Project Fear becomes Project Smear: What Andrea Leadsom really thinks about gay marriage

As Remain's Project Fear becomes Project Smear and the 'remainstream media' lap it up, let us consider what Tory leadership contender, Andrea Leadsom really thinks about marriage equality (emphasis added by me).

 “I believe the love of same-sex couples is as every bit as valuable that of opposite sex couples – absolutely committed to that. But nevertheless, my own view actually, is that marriage in the biblical sense is very clearly from the many many Christians who wrote to me on this subject – in their opinion – can only be between a man and a woman."

When asked if she agreed with those writing to her to tell her that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, Ms Leadsom responded: “No I don’t actually agree with them. I don’t agree with them to be specific."

Ms Leadsom added that she would have prefered the legislation to have included civil partnerships for both heterosexual and gay couples and for "marriage [in the Church] to have a remained a Christian service for men and women who wanted to commit in the eyes of God." She went on to explicitly state that homosexual and heterosexual couples are "exactly" equally worthy of marriage. 

To explain her position further, Ms Leadsom went on to say that the legislation caused a "very clear hurt ... to many Christians who felt that marriage in the Church could only be between a man a woman." She explained that her issue was with the legislation (not the principle) because of "the potential compulsion for the Church of England" and that she does "not think that the Anglican Church should be forced down a route" it is not happy with. On that basis she voted to abstain by voting in favour of marriage equality but voting against the specific legislation. To clarify still further she added, "But I absolutely support gay marriage."

It is clear what Andrea Leadsom's position is; support for gay marriage while respecting the rights of the religious to set their own direction within their own Churches.

It is truly shameful that Ms Leadsom's Remain opponents in the left-wing media would seek to unnecessarily and disingenuously build up the fears of the LGBT community just to smear a Tory leadership candidate or to increase the number of clicks on their increasingly hysterical social media posts. As for Conservative rival, Theresa May, it ought to be made clear to her camp that encouraging these smears will only do damage to the long term reputation of the Conservative Party as a whole.

 When remainers discovered on the 23rd June that merely shouting "racist" at opponents to the EU did not help them win the referendum, you might be forgiven for thinking that they could have learned a valuable lesson. Apparently not. Instead, they've opted to merely attempt a different bogus accusation in the hope that, once again, creating division and fear of prejudice will work better this time. Andrea Leadsom supports gay marriage "absolutely" and there is not so much as a thread of truth to the homophobia smear campaign. 

Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom, and Michael Gove: A triumvirate for our times

A plea to Conservatives.

Our country is facing its greatest challenge since the mid-20^th century and it has no leadership. It doesn’t know where it is headed and its people are divided. That this was a choice taken against the will of the establishment is a testament to the bravery of the British public. That we won’t panic but are resolved to press forward is a testament to our strength of character. Yet our collective will is still contingent on purpose, momentum and unity and right now we’re depleting all three. What we need now is for those good people in a position to provide leadership to prioritise the good of the country and its people before all else. What we do not need is a drawn out battle between self-interested personalities who have been waiting in the wings to seize upon an opportunity such as this for their own aggrandisement. Such people not only fail to provide coherent direction, for they usually lack vision, but they put up roadblocks and create division. Within the Conservative parliamentary party there are both sorts and a range in between. Usually, it can afford a few mistakes; even a decade in the wilderness can be beneficial. But now we stand at one of the most profound junctures in British history, where decisions taken now will shape the world for generations. We can no longer afford the risk of allowing opportunists the chance to usurp this reformation for their benefit or for the agenda of the old guard.

