Total posts: [15,599] 1 ... 332 333 334 335 336 338 339 340 341 342 ... 624
LGBT Rights and Religion:
Like this, but brown.Ach, I've said before, the family does not have the right. Just like, for example, you don't have the right not to have a KKK parade march downtown. The KKK does not have to water down its views because it makes black people feel uncomfortable. But that doesn't mean it's not in bad taste. Which you've already said you don't care about, and all I can say to that is that I doubt if a well-known homosexual gay rights activist died, I still think people would be upset if someone said all the same things I suggested WBC might say about a gay teen who committed suicide. I think most people, even if the guy was in the middle of the national spotlight, would think it in bad taste to say that, "Thank God that fag is burning in hell" even if they thought he was legitimately burning in hell. Not because they don't want the message spread; it could be someone like Starship, who disapproves of homosexuality, but even he would think, "Well, this isn't the right way to do it; his family is still grieving." That's all. I have said my piece on this - I'm not asking you not to respond to me, because that would be horrendously unfair for me to say, "And now that I've said my piece we are done with this." But I think this is the last time I'm going to respond to this particular subject. By the way, that's not a snub to you - I've found the conversation enjoyable. It's just that my point is simply, "This is in bad taste, " and you have already said you don't care, so we're just gonna keep going around in circles.
THIS IS A PSA: As of 1/1/13 there is a 1-year moratorium on No Pants Thursdays. Instead, we shall celebrate No Pants 2013.
NCC - 1701I must say I'm rather torn on this. I live by the rule of "if you can't handle my honest opinion perhaps you shouldn't ask me for it." But I get the point that sometimes well, we're the better (wo)men. And as such we display a degree of class. But Vericrat, I have to ask, why are you in favor of showing grace to Falwell's legacy? He was a class-A cunt as Ach pointed out. And you are known in these parts for being zero-bullshit. I mean, if Hitler died in the late 2000's and someone interviewed....well, anybody....on CNN, we'd be uncomfortable if someone didn't call him the greatest pile of horseshit the Earth ever produced. Off-topic, I didn't forget your question from yesterday in the Gay Rights in America thread, and will posting a response shortly.
It was an honor
......Wasn't that line from X-Men spoken by Magneto? Is that really who you want to base your personal philosophy off of, the big villain of the story?
Slowly dying on the insideThere are worse villains to base a philosophy upon; and aside from who said it, it's a good line.
Once the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to cast their vote. - Ambassador Kosh
NCC - 1701Well, Kay42day did call me the Villain Protagonist of the Homosexuality threads. Actually, the line was first spoken by Charles Xavier to Erik when discussing why mutantkind should still use their gifts to protect a humanity that hates and distrusts them. I find a parallel to Vericrat's views on showing courtesy to your deceased foes. Additionally, I always respected Magneto when he was played by Ian McKellen, but when Michael Fassbender played him in First Class I damn near became a fan. He does the villain you feel sorry for FAR better than Hayden Christansen ever did.
It was an honor
Evil TricksterPersonal favorite and most relevant quote from Xavier and Magneto: "The world needs dreamers to give it a soul" "And it needs realists to keep it alive" (They where discussing the eventual possibility of equal 'human-mutant-relations' and the idea of the Brotherhood and X-Men working together)
edited 1st Feb '13 6:41:38 PM by LMage
"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"
...Hm, I will have to re-watch the film, it seems. And Hayden Christensen did an excellent job of making me feel sorry for watching the film. That's close, isn't it?
Hasn't anyone considered that the APA and any other "scientific authority" who claim homosexuality is perfectly OK and in no way a psychological disorder or curable condition are simply lying?
Queen of FoxesWhy? What would the medical profession (which makes its living treating illnesses) stand to gain by pretending a disease isn't really a disease?
edited 2nd Feb '13 5:52:14 AM by Morgikit
Nya Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
Why wouldn't you want to tip the equilibrium of such a hot-button social issue? The Scientific community isn't really all that objective. It changes it's views based largely on the currant demographics of it's membership. If most scientists and psychologists weren't liberal college boys we'd probably be getting some very "facts" from these organizations. A scientist is a human being, he is capable of deceit, especially if it can tip the course of the future in his favor. If people didn't lie just because it ran contrary to their job description then we wouldn't have dirty cops. So in answer to your question, everyone has a reason to lie if it furthers an agenda they are part of or sympathize with, and there's no shortage of people in academia today who sympathize with the homosexual cause.
