Richard Florida, author of "The Rise of the Creative Class" and one of the formulators of the thoroughly-debunked "gay marriage is good for the economy" meme is out with a new article for the Atlantic comically called "The Geography of Tolerance".First of all, just because Maggie Gallagher, as a shill for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, came up with some convoluted non sequitur arguing that marriage equality isn't good for the economy doesn't equate to being "thoroughly debunked." However, at least Maggie has honed her personality disorder into a six-figure income. Peters? Not so much.
Oh please. This strikes me as yet another elitist attempt to badger the "unevolved" masses into being more like their liberal neighbors ...
Secondly, there is nothing comical about the fact that tolerance of LGBT people is very much defined by geography. There is nothing comical about the fact that there are legislatures in the United States of America in the 21st century that deny equal protection to LGBT people. There is nothing comical about the fact that some people, possessed of an arrogant certainty about the needs of their god, are willing to persecute an entire class of people.
As for the article in question, I doubt that Mr. Peters read and understood its conclusions. Mr. Florida outlines his case for a correlation between tolerance and economic prosperity. A rational argument exists relative to causation, perhaps even Florida's methodology. Mr. Peters doesn't challenge the erudition.
Rather, he resorts to an ad hominem argument built on the premise that people who do not think like he does are "elites." In one respect, he may be correct. Sarah Palin used the term to describe anyone with more knowledge than she has. Chris Matthews has asserted that an elite is someone who reads newspapers. Personally, I think that an elite is someone who is capable of
Religious fundamentalists are most certainly not critical thinkers. Irrespective of being a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Scientologist, those individuals start with a conclusion based on religious belief and work backwards, using selective observation and faulty premises, to find arguments that support the preordained conclusion. That process is the exact opposite of the scientific method.