On the 23^rd June, despite the weight of the establishment, including government, the BBC, and the EU, as well as all those well regarded institutions who have received our money via the EU, the public voted for the strength of argument and to put hope before fear, bullying and control. It is essential that our country is taken forward by those who have been the representatives of this new direction and who our public can trust will carry out their demand. The fight for the referendum may be over, but the fight for the nation’s soul and freedom is not. I would thus urge liberty’s champions to unite once more and to lead by example. I believe that is vital for this country’s future, for those of you who want to see the job done, to get behind the candidate who has the best mix of qualities for the premiership at this critical time. That candidate, by a country mile, is Boris Johnson. Yet even Boris is not an island (at least not yet). For the country to regain its sense of security and purpose, Boris needs to be first among equals as a part of a team dedicated to delivering the vest best outcome possible in line with our clearly expressed national wish. I would propose, therefore, that we place our trust in Michael Gove to be our representative to the world as Foreign Secretary where he will be able to continue winning in our national interest. In the Treasury, in charge of our nation’s finances, the country deserves someone who has the experience and level headedness needed to keep this ship afloat. That person is the enormously capable Andrea Leadsom. Andrea is of course, perfectly entitled to run for leadership and there is no doubt that she would do very well, but she would maximise her positive impact on the country by joining a unified ticket as prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer. Together, this triumvirate would have the necessary and sufficient respect of the parliamentary party, the overwhelming support of the membership, and the confidence of the voting public. The decision not to adopt this strategy would take the Vote Leave’s victory and subject it to yet another roll of the dice.

Boris Johnson (flanked by Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove) is the best chance this country has of avoiding rule by the old guard, now in the guise of Theresa May. While Theresa May is a capable politician and has the support of a large portion of the parliamentary party, particularly those who backed Stronger In, she lacks the respect of huge sections of the membership and were she to take the keys to Number 10, it would be taken as a betrayal by those who want their sovereignty back. Ironically, given her probable motivations, she has damaged her credibility during the referendum campaign. Coming out for Remain clearly makes her unsuited to deliver on Brexit, but worse than that, her decision to come out for Remain and then sit on the side lines demonstrated a clear preference to put her career goals before her beliefs at such a crucial moment. Her reputation has been tarnished by opportunism and she cannot maintain the confidence of the people, let alone the 17.4 million who voted leave. At a time when we need someone who can bring the country together behind a common cause, in Theresa May, we have someone whose idea of strength is to wheel out tired authoritarian rhetoric whenever she feels insecure. Not only does that alienate huge and increasing numbers of Conservative voters, but it entirely loses the middle ground. By being untrusted on the EU, untrusted on her priorities, and poor in her liberal credentials, Theresa May is who we should elect if we want to further alienate the political class from the vast majority of society. All it would take is for Labour to replace Jeremy Corbyn with someone vaguely electable and our newly independent nation’s future would be shaped by Labour and its eternal dogmas. For the sake of the country, I implore you to not take that risk. Fight side by side once more.

Why Boris? Simple. While he may struggle to carry the parliamentary party on his own, he is far more loved within the party as a whole. In fact, he’s one of the most popular politicians of our time. So much so that he managed to win London, a major Labour stronghold, twice, largely on his own merit. As Mayor of London, Boris gained critical experience as a champion for London, something London needs now more than ever and so its interests carried forward to Number 10 would be vital to our prosperity. That experience sets Boris up as one of the best possible champions of the UK too. He understands how to break down partisan barriers which is something the UK needs as it heals from the referendum. The standing ovations he was given after his speeches during the Vote Leave campaign were not merely from Conservative voters but from Liberal and Labour voters alike. Boris has the right mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism to prevent the alienation of the middle ground. He embodies the spirit of freedom that voters have expressed their desire for and brings with that more passion than any of MP knows how to display.

Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove bring with them not only the right ideas and a commitment to an independent UK but the articulation and clear headedness to win their case and help others understand it, as they both did during the campaign. Both are strong leaders and would no doubt do well in the top job in their own right and that is why their support for Boris would create such a powerful force, but now is the time for a united front. Loss of the premiership to the remainers and opportunists, or even to a Labour Party after the overthrow of Corbyn, would be a loss of the future of the UK for the people of this great country. We cannot afford any messing around. Do not waste time negotiating the ins and outs of future careers, get the basics locked down and drive forward.

Boris, offer Gove and Leadsom these top cabinet positions in writing, give them all the assurances they need, make clear that you’re on the same side and that loyalty will go both ways. Do not dither or back track. Once the team is together, find others. Convince Liam Fox to come on board, for example. History will remember each of you as the team who saved and defended Britain or, if personal ambition gets in the way, those who lost control of our future so close to victory. Those who put other priorities first by backing Theresa May or Stephen Crabb (a man whose leadership would be untenable by his insulting alienation of the gay community) would be making the Conservative Party unelectable and many of them would be putting themselves out of a job in 2020, if not sooner.

