He quotes Establishment Republicans (and in the case of Peter King, a New York congressman who is stridently a Catholic defender, while Cruz is evangelical) and Cruz’s college roommate who is a Hollywood screenwriter. And he approvingly quotes the screenwriter who is having to “apologize” for not killing Cruz when he had the chance.
Of course, liberals agree that murder is wrong, but there is that exception when someone is so evil they deserve it, so that must be what liberals are claiming. This is much like people on Twitter calling for Trump’s assassination, without any penalty leveled against them for doing so. Yet in this case, it is a doctor making a claim based on “science” who agrees that killing Cruz would have been a morally good thing to do, if it could have been known he’d run for President. The left considers both Cruz and Trump to be Hitler, and have said as much, and they (and the rest of the Republican candidates) will be treated as such. In this primary season, Cruz and Trump are indistinguishable to liberals, while in the general election, all Republicans will be Cruz and Trump to the left.
The doctor also references “the Germans,” who don’t like Cruz. I would imagine he’s only talking about the Germans who dislike Cruz, though, which would mostly be any we would call liberal.
Something like this should be hit, and hit as hard as possible, because it’s absolutely unprincipled. It’s like Russian doctors testifying to the “mental illness” of those who are enemies of the political regime
It was such a political hit piece that the author lamely added that he “wasn’t a Democrat,” though everything in this article supports just such a conclusion, so that if he “isn’t a Democrat,” we should take that as only some technicality, for it’s clear that whatever the true case may be, he fully supports and works for all the agendas that Democrats do.