Of David Quinn and Demonising the Opponents of X Legislation

Media's view of the pro life lobby?

I do not particularly recommend my book reviews. In it you'll find overlong and overworked reviews of books in which you have little interest, or, worse, overlong and relentlessly critical reviews of books you quite enjoyed. They're mostly about Christian apologetics. For what it's worth, attempting to step into the world view of another gives one a unique viewpoint of one's own. Do wander to unfamiliar sections of the book shop.

This interest in opposing viewpoints may be part of what drew me to David Quinn's latest, "Those opposed to abortion law being branded fanatics". It's been my experience that people change. While I always supported legislation on X, I was two or three blog posts in to the abortion debate before I considered myself pro choice and in that time I was not once referred to as a fanatic. My daily commute found itself unmarked by low flying fruit or vegetation. Indeed, all interactions with pro choicers before I joined their number were positive and engaging. Had I instead been demonised or painted as extremist I would likely have been less inclined to give pro choice arguments fair hearing. If those who oppose X legislation are being unfairly characterised they're unlikely to change their position - misrepresentation helps none of us.

That said, what examples of media bias does Quinn offer?

Of David Quinn, the Cautious Skeptic

David Quinn is a man not unused to criticism so it likely came as little shock to him that his recent use of surveys has raised eyebrows. That his argument clings so heavily to an eleven year old paper was not the cause of bemusement, nor was the paper's unerring focus on North America source of consternation. Rather it was the prominent phrase on first page forming disclaimer "no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents".

It is fair to say that Quinn did not give this caveat equal prominence when he used it to advance his case against same sex marriage. (I venture to suggest that marriage and child rearing are no longer as tightly coupled as Quinn may think, rather denting another premise of his argument, but I digress.) Fellow blogger Humanisticus discussed this in depth and then addressed Quinn's attempts to refute the charges. Undaunted, Quinn seems to have risen early of this Saturday morning to put pen to paper - metaphorically speaking - with a further effort to refute the charges. I encourage you to read it in full: one should not judge the merits of an essay based on its critics alone.


Were I to distil the piece to two lines I would choose the following:

"To draw reliable conclusions about the effects of family structure you need large, random samples of each of the family types being examined.
...
The available data does not allow us to say how well children raised by same-sex couples fare compared with the biological married family."

This feels like a softening of Quinn's position. We've seen him move from saying that married biological parents provide the best possible environment for children to an admirable embrace of skepticism and desire to see widespread surveys to better quantify data. He is now agnostic on the matter, shunning any potential judgement of the efficacy of same sex parenthood until the data arrives.

So why do I not applaud?

On the Marriage of Iona and Twitter

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In the past David Quinn has referred to me as hilarious and on the fourth of February he once more favoured me with endorsement by seeking to base a blog post entirely on data gleaned from Twitter. Those of you new to this blog will discover, as you delight in my past episodes, that this is something of a forté of mine.

Quinn's tentative steps towards imitating my methods are quite endearing. They consist mainly of copying and pasting tweets. He is but one man. Assistance was required, and who better to stand up to this momentous data gathering task than @IrelandStandUp? Regular readers will recall that they have some experience in the intricacies of Twitter automation, almost an eighth of their followers being paid for fakes. Their qualifications are further bolstered by direct experience with abusive tweets - they enjoyed tweeting faked pictures of abortions and strange references to demons, battles and snares of the devil during pro choice gatherings. (They've had the good sense to delete many of these tweets.)

Quinn's blog post was timed as a response to the Late Late show's discussion on marriage equality. Lacking any stronger point or argument of substance he opted to take issue with language used by viewers via Twitter. His upstanding companion and he compiled utterances deemed offensive and crafted from them a "river of bile", a cliché which will hopefully not impinge on his writing career.

David Quinn, Politeness and the One-Sided Conversation

David Quinn has written recently on the need to move away from insults in online discourse. It's one of those likely rare topics on which we agree - I find insults lazy, tawdry and generally counterproductive. If your strongest argument is your belief that your opponent is a 'toerag' you have little in the ways of convincing material and your efforts will most likely weaken the cause you support.

He's published a Twitter 'code of conduct' which I read with interest:

"Twitter Code of Conduct needed. 1; no abusive language. 2; address arguments 3; assume the good faith of the other person"

I'm not in a position to promulgate how Twitter is best used, but I was heartened a little to see that these three rules match neatly how I tend to interact online. I slip from time to time; I'm human after all, but I find my most popular posts and most interesting conversations flow from a beginning of engaging with someone of different views using evidence, reason and polite language.

I've written about David Quinn's work with vaccine denial groups before, and the fact that his message is unpopular with women. I've also wondered aloud why the Iona Institute benefits from charitable tax status but I've neither insulted him personally nor used foul language. It came as some surprise to me to find out I was blocked:

David Quinn - Voice of Irish Women?

Increasingly, when investigating a new Twitter account, I find it useful to start with a word cloud formed from the biographies of its followers. Take David Quinn's for instance. Those of you without laser enhanced vision may prefer to click the image for a larger view.

There is much I am sure he would welcome - Irish Catholic journalist are hardly words from which he would seek distance. Political, views, current affairs, Dublin and media all strike me as fair representations of his fans. I don't deny him his supporters.

But today I look with specific focus. David Quinn has been vocal on women's rights of late. Take his Independent column. Take his numerous tweets. I'm going to take a risk and assume he hasn't declined any media opportunities on the subject. It's clear that it is dear to him.