None of this will be anything that hasn’t been said already and there’s no compulsion to listen to anything I have to add. I’m merely an ordinary voter from London, struggling to find a job; what would I know about the world? Feel free to ignore me. But don’t ignore the fact that the public have endorsed this team once already.

The EU Democracy Fantasy

By far the most lunatic of fabrications I keep seeing repeated about the EU is the notion that it is democratic. Not only is its democratic merit close to nil, it's positively anti-democratic. Unlike an MP, most MEPs cannot be kicked out. That would be terrible enough but it's dramatically overshadowed by the fact that it's both the only somewhat democratic element to the EU and that it's not where power is held and thus not where accountability is most needed. The bogus comparison with the House of Lords makes no sense for that reason. Imagine if the House of Lords was elected through a system whereby you couldn't remove a large portion of them and you had no say over the rest of the state whatsoever. Would that still seem acceptable to you?

The description of the Council as democratic because its members were elected to entirely different entities is beyond ludicrous. You still cannot vote them out.

The idea that the setup of the EU is no worse than our Civil Service is backward. The Civil Service is there to carry out the policies of democratically elected governments. The EU's unelected bureaucrats are at the top of their food chain, not answerable to democratic accountability.

The claim that our lack of say as British people is no different from our lack of say as individual constituents within the UK is also nonsense. Our voice may be 1 in 64 million nationally, but we make our decisions for the most part on our self-interest in a national context. What makes Britain prosper makes the vast majority of us prosper (Yes, even Scotland). When we weaken our voice to 1 in 742 million in the EU, it's not merely less significant in quantity, it's less significant in quality because the vast majority are not voting on the basis of what they believe is right for the society and jurisdiction we live in. A one size fits all policy in the interests of Eastern Europe or Southern Europe is not likely to have our interests factored into it. Our voice as individuals over our own society's laws becomes obliterated. That we in return get to interfere in the societies of others is no consolation.

Our government has very little influence over the direction the EU is taking. We as an electorate are so far removed from it as to have none whatsoever. Power does not depend on voters and so no manifestos are ever put to them. With no manifestos there are no mandates for policies. With no mandates there's no real legitimacy save for the fact that we may well vote in a referendum once in our lifetimes to give up on democracy in favour of the EU. Even that is a dubious proposition. Of all the similar referendums on the EU held in other member states, the results of most have been simply ignored. On top of which, the EU actively agitates against a level playing field in the control of information, pumping money into its British mouthpiece the BBC and campaigns like Hacked Off, dedicated to state control of the press.

Under this undemocratic arrangement we have around half of our laws (see the House of Commons Library research) coming from an unaccountable EU. We have an activist European Court of Justice increasing its jurisdiction over areas it was not created for and ignoring national opt-outs. We have a huge customs union, raising the cost of living with higher than necessary prices, subsidies to inefficient industries which only serve to make them even less efficient and while getting in the way of focussing on our comparative advantage, and tariffs which cripple developing world markets, industries and people. We have massive corruption, corporatism, banking giants like Goldman Sachs cooking the books of irresponsible nations, forced bailouts of those nations and mass youth unemployment across the continent. And perhaps most worryingly, we're on a path of a rapidly increasing rate of centralisation, deliberate removal of national sovereignty and state building. With the inevitable and planned development of an EU army designed to rival NATO under German command, proposed removal of German military restrictions on using military force on domestic soil and the absence of democratic oversight, our liberty as EU citizens is contingent on no more than wishful thinking. We are left with the hope that our rulers are benevolent. Yet, as anyone who has bothered to look can tell you, massive centralisation of power without democratic accountability never goes well for those at the bottom. It breeds disorder and disorder is usually followed by more centralisation. The 23rd June is our very last chance to peacefully restore the sovereignty of the people without the chaos the EU is saving up for us.

Vote for democracy.

Vote for Britain.

Vote Leave.

Ferguson: the Left who cried wolf

The astonishing thing (or perhaps not these days) about the Ferguson drama is that the position most of my 'liberal' friends who posted about it took was essentially that they wanted a police officer to be charged with wrongdoing, despite the evidence being to the contrary, on the grounds that he's white and therefore must be guilty.

Now that a mixed race grand jury has formed a view, clearly reflecting both the physical evidence and the bulk of the (largely African-American) witness testimony from the more reliable end of the spectrum, the talk is of conspiracy.