31 Arguments against gay marriage and why they are all BS.
Queen of FoxesFine. Humans are liars. They're also very greedy. If the psychiatric industry really believed homosexuality was a disease, why would they pretend it doesn't exist instead of claiming to have the cure, thus making assloads of money? Also, that.
edited 2nd Feb '13 8:32:07 AM by Morgikit
Nya Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
Hasn't anyone considered that the APA and any other "scientific authority" who claim homosexuality is perfectly OK and in no way a psychological disorder or curable condition are simply lying?No, because that would be an incredibly stupid and conspiracy theory laden argument, that failed to stand up to even a rudimentary understanding of the world.
edited 2nd Feb '13 8:41:19 AM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "A nuclear powered magnet death ball is perfectly scientifically possible." ~ Discar
Hasn't anyone considered that the APA and any other "scientific authority" who claim homosexuality is perfectly OK and in no way a psychological disorder or curable condition are simply lying?Anybody that believes otherwise is free to perform their own studies and submit them for peer review.
From what I understand, Before the APA removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders they faced unrelenting pressure to do so. The overall point I'm trying to make is that "logic" may seem to support certain leftist ideas because the left is largely in a position to dictate what our currant definition of logic is.
NCC - 1701"They're not lying because, well, that's stupid to think so" isn't even remotely a cohesive retort to Albor's legitimate question. To pretend that the scientific community, which has its rivalries, secrets, and members all trying to distinguish themselves and compete with another, are somehow less prone to manipulation of facts and misrepresentation than the law enforcement community, the political community, the sports community, the religious community, and any other group of human beings is fantastically naive. Now as Morgikit points out, we have to ask what benefit can possibly come from lying. My personal opinion; none. But then I don't think most scientists, human behavioral experts, or psychologists are liars. This is consistent with other groups like politicians, militaries, lobbyists, corporations, et al. Dog Raping Villainy and Chaotic Evil aren't super popular character alignments. The majority of people in any vocation want to do their jobs and go home. I believe a good many want to make a difference. However, yes, as Albor points out, scientists and pyschologists are not beyond Confirmation Bias. None of us are. I believe many psychologists belief discrimination is wrong and thus they'd lean toward research that would debunk discrimination. I believe many of them are generally antipathetic or at least highly skeptical of religion, and thus would cleave to an interpretation that would subvert religious teaching. As gay rights becomes the big thing, it's not so difficult to imagine that more and more newly trained scientists would grow up believing it's a normal thing that can't and shouldn't be changed.
Anybody that believes otherwise is free to perform their own studies and submit them for peer review.Funny you say that. Many scientists, including the original head of the APA questions this belief that orientation expression can't be controlled. And many studies that "prove" it can't be changed have been called into question precisely because they results couldn't be replicated.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:14:17 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor
Hasn't anyone considered that God and other "divine authorities" were invented by men as a means of controlling other people? Does it strike anyone as odd that there are people who claim to be freethinkers because they reject science, yet they accept religious dogma without so much as giving it the slightest amount of critical thought? The hypocrisy here is just stunning.
I'm thinking that scientific findings casting doubt on religion have inspired skepticism, rather than the other way around.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:16:49 AM by Robotnik
Confirmation Bias. It took questing minds to ask the hard questions and challenge orthodoxy. If the "homosexuality as societal plague" was untrue then, why should it be true now, especially as nobody has ever produced a convincing defense of it on its own merits. If you have evidence that scientists are suppressing anti-homosexual facts, why not write a book about it, send it to the Washington Post, and collect your Pulitzer prize?
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:19:58 AM by Achaemenid
NCC - 1701
Hasn't anyone considered that God and other "divine authorities" were invented by men as a means of controlling other people? Does it strike anyone as odd that there are people who claim to be freethinkers because they reject science, yet they accept religious dogma without so much as giving it the slightest amount of critical thought? The hypocrisy here is just stunning.Hilarity, no one could've put this better.
If you have evidence that scientists are suppressing anti-homosexual facts, why not write a book about it, send it to the Washington Post, and collect your Nobel prize.Well, when you have a not insignificant number of people who've openly stated they've successfully cracked their homosexual inclinations and you get a near unanimous wave of "They don't count" or "They not real homosexuals" it seems unlikely unearthing proof of malfeasance is going to do the trick. That I don't think any such burying of info has happened. This ain't The Da Vinci Code you know.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:24:16 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor
I'm pretty sure science is continually subjected to critical thought; that's why it deserves to be taken seriously. Only theories that have withstood laborious experimentation and new knowledge gained with time can be accepted.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:23:35 AM by Robotnik
France approves gay marriage article. The debate on the rest of the bill is going to take a while, but at least that bit's through.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:26:35 AM by Achaemenid
NCC - 1701It would be nice if that's how it worked out. But alas it isn't. Science has yielded some rather suspect theories that gained traction and were ran with to the hills. The structure of the negro brain, the lack of a connection between nicotine and lung cancer, the evils of cholesterol. Honestly, one could write a book about the number of times flawless science.....wasn't so flawless.
It was an honor
NCC - 1701"The mark of an independent mind is not what it thinks, but how."
It was an honor
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.