Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Talk about science denial


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Talk about science denial Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 6:12:33 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is....

Heterosexuals.

Not even that.

Good point. And expanding on the theme of a lack of certainty, there's this.

That is an example of a style of academic writing that seems to exist solely to obfuscate the point and pad the word count of the article.

Should I be surprised ...

Bullshit. The subject can be discussed without this convoluted nonsense
quote:

As this Question is put into question, alternative inquiries that serve to further problematize this Question’s coherency
shall be suggested and discussed

That is just plain bad writing

Also you seem to have leapt to some strange and bizarre conclusion completely at odds to what I wrote BTW. Perhaps a remedial English course would help?
 


< Message edited by DomKen -- 6/10/2014 6:15:33 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 6:41:10 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
Ken, I (mis)read Tweak's post as responding to the article rather than to you. It sounded to me as if she shared your take on it.

Tweak, did I read you right?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 8:43:53 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
dcnovice, I'm not sure how you arrived at the view that I shared DK's pov. My impression was and still is that the paper's content went right over his head. As for the style, it's standard Humanities academic style - not my personal favourite but nonetheless easy enough to read by anyone as intellectually 'gifted' as DK would like us to believe he is.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/10/2014 8:55:28 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 9:22:51 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

dcnovice, I'm not sure how you arrived at the view that I shared DK's pov. My impression was and still is that the paper's content went right over his head. As for the style, it's standard Humanities academic style - not my personal favourite but nonetheless easy enough to read by anyone as intellectually 'gifted' as DK would like us to believe he is.

You are entirely full of shit.

The paper's content is as far as it goes interesting, It of course could all be said in one sentence, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. That the author chose to go on at length and dress it up in the most impenetrable language possible was my major critique of the paper. You, as is your usual, made a completely unsupported claim about me. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention at all, which of course excludes you, would know that I am both fully aware of the existence of the broad array of human sexualities and my support for almost all of them.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 2:25:34 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
When the Republican party gets out of our bedrooms and back to running a lean government (like they were before Reagan) they will once again be the GRAND old party.

Until then, they'll just be a bunch of Bible thumping dumbasses.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 4:35:08 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

When the Republican party gets out of our bedrooms and back to running a lean government (like they were before Reagan) they will once again be the GRAND old party.

Until then, they'll just be a bunch of Bible thumping dumbasses.


Do you think that'll ever happen, HW?

To me, it's always seemed that the New Right *needs* its ultra-authoritarian, moral side. Without it, its neoliberal side couldn't work, because the neoliberal idea of ultra-freedom has no clear boundaries otherwise. Republican neoliberals love the notion of freedom in the economy - but that's where it must stop. They don't love the idea of freedom for people to - well, use violence to steal from a tycoon who's gained his vast wealth from the free market system - to give an example. And they don't love the idea of freedom for those who'd like to opt out of the free market system altogether.

The trouble is that the good old morals that kept people in check, and made them just *know* that the only real and true freedom was the freedom of the market, started to crumble a long time ago. During the Great War, if not before. Vietnam, it seemed, was the last straw (in your country, at least). Hippy ideas, anarchism, long hair, drop-outs - oh, no, no, no. That is *not* the freedom that should be encouraged. But the old-style conservative line - 'traditional values are always best' - no longer worked. It had been too clearly demonstrated to have been trashed. Nixon was the symbol of it.

So in order to revive that one, narrow idea of freedom as 'the only *real* idea of freedom' - the free market - you'd need a muscular dose of reaction on the social front. Dredge up some 19th century ideas of religion. Hell, dredge up some mediaeval ideas of morals. Whatever it takes to stop people thinking that freedom means anything other than the free market and the large bulk of the people cropping their hair, donning their crisp neat suits and ties and going in to work to keep the bloated billionaires in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

All right, rant over. I just wish that whenever some flatulent old twat in government or big in the media utters the word 'freedom', everyone who's watching has developed the tits or testicles to interrogate the meaning of it, that's all. ;-)

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 7:56:51 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

dcnovice, I'm not sure how you arrived at the view that I shared DK's pov. My impression was and still is that the paper's content went right over his head. As for the style, it's standard Humanities academic style - not my personal favourite but nonetheless easy enough to read by anyone as intellectually 'gifted' as DK would like us to believe he is.