In both the initial assumption and the reaction to the verdict, those desperately pushing the race narrative have unwittingly exposed themselves as substantially racist.

While there are many genuine cases of police racism and brutality, this wasn't one of them, and trying to bring down an officer for doing his job in tackling a violent criminal can only possibly be damaging to the cause of justice. It is the left who erroneously stoked the flames of racism and the fear of prejudice which, pre-primed thugs aside, precipitated the riots.

Will they now apologise? Unlikely. Even if they admit this reality, they will probably still, without any sense of irony, blame racism of whites for causing the young man to behave in the way he did. And as for looting McDonald's in response, well... Monsanto, obviously.

Were they asking for it? The female role in the evolution of male aggression

First of all, let me state that there is nothing here that excuses violence against women. Violence is a choice regardless of anyone's inclinations, and not only are the occasions where it becomes justified few and far between, but violence against women in particular would run counter to the argument below. 

....

"There is no scientific evidence to suggest that boys and girls, men and women, are wired differently at all." - A quote from a left-wing feminist interlocutor today.

What a crazy claim. As a matter of fact, it's just false. There is a huge amount of evidence, a meta analysis of which confirms that the quoted statement is nonsense. Unfortunately for the whims of Guardian readers, preference has no place in determining scientific fact.

The claim itself was intended to reinforce her suggestion that the difference in average male and female positions in society is purely down to one group (men) abusing another (women), and men who disagree are "weak, pathetic, and drips" who "fear" women.

It may be that differences in the brain are a consequence of nurture more than nature, but to assume that to be the case ignores the role of males in human evolution. 

Being a human male is a far riskier prospect than being a human female. The chance that as a human male, you will meet with an untimely violent death is much higher than for a female, and it always has been. To increase the likelihood of their genes' survival, males have faced a clear pressure to evolve differently; towards an ability to cope with hardship of a violent nature at least long enough to mate and probably through early childhood - until the point a male's genes benefit more by him attempting a second round. (Yes women are more likely to be raped or abused, but that is neither here nor there in terms of developing sex differences because it's gene survival that counts).

If the male role is to take the bigger risk, and typically it is, then that may well explain why a tendency towards expectation of a larger reward built up. Larger rewards encourage accepting greater risks. That would have been reinforced by the increased male capacity to collect on that reward socially.

Females on the other hand make the far higher material investment through child rearing. Not only is it somewhat incapacitating but it requires more energy and time (the cost of failure is lower for a male). That means that to protect their investment, it pays to have the males take on a greater share of the risk. In that sense, not only do females tolerate male risk taking/ aggression/ dominance, but they actively exploit it in engineering a situation that benefits their genes. In order to spare females from higher risk, they required males to be stronger, faster, possessing of larger and denser relevant brain structures, more prepared for hunting and fighting. If the presence of these qualities increase the danger from rivals, it increases the demand for them in a spiraling effect up until the point it ceases to be a significant advantage for the genes' propagation. Far from being a male dominated society engineered by men to their advantage, male are born into a violent world because of the purpose it serves.

Around the world there are numerous worthy efforts to oppose violence against women. One such effort was the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign in response to the abduction of hundreds of girls by the Islamist group, Boko Haram. A noble cause, no doubt - those girls will be horribly brutalised - yet with extremely few exceptions, all of the major news organisations neglected to mention that the group also abducts thousands of boys. Those boys are forced to kill and be killed. It is as if there is an assumption that because males are killed predominantly by males, that males are to blame and so are unworthy of sympathy or consideration. Women, by contrast apparently have nothing to do with the violent world they find themselves in. This is complete nonsense. 

Patriarchy in humans isn't a product of fear of female independence or power, or Guardian inspired, victimhood fetishised, psychobabble notions of inadequacy, it's the product of an evolutionarily stable strategy. What's happening now is that technology, first in agriculture, then military (and probably then birth control and health), is allowing greater shares of the risk to be outsourced. If males take less risk, they need less incentive, in which case, females can expect to reduce their costs in the relationship (e.g. cultural oppression). Empathy aside, this is probably a shift that is welcome to most males with the capacity for it; afterall, being essentially farmed for violence comes with its drawbacks. Also unfortunate is that evolution of the brain cannot keep up with technological change. Genes favouring brains adapted to violence no longer gain an advantage and genes favouring the new arrangement prosper, so given sufficient time and pressure, the average male tendency for the old order may subside. One of the main reasons why oppression of women is more prevalent in religious cultures (including that driving Boko Haram) is not just because codifying it in scripture enforces it, although that's true too, but because religion stunts scientific and intellectual advancement and thus fundamentally blocks the transformation of material needs that would then propel cultural change.   

