CON GAMES RADIO: Con Man Clocked In Gay Marriage Debate

June 17th, 2008 at 08:13pm Michael Conniff 2

The Con Man more than met his match with Matthew Staver, co-founder and dean of Liberty Univrsity Law School, came on the program to debate gay marriage.

Click here for the complete "Con Games with Michael Conniff" for Tuesday June 17, 2008.

Entry Filed under: Con Games, Homosexuality

4 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch Mulhall | June 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Michael,

Two points:

First, I disagree with the premise of your headline. I applaud you for engaging the question of gay marriage on this level. You proved there is not nothing we can learn from religion.

Second, your willingness to engage in this debate on this level demonstrates the true definition of Liberalism.

Cheers,
2. Michael Conniff | June 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Thanks for being on my side, Mitch, but I know when I have fallen short as I did this time.

But I learned from the experience and it won't happen again. Based on what I've learned so far, many of Dean Staver's examples of definitive research go back to the 1970s and 1980s--a generation ago, when things were very different.

That which challenges us only makes us stronger.

Best, Michael!
3. Mitch Mulhall | June 18th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Michael,

Surely your willingness to suss out the particulars of Mathew (with one "T") Staver's background is the difference between a journalist and a blogger.

Is there such a thing as trying too hard to be right, which is to say correct? At what point does that focus stand in the way of meaningful understanding?

You're right about what makes us stronger. It's precisely why I listen to you.

Cheers,
4. reckless G | June 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am

Michael,

I had to laugh at your discovery that even though someone sounds like they know what they’re talking about, and their explanations seem educated and plausible, they can still be pulling a con; using selective statistics and ignoring everything that doesn’t comport with the conclusion they want YOU to reach.

I can’t even count the number of times I have run up against this with my opponents on the Israel/Palestine issue, Barry Schochett being a classic example. Opponents of a free Palestine conveniently ignore all reports that conflict with their assertion that the entire problem lies with the Palestinian people. I’m having a debate with an opponent now who argues that there is no Israeli occupation of the West Bank, despite Condoleeza Rice’s recent statement that new Israeli housing in West Bank settlements is a threat to the peace process. Talk about denial!

I have yet to find a worthy candidate for an open and honest discussion from among the proponents of a one-sided view of any issue whether it be politics, policy or religion. That’s why I relate so profoundly to your experience with Staver and applaud you for demanding a fair look at the opposing evidence.

As far as whether Staver got the best of the argument, you know from reading my opponents letters that one can be made to seem a raving fool with carefully chosen words and phrases. Which is why, when you met me, you were so surprised at how normal I am. Those of us who know you, don’t think for a moment that you “lost” that argument with Staver. You were just caught off guard by his preparedness and clever use of statistics. I though you held up pretty well, and ultimately came to the discovery of the con. That’s what it’s all about.

Don’t get fooled again!