You are entirely full of shit.

The paper's content is as far as it goes interesting, It of course could all be said in one sentence, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. That the author chose to go on at length and dress it up in the most impenetrable language possible was my major critique of the paper. You, as is your usual, made a completely unsupported claim about me. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention at all, which of course excludes you, would know that I am both fully aware of the existence of the broad array of human sexualities and my support for almost all of them.

Had you understood the paper you would have understood that it goes far deeper and beyond the minimalist claim that "human sexuality exists on a spectrum".

The paper's main points are:
*all our current orthodox categories of sex/gender/sexuality and "nature' are inadequate or not 'true'; and that furthermore;
*these categories are direct productions of the normative methods used to inquire into them. It is the attempt to 'scientifically' investigate sex/gender/sexuality that produces the so called truths it claims to 'discover', these categories are by no means given in nature.

So it appears that I was correct to suggest that the paper's content went over your head.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/10/2014 8:02:53 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 8:13:53 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

dcnovice, I'm not sure how you arrived at the view that I shared DK's pov. My impression was and still is that the paper's content went right over his head. As for the style, it's standard Humanities academic style - not my personal favourite but nonetheless easy enough to read by anyone as intellectually 'gifted' as DK would like us to believe he is.

You are entirely full of shit.

The paper's content is as far as it goes interesting, It of course could all be said in one sentence, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. That the author chose to go on at length and dress it up in the most impenetrable language possible was my major critique of the paper. You, as is your usual, made a completely unsupported claim about me. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention at all, which of course excludes you, would know that I am both fully aware of the existence of the broad array of human sexualities and my support for almost all of them.

Had you understood the paper you would have understood that it goes far deeper and beyond the minimalist claim that "human sexuality exists on a spectrum".

The paper's main points are:
*all our current orthodox categories of sex/gender/sexuality and "nature' are inadequate or not 'true'; and that furthermore;
*these categories are direct productions of the normative methods used to inquire into them. It is the attempt to 'scientifically' investigate sex/gender/sexuality that produces the so called truths it claims to 'discover', these categories are by no means given in nature.

So it appears that I was correct to suggest that the paper's content went over your head.

Like I said sexuality is a spectrum not a set of categories. Maybe if you understood what a spectrum was you wouldn't claim I misunderstood the paper. I just prefer conciseness and clear statements over attempts to obfuscate things.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 8:16:05 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Isnt the fact that being gay is not a choice...

I don't know of any effective method for changing gender preference. But nobody "chooses" either their genetic endowment or their formative environment, and there is nothing scientific about a claim that consequent social behaviors (whatever they may be) cannot be influenced because "those" people are just "born that way." Sexual attraction is a particularly complex phenomenon that goes way beyond gender preference. Some people find themselves repeatedly attracted to abusive partners who destroy their self-esteem. Should we tell them we're sorry, they were just "born that way"? If an individual wants to change, why deny them the attempt?

K.



Very simply, because 'reparative therapy' has been shown by the same basis they use for any treatment that it doesn't work, period. We wouldn't allow a therapist to use a dunking chair to 'scare the devil of homosexuality' out of someone, reparative therapy not only doesn't work (every study of it shows less than 5% of those undergoing it have any long term pattern of heterosexual relationships, I am talking even 5 years, which statistically falls into the level of crap treatment).Part of the reasons for the bans is we aren't talking adults, many of the states that have banned reparative therapy have done so because it was being used on children, generally by parents with the bible shoved up their ass who want their kid 'cured'. Not to mention that many of the so called reparative therapies are brutal, abusive and cult like. The major groups, the APA, The american medical association and so forth, all have called for it to be banned, that it isn't therapy but religious cult programming. The founder of Exodus International admitted the whole ex gay/reparative therapy thing was wrong, and has apologized for what it did to gays and lesbians.