It's perfectly reasonable for women to make new demands based on new needs, and those males who can adapt will do well, but although those females with an alternative means for protection and acquisition of resources may reasonably want males to work differently, it is not reasonable to condemn male tendencies as flawed, "weak", "pathetic" or evil for simply being what was required of them by women (within a reasonable range) until extremely recently in the West, and in many parts of the world still is. Recognition of this doesn't preclude advocacy for a new arrangement or opposition to violence or oppression in general - the opportunity for disseminating technology and democracy, which provides the most stable environment within which to maximise the benefits of the technology, means that the global success of womens movements benefits humanity as a whole - but rather than fetishising victimhood and blindly denying sex-based difference, understanding the reality of it might actually help expediate a transition with less resistance to a more equal state of affairs.

Good luck to an independent Scotland; they'll need it.

A tumshie

I wish the Scots the best of luck with their independence! Salmond's socialist Scots slaves: cannae travel freely, without border controls, into the UK (we will need to protect ourselves against their illegal immigration when they collapse their economy) and the EU (British nationals, not Scottish nationals, are EU members and can travel and work freely in the EU); cannae join the EU because they lack their own central bank and thus can have no control over monetary policy; cannae keep the pound formally because the Bank of England and UK taxpayers will not prop up their profligacy (noo jist haud on! You want independence and a 'bastard English' lender of last resort? Yer bum's oot the windae!); cannae fund their hand-outs (sorry, "social justice" in Scottish) when the SNP discover their dream of being the next Venezuela - because things went so well there - falls apart when the imaginary oil fails to materialise under the North Sea; and cannae generate a revenue from all those who desperately flee that sinking ship when the massive unemployment starts. They could always try selling more whisky I suppose, but clearly they're already mad wi' it from drinking too much of their own product. Oh, and let's not forget that in their political isolation, they'll be giving up any ability to influence other states or massive corporations (I wonder how long it would take severe corruption to take hold in this SNP utopia), or to deal with any global security issues (maybe the jihadists will see that they've run away and stop trying to blow up Glasgow airport? - yer dinnae ken? Ock naw! - probably not).

When Scotland eventually does set up a stable-ish central bank and new currency, it will be many years away, by which time the poverty and debt will have skyrocketed. Only then will they be able to join the EU and hand over all of their new found William Wallacey 'freedom' - if you can call destitution and socialism that - to proudly become the Eurocrats' latest poor and insignificant slave province. And that's if and only if, every single member state agrees to allow them to join, which would require Spain to do something that would encourage the breakup of Spain. With Alex Salmond, the crabbit wee scunner, as their commander-in-chief, what could possibly go wrong?

That is the reality of what they would be voting for, and if they do, are they really the calibre of people we want roaming the UK? Half of them, maybe; probably far fewer. After all this, they'll still be irrationally blaming the 'bastard English' for all the problems they habitually cause themselves. Are we "Better Together"? I don't know, probably, but it's painfully clear they are better off being British! If they want to throw it all away in a hysterical fit, it's entirely up to them. Still, if it means they can get away from those 'evil Tories' in Westminster and their evil capitalist prosperity and liberty, it will be worth all the shite in the world, right? Dunderheids. Oh well, whit's fur ye'll no go by ye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

How could Dawkins suggest such a thing?! Some people really annoy me.

So here we are again. Another day, another Richard Dawkins Twitter outrage. This time it's about the morality involved in knowingly choosing to have a child with Down syndrome. Dawkins had the audacity to state his view in reply to a question that the moral thing to do would be to abort and try again. Naturally this being Twitter, one does not have the luxury of expounding on philosophical points of view; however, even before Dawkins' apology and explanation (you can read it here), it ought to have been a matter of a two second consideration to be able to imagine the line of thinking. I’ll put forward mine quickly before moving on to the main point of this post.

