- We know that children from homosexual households learn that homosexuality is not objectively wrong, a lesson which is in itself harmful to their development.
- Children cannot obtain a proper knowledge of God in a homosexual home. Social scientists are unlikely to care.
- Studies can always be disputed and the authors of studies subject to ad hominem attacks, which become more deliberate distractions...
- If someone came up with the idea of feeding children small doses of arsenic everyday, would we say, “Let’s see what the studies say?” After all, we don’t know for sure what would happen. No, the mere discussion or contemplation of studies would be a form of public child neglect. The studies would presume a lack of serious harm and thus would not constitute an open-ended, objective quest for truth after all.
Thinking Housewife admirer Lawrence Auster adds:
The Muslim says, “If Allah wills it.” The Christian says, “In Jesus’ name.” The liberal technocrat says, “Studies have shown.” These are the sacred words that establish the authoritative truth of whatever ruinous mischief the liberal is about to propose.That's just a smattering of Thinking Housewifian analysis. Read the rest here.
“Studies” are one of the principal means by which the liberal regime maintains and extends its power.
Years ago I attended a conference of Swiss academic types in New York City. Their subject was Swiss immigration and multiculturalism policies. They maintained that multiculturalism and diversity was the way for Switzerland to go, because “studies” showed that it worked. Though I was just the guest of a guest at this event, I interposed: “So Switzerland has existed as a successful society for seven hundred years, and you want to change it radically—on the basis of “studies“? They didn’t get my point. Humorlessly they maintained that their studies were the best authority.