There are all kinds of 'therapies' that are banned, because they are harmful or ineffective. Several years ago the guy who got homosexuality removed from the DSM back in the 70's, came out with a statement that reparative therapy could be useful for those 'strongly motivated enough' to want to do it. He later recounted, he admitted he used the testimony of 'ex gays' in coming out with that, and when he looked into the actual practice of the 'therapy', he said it was basically quack therapy. Put it this way, we don't allow people to buy antibiotics OTC, we don't allow people to use heroin or cocaine to 'treat' themselves, and the FDA does not allow 'cures' to claim they do anything if it can't be proven, and 'treatments' have been banned all over the place by law, for being either ineffective or harmful. One of the reasons to ban reparative therapy is that it is harmful, it not only doesn't 'cure' homosexuality, it also causes those undergoing it stress and it causes damage.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 8:20:26 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

To answer that question, do you remember when you chose to like girls? Do you remember when you decided that you'd want to be with a woman over a man? Ask a gay or lesbian that same question, and you'll get the same answer that you would probably say: "I never decided, I've been this way as long as I remember."

And if you say you did decide, then either you're lying, you're bisexual or you're a closet gay. I have never met a straight man or woman who has ever said they decided to be straight when he/she was younger. If a straight person doesn't choose to be straight, then why would it be logical to assume that gay people do?


You answered your own question in the bolded part which would explain why some are born that way and some choose it.


One comment on this, and it is important, that even for a bisexual certain things are not choices. Think about it, straight or gay, we don't choose who we are attracted to, or even more importantly, fall in love with. A bisexual might be attracted to both sexes, but odds are they fall for a certain someone of either the opposite sex or the same sex (or if poly, with more than 1 person). Bisexuals rarely say to themselves "hmm, tonight I am going to be attracted to a woman", any more than most people say "hmm, tonight I am going to be attracted to that woman in 6b and fall in love with her". It doesn't diminish the argument about either or, it simply says that a lot of what we do is not a choice when it comes to partners.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/10/2014 8:32:23 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

When the Republican party gets out of our bedrooms and back to running a lean government (like they were before Reagan) they will once again be the GRAND old party.

Until then, they'll just be a bunch of Bible thumping dumbasses.


Do you think that'll ever happen, HW?

To me, it's always seemed that the New Right *needs* its ultra-authoritarian, moral side. Without it, its neoliberal side couldn't work, because the neoliberal idea of ultra-freedom has no clear boundaries otherwise. Republican neoliberals love the notion of freedom in the economy - but that's where it must stop. They don't love the idea of freedom for people to - well, use violence to steal from a tycoon who's gained his vast wealth from the free market system - to give an example. And they don't love the idea of freedom for those who'd like to opt out of the free market system altogether.

The trouble is that the good old morals that kept people in check, and made them just *know* that the only real and true freedom was the freedom of the market, started to crumble a long time ago. During the Great War, if not before. Vietnam, it seemed, was the last straw (in your country, at least). Hippy ideas, anarchism, long hair, drop-outs - oh, no, no, no. That is *not* the freedom that should be encouraged. But the old-style conservative line - 'traditional values are always best' - no longer worked. It had been too clearly demonstrated to have been trashed. Nixon was the symbol of it.

So in order to revive that one, narrow idea of freedom as 'the only *real* idea of freedom' - the free market - you'd need a muscular dose of reaction on the social front. Dredge up some 19th century ideas of religion. Hell, dredge up some mediaeval ideas of morals. Whatever it takes to stop people thinking that freedom means anything other than the free market and the large bulk of the people cropping their hair, donning their crisp neat suits and ties and going in to work to keep the bloated billionaires in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

All right, rant over. I just wish that whenever some flatulent old twat in government or big in the media utters the word 'freedom', everyone who's watching has developed the tits or testicles to interrogate the meaning of it, that's all. ;-)


It actually is, David Brooks had a piece in the times about it, that conservatives are fighting the tea party stupidity, or worse, the whole ayn Rand cult of the rich that the GOP promotes as reality (ie that the rich create jobs, that there is this incredibly large group of 'parasites' living off the government, the infamous 47% and so forth), and actually coming up with ideas instead of the fruit loop, bible thumping and tea bagger bullshit the party has been running on. Basically, the John Birch society took over the GOP, and the rational conservatives are fighting back. Among other things, they aren't stupid, and they realize that the incredible disparity of wealth going to the very rich, that between the huge tax cuts and the crazy stockholder management we see driving the economy, that the middle class is going to rebel, and I am not talking the morons in the farm belt and down south with their Patriot movement crap, I am talking a middle class that can topple governments and kingdoms, they know that all the arguments about the top .5% being job creators and the like is bullshit, that greed has run rampant, and that the government is not the big problem, that greed is, and that markets don't operate rationally when they let greed drive them.

