Yet more movement skepticism / Skeptics™ fails

Both of these come ultimately from the Facebook feed of Spoony Quine, tho the first was reposted by Skeptics Friend Network. Both normally post to Facebook as "public," therefore I'm not violating any social media privacy rules that I follow.

First, posting a piece from Commentary magazine that starts by celebrating that anti-GMO "Frankenfoods" worries are fading without noting that the piece is liberal-bashing, moving from there to claim that anti-GMO worries are "similar in many ways" to (legitimate, of course) climate change concerns is either a major fail or else in Quine's case (I'm pretty sure NOT the case with SFN, though) agreeing with the bashing.

For those of us who believe that warnings of a ruinous climate crisis are at least overblown, the fading of the American anti-GMO movement is somewhat heartening. GMO hysteria and climate alarmism are similar in a number of ways. They’re issues that allow activists to broadcast their virtue and pose as saviors of the planet. They both fit nicely into an anti-American, anti-capitalist framework. And they’re both fueled by emotion instead of reason. 

Climate data is, alas, a bit murkier than reproducible experimental data on genetically modified crops. And there are no broadly esteemed public figures ready to come forth and champion a sober assessment of global-warming claims. But all public panics die out at some point.

But, even if batting generally left of center, SFN said it didn't feel bashed.

Well, you should. IMO it's a bit naive if you don't, given both those exact words and that this came from Commentary.

Beyond that, while anti-GMO-ism may tilt more to the left side of the political scale than antivaxxerism, which has plenty of libertarians and religious rightists both in its ranks, it’s not totally a left deal. Mike Adams alone shows that anti-GMO-ism is not just on the left, which Commentary ignored BUT ... that other commenters on Spoony's original pointed out.

(Sidebar: I did a search for the word "antivaxxer" on Commentary. Never found it.)

The piece has other problems, too, some associated with its bashing, some associated with other problems with Skeptics™.

First, it couldn't even be bothered to follow the Internet courtesy of linking to the cited New York Times pieces. It DID link to older pieces, but misinterpreted them, I think, and I know of in one case.. Massimo Pigliucci would also disagree with Commentary's dissing of Danny Hakim's linked 2016 piece, because he and Jay Novella got in a kerfuffle over that, and Massimo was right. And Novella of course is Skeptics™.
(It's also funny that the SFN post immediately before its repost of Quine's link is called "how to talk to a climate change skeptic.")

==

Second?

Claiming, by citing "liberal Christian dude," that the New Testament isn't anti-gay.

Oh, yes it is and that's just one of several blog posts I've written.

(And Spoony is not the first skeptic type to want to bail out liberal Christians.)

Here's a few of the main problems with "liberal Christian dude," the first three of which I mentioned in a comment to Quine.

First, as this is from Leviticus in the Tanakh, "arsenokoitai" is not in the "original Greek" because it wasn't originally written in Greek. Now, if the author meant "original Greek" from the New Testament passages, he should have written that more clearly.

Second, he doesn't ask if Paul used this word because of Greek pederasty. Pederasty as a custom didn't exist in ancient Isreal, of course.

Third, using the KJV to try to explain this away has two problems. First is that the KJV on the Old Testament/Tanakh side did little direct translation from Hebrew, really. Second is that King James was himself as gay as a blade, and this was known to be the case when he was still just King James VI of Scotland, before he succeeded Elizabeth in England.

Fourth, like other liberal Xns, both dudes and dudettes, although trying in this case to give both testaments a pass, he seems to be engaging in some form of Marcionism.

In turn, as I've done before on this issue, I remind the liberal Xn dudes and dudettes that Jesus explicitly said "I did not come to abolish (the Torah and Prophets) but to fulfill them."

So, the Tanakh is anti-gay, Paul was anti-gay, and Jesus was silent about the Tanakh being anti-gay.

Just admit this was something else the New Testament is wrong about. And, before further talking about Jesus as a mush-god of love, read Matthew 25 and note that it's Jesus himself condemning the "goats." Better yet, read Revelation.