                                                                             

At the point at which a mother would discover through testing that her offspring has Down syndrome, the offspring would not be remotely close to the blurry lines of personhood. Even if it was one's determination to attribute personhood at this stage, it's hardly important beyond the realm of religiously conjured ethics anyway, and if that’s your case then your problems go deeper than what’s addressed here. What matters in the real world is suffering. At the time of an abortion, a foetus would not have the capacity to suffer. It would not have a conception of suffering even if it could. It would have no historicity to protect. And it would have no capacity for any preference on the matter whatsoever. For that reason, when a mother learns that her offspring has the incorrect number of chromosomes (in this case, 21), from that point in time she has a choice. Assuming she wants a baby, should she bring a new life into the world with severe disabilities, or should she bring a new life into the world without disabilities? Remember, the starting point of the dilemma is at the point of knowing the diagnosis, assuming the matter of concern is the welfare of the potential child. The investment made either physically or emotionally before that point is irrelevant to that concern and only has a part to play in the case of total selfishness in the agenda of the mother, e.g. “I want a child now”. Again, the choice is simple, should she choose to have disabled baby, or choose to have a fully able baby? If one accept that the more moral action is to give her offspring the best possible chance at a long and healthy life to the fullest of human potential, then one also would have to accept that the more moral choice would be to abort. The extent of the likely scale of disability that comes with Down syndrome is not the determining factor; it merely amplifies the extent of the moral case. For the same reason, the fact that some people with Down syndrome lead relatively able lives (Hu Yizhou from the China Disabled Peoples Performing Art Troupe, being one example) ought not to be a factor in the decision. This is not about accepting or valuing disabled people, this is about not actively choosing to create disability in the first place.

With that two second thought process out of the way, it is clear that if one’s morality is based on causing the least amount of suffering, then the tweet from Richard Dawkins would indeed qualify as true (in fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as a true moral statement, but that’s a discussion for another time). Thankfully, for those of us who would rather less suffering, it would appear that most women in that situation would make a similar judgement because they do indeed tend to abort and try again, thus causing less suffering than they would be likely to otherwise. 

Now on to the irritating point of all this.

What then proceeded to occur on Twitter and, of course, on Facebook, was the customary hysteria. In Dawkins' apology, he categorised the main types of responses and their motivations (I advise you to double check what they were so I don't have to repeat them) but there is one group that he appeared to leave out - explicitly at least - and it is the one group that I seem to notice crawling out from their intellectually dingy holes every time something of this nature happens. First we get the statement of fact or reasonable judgement from Dawkins (this includes the cause of the last outrage when the swine had the raw nerve to suggest that saying one thing is worse than another thing within a category does not mean that one condones either), then we get the outrage from those who suddenly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with reality, and then, as certain as day-break, we get the enemies of reason, in their vast hordes, leaping up excitedly, ready to re-grind their axes, exclaiming, "See! I told you Dawkins is a bastard (therefore everything he says is void, evidence or not)!" These people don't care whether or not the statement is true, whether it's supported by reason, whether there's an array of evidence behind it, all they care about is scoring a propaganda point for their cause. Their cause is nearly always irrational, frequently religious, and very often sinister. 

Those people, together with the groups identified by Dawkins, make up the vast majority of the internet outrage. They are all expected. They are an irritation, but even they are not what concerns me most. I am concerned more by those who claim to happen to agree with Dawkins, but then align against him and even the point at hand, because they believe they will score some brownie points by criticising the directness of his method. If you agree with the statement but then join in with the ad hominem against it, then you are an intellectual coward. By saying that you're an atheist, for example, but that you don't support the behaviour of atheists who don't capitulate to religious censorship, then you're an intellectual coward. You do not get any points for trying to present an image of yourself to others as someone special because you have the decency to keep your thoughts to yourself, truth be damned. You certainly do not get any points for desiring to be so liberal that you will avoid facts and reason, and even seek to socially censor both, just in case it steps on the toes of one group or another that doesn't happen to react kindly to facts and reason. That makes you... no, not a nicer person... an intellectual coward. Furthermore, that is also precisely what you become when you claim that someone ought to keep their mouth shut on an issue with which you assume they have no personal experience. It is censorship, it’s fallacious, and it's the product of a weak and feeble mind.