The GOP is going to need to change, because they have created a monster that is going to fail them. The older white men who make up so much of their base is dying off, and appealing to the farm belt and southerners with a mix of pseudo populism and coded racism isn't going to work. Put it this way, between the tea party and the bible thumpers the GOP has turned of a large majority of young people, and has turned independents against them. Sure, they have their base, but their base has the demographics that Oldsmobile had, and we know where that ended up. They have been riding wedge issues, they have been riding the whole tea party nonsense, they have been riding the education=elitism crap of Sarah Palin, and it is going to fail them, pure and simple. Every tea bagger that gets elected is going to hurt them nationally, and that is where it counts. They may have the south, they may have the farm belt, but guess what, they aren't the country, and by appealing to elmer the farmer (who of course gets nothing from the government *snort*(, or to the unreconstructed George Wallace former supporters, they have turned off young people big time. Put it this way, if young people today start voting, the GOP might be able to take mississippi, but that and a few places like it will be it. People don't like Obama, but his ratings are sky high compared to the GOP's approval ratings.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 4:40:52 AM   
chatterbox24


Posts: 2182
Joined: 1/22/2012
Status: offline
No tip toeing through the tulips here.
Plain and simple, lady or confused person, you have the nerve to disrespect Elmer the farmer, you call them, who not only feed our country but other countries? Your elephant mouth surpasses your canary ass. *snort snort snort*
So you think country people are dumb? They are not full of nonsense like you. They tend to get straight to the point. And they work hard. They don't spend their life trying to learn big words or have a need to think they look smart by googling.

As far as being gay a select few may have a natural tendency to be attracted to the same sex but it is also a choice.
I am left handed, only 10 to 15% of the population is, the majority are men. The percentage of women even smaller. It's my choice to stay left handed but if I choose to be right handed I could be. Btw 4 out of seven presidents have been left handed. It's a fact I could change hands if I wanted.
And southern people are stupid too? Wow, you truly need to wear the dumb cap of the day as someone thumps you on the head with a bible. And fix you some tea during.
Have fun with that opinion.
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

When the Republican party gets out of our bedrooms and back to running a lean government (like they were before Reagan) they will once again be the GRAND old party.

Until then, they'll just be a bunch of Bible thumping dumbasses.


Do you think that'll ever happen, HW?

To me, it's always seemed that the New Right *needs* its ultra-authoritarian, moral side. Without it, its neoliberal side couldn't work, because the neoliberal idea of ultra-freedom has no clear boundaries otherwise. Republican neoliberals love the notion of freedom in the economy - but that's where it must stop. They don't love the idea of freedom for people to - well, use violence to steal from a tycoon who's gained his vast wealth from the free market system - to give an example. And they don't love the idea of freedom for those who'd like to opt out of the free market system altogether.

The trouble is that the good old morals that kept people in check, and made them just *know* that the only real and true freedom was the freedom of the market, started to crumble a long time ago. During the Great War, if not before. Vietnam, it seemed, was the last straw (in your country, at least). Hippy ideas, anarchism, long hair, drop-outs - oh, no, no, no. That is *not* the freedom that should be encouraged. But the old-style conservative line - 'traditional values are always best' - no longer worked. It had been too clearly demonstrated to have been trashed. Nixon was the symbol of it.

So in order to revive that one, narrow idea of freedom as 'the only *real* idea of freedom' - the free market - you'd need a muscular dose of reaction on the social front. Dredge up some 19th century ideas of religion. Hell, dredge up some mediaeval ideas of morals. Whatever it takes to stop people thinking that freedom means anything other than the free market and the large bulk of the people cropping their hair, donning their crisp neat suits and ties and going in to work to keep the bloated billionaires in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

All right, rant over. I just wish that whenever some flatulent old twat in government or big in the media utters the word 'freedom', everyone who's watching has developed the tits or testicles to interrogate the meaning of it, that's all. ;-)


It actually is, David Brooks had a piece in the times about it, that conservatives are fighting the tea party stupidity, or worse, the whole ayn Rand cult of the rich that the GOP promotes as reality (ie that the rich create jobs, that there is this incredibly large group of 'parasites' living off the government, the infamous 47% and so forth), and actually coming up with ideas instead of the fruit loop, bible thumping and tea bagger bullshit the party has been running on. Basically, the John Birch society took over the GOP, and the rational conservatives are fighting back. Among other things, they aren't stupid, and they realize that the incredible disparity of wealth going to the very rich, that between the huge tax cuts and the crazy stockholder management we see driving the economy, that the middle class is going to rebel, and I am not talking the morons in the farm belt and down south with their Patriot movement crap, I am talking a middle class that can topple governments and kingdoms, they know that all the arguments about the top .5% being job creators and the like is bullshit, that greed has run rampant, and that the government is not the big problem, that greed is, and that markets don't operate rationally when they let greed drive them.

The GOP is going to need to change, because they have created a monster that is going to fail them. The older white men who make up so much of their base is dying off, and appealing to the farm belt and southerners with a mix of pseudo populism and coded racism isn't going to work. Put it this way, between the tea party and the bible thumpers the GOP has turned of a large majority of young people, and has turned independents against them. Sure, they have their base, but their base has the demographics that Oldsmobile had, and we know where that ended up. They have been riding wedge issues, they have been riding the whole tea party nonsense, they have been riding the education=elitism crap of Sarah Palin, and it is going to fail them, pure and simple. Every tea bagger that gets elected is going to hurt them nationally, and that is where it counts. They may have the south, they may have the farm belt, but guess what, they aren't the country, and by appealing to elmer the farmer (who of course gets nothing from the government *snort*(, or to the unreconstructed George Wallace former supporters, they have turned off young people big time. Put it this way, if young people today start voting, the GOP might be able to take mississippi, but that and a few places like it will be it. People don't like Obama, but his ratings are sky high compared to the GOP's approval ratings.


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 1:48:10 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

No tip toeing through the tulips here.
Plain and simple, lady or confused person, you have the nerve to disrespect Elmer the farmer, you call them, who not only feed our country but other countries? Your elephant mouth surpasses your canary ass. *snort snort snort*
So you think country people are dumb? They are not full of nonsense like you. They tend to get straight to the point. And they work hard. They don't spend their life trying to learn big words or have a need to think they look smart by googling.

As far as being gay a select few may have a natural tendency to be attracted to the same sex but it is also a choice.
I am left handed, only 10 to 15% of the population is, the majority are men. The percentage of women even smaller. It's my choice to stay left handed but if I choose to be right handed I could be. Btw 4 out of seven presidents have been left handed. It's a fact I could change hands if I wanted.
And southern people are stupid too? Wow, you truly need to wear the dumb cap of the day as someone thumps you on the head with a bible. And fix you some tea during.
Have fun with that opinion.

You need some help. Please get it.

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 2:01:22 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

It's my choice to stay left handed but if I choose to be right handed I could be.

Interesting parallel.

There was indeed a time when well-meaning folks forced us lefties to write with the "right" (in several senses) hand, but that stopped when people realized the psychological damage it did. King George VI's famous stammer, for instance, likely grew out of his being forced to switch writing hands.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 2:11:23 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

As far as being gay a select few may have a natural tendency to be attracted to the same sex but it is also a choice.

This might be the most idiotic thing ever posted in these forums, and that bar has been set very high indeed. Well done.

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 2:35:48 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: chatterbox24


Plain and simple, lady or confused person, you have the nerve to disrespect Elmer the farmer,

If elmer has a daughter then bring her out but otherwise elmer is a non starter.


you call them, who not only feed our country but other countries?

This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. Google could be your friend here. Disabuse yourself of your ignorance. find out who actually produces the food for amerika?


So you think country people are dumb?

You live in the country don't you? How many people think you are dumb?


They are not full of nonsense like you.

Like most everyplace there are some that are and some that are not.


They tend to get straight to the point.


Really???what the fuck does "that dawg won hunt" mean?
and ten zillion other sensless collections of words meant only to give thier mouths exercise just like city boys.



And they work hard.

Sitting in an airconditoned tractor being guided by gps while listening to their ipod ain't all that sweat producing.

I am left handed, only 10 to 15% of the population is, the majority are men. The percentage of women even smaller. It's my choice to stay left handed but if I choose to be right handed I could be.

If you could you would you dont so you cant.



It's a fact I could change hands if I wanted.

You already said that. Everyone knows how much fun it is to be left handed. Writing with your left hand means you have to practically stand on your head to see what the fuck you are writing. Everyone really enjoys having shit that only works for right handed people. Sam colt was left handed but then he was a fucking moron.

And southern people are stupid too?

Yup just like everywhere else, smart ones and people just like you and everything in between.


Wow, you truly need to wear the dumb cap of the day as someone thumps you on the head with a bible. And fix you some tea during.
Have fun with that opinion.


Your opinion that it is appropriate to use violence against those who disagree with you...shit we have known that for some time.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/11/2014 2:43:07 PM >

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 2:38:04 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

As far as being gay a select few may have a natural tendency to be attracted to the same sex but it is also a choice.

This might be the most idiotic thing ever posted in these forums, and that bar has been set very high indeed. Well done.


Stick around stef this moron only opens her mouth to change feet.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/11/2014 2:39:08 PM >

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 7:04:37 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

No tip toeing through the tulips here.
Plain and simple, lady or confused person, you have the nerve to disrespect Elmer the farmer, you call them, who not only feed our country but other countries? Your elephant mouth surpasses your canary ass. *snort snort snort*
So you think country people are dumb? They are not full of nonsense like you. They tend to get straight to the point. And they work hard. They don't spend their life trying to learn big words or have a need to think they look smart by googling.

As far as being gay a select few may have a natural tendency to be attracted to the same sex but it is also a choice.
I am left handed, only 10 to 15% of the population is, the majority are men. The percentage of women even smaller. It's my choice to stay left handed but if I choose to be right handed I could be. Btw 4 out of seven presidents have been left handed. It's a fact I could change hands if I wanted.
And southern people are stupid too? Wow, you truly need to wear the dumb cap of the day as someone thumps you on the head with a bible. And fix you some tea during.
Have fun with that opinion.
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

When the Republican party gets out of our bedrooms and back to running a lean government (like they were before Reagan) they will once again be the GRAND old party.

Until then, they'll just be a bunch of Bible thumping dumbasses.


Do you think that'll ever happen, HW?

To me, it's always seemed that the New Right *needs* its ultra-authoritarian, moral side. Without it, its neoliberal side couldn't work, because the neoliberal idea of ultra-freedom has no clear boundaries otherwise. Republican neoliberals love the notion of freedom in the economy - but that's where it must stop. They don't love the idea of freedom for people to - well, use violence to steal from a tycoon who's gained his vast wealth from the free market system - to give an example. And they don't love the idea of freedom for those who'd like to opt out of the free market system altogether.

The trouble is that the good old morals that kept people in check, and made them just *know* that the only real and true freedom was the freedom of the market, started to crumble a long time ago. During the Great War, if not before. Vietnam, it seemed, was the last straw (in your country, at least). Hippy ideas, anarchism, long hair, drop-outs - oh, no, no, no. That is *not* the freedom that should be encouraged. But the old-style conservative line - 'traditional values are always best' - no longer worked. It had been too clearly demonstrated to have been trashed. Nixon was the symbol of it.

So in order to revive that one, narrow idea of freedom as 'the only *real* idea of freedom' - the free market - you'd need a muscular dose of reaction on the social front. Dredge up some 19th century ideas of religion. Hell, dredge up some mediaeval ideas of morals. Whatever it takes to stop people thinking that freedom means anything other than the free market and the large bulk of the people cropping their hair, donning their crisp neat suits and ties and going in to work to keep the bloated billionaires in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

All right, rant over. I just wish that whenever some flatulent old twat in government or big in the media utters the word 'freedom', everyone who's watching has developed the tits or testicles to interrogate the meaning of it, that's all. ;-)


It actually is, David Brooks had a piece in the times about it, that conservatives are fighting the tea party stupidity, or worse, the whole ayn Rand cult of the rich that the GOP promotes as reality (ie that the rich create jobs, that there is this incredibly large group of 'parasites' living off the government, the infamous 47% and so forth), and actually coming up with ideas instead of the fruit loop, bible thumping and tea bagger bullshit the party has been running on. Basically, the John Birch society took over the GOP, and the rational conservatives are fighting back. Among other things, they aren't stupid, and they realize that the incredible disparity of wealth going to the very rich, that between the huge tax cuts and the crazy stockholder management we see driving the economy, that the middle class is going to rebel, and I am not talking the morons in the farm belt and down south with their Patriot movement crap, I am talking a middle class that can topple governments and kingdoms, they know that all the arguments about the top .5% being job creators and the like is bullshit, that greed has run rampant, and that the government is not the big problem, that greed is, and that markets don't operate rationally when they let greed drive them.

The GOP is going to need to change, because they have created a monster that is going to fail them. The older white men who make up so much of their base is dying off, and appealing to the farm belt and southerners with a mix of pseudo populism and coded racism isn't going to work. Put it this way, between the tea party and the bible thumpers the GOP has turned of a large majority of young people, and has turned independents against them. Sure, they have their base, but their base has the demographics that Oldsmobile had, and we know where that ended up. They have been riding wedge issues, they have been riding the whole tea party nonsense, they have been riding the education=elitism crap of Sarah Palin, and it is going to fail them, pure and simple. Every tea bagger that gets elected is going to hurt them nationally, and that is where it counts. They may have the south, they may have the farm belt, but guess what, they aren't the country, and by appealing to elmer the farmer (who of course gets nothing from the government *snort*(, or to the unreconstructed George Wallace former supporters, they have turned off young people big time. Put it this way, if young people today start voting, the GOP might be able to take mississippi, but that and a few places like it will be it. People don't like Obama, but his ratings are sky high compared to the GOP's approval ratings.




I don't disprespect elmer the farmer, what I disrespect is the farm state types who get huge benefits from the government, spouting the tea party nonsense how they pay for everyone else...take a look at the size of farm subsidies, then come back and tell me about how they get nothing. The farm states and the red states down south depend on the federal government for their economic health, most states down there get back several dollars for every dollar they send in. A lot of those states depend on federal dollars to fund their schools, they get a lot more money for roads and such then they pay into taxes, and the goes on, medicaid disbursements, medicare, social security, spending on defense, go disproportionately to these areas, and that is a fact. When as part of the budget negotiations to cut federal spending cuts in farm subsidies were put forth, the farm state people, who were all for cutting food stamps for poor people, wanted 10's of billions of dollars of subsidies returned to federal spending. And this, mind you, at a time when commodities prices are at record levels.....

As far as you being left handed, you cannot change what hand is your dominant hand. As much as you try, you won't be able to use your other hand as effectively as you use your dominant one, it is hard wired. Using you non dominant hand to do certain things would be a like a gay guy having sex with a woman, it wouldn't be enjoyable or particularly useful.

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 9:09:23 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
So it appears that I was correct to suggest that the paper's content went over your head.


Actually he's right, it's a given that any time one takes an analog spectrum and translates it to discrete categories there will be inaccuracy.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Talk about science denial - 6/11/2014 9:57:16 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
So you think country people are dumb? They are not full of nonsense like you. They tend to get straight to the point. And they work hard. They don't spend their life trying to learn big words or have a need to think they look smart by googling.


One needs accurate data to form accurate positions. Many have turned to the internet as an invaluable source for gaining access to data, if not the internet where do you get your data so that you won't be uninformed/misinformed about what's being discussed?

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Talk about science denial Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125