Firestarter

... I find it depressing that you won't argue with me.

What a reeking pile of ignorant muddle-headed bullshit. Your inane hypothesis assumes that evolution is somehow directed; individual genes in individual organisms have NO concept of population stasis, replacement rates, or ecological equilibrium. Culture has nothing to do with evolution either. Homosexuality is not an "evolutionary advantage." It has nothing to do with evolution. The vast majority of animals which exhibit homosexual behaviour mate normally with the opposite sex; exclusive homosexuality is relatively rare, though not unknown by any means. Still, explaining away homosexual behaviour as an evolutionary means of population control is just as idiotic as assigning an awareness of metagroup interaction and population statistics to a genetic code. Kindly keep God out of science, and don't make assertions about evolution if you don't have the faintest clue what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, good. Just out of curiosity, what would you call separate but equal facilities for groups of people differentiated by gender, race, sexuality, or religion? Nice job of cropping and muddling a perfectly clear sentence and then taking offense at your intentional misinterpretation. Sure you're not Maureen Dowd? Mowbray clearly isn't a homophobe, despite your attempts to paint him with that brush. Let's take a look at the full sentence: "Taking scared, confused youths - many of whom may incorrectly believe they are gay or bisexual, just as many teens who later turn out to be gay or bisexual believe in high school that they are straight - and putting them into a segregated environment could be the equivalent of putting a lit match in a tinder box." You quoted only the part in italics, but the part in boldface puts your implicit accusation of homophobia to rest. Cut the demagoguery and argue on substance. If you can. Really? Don't you see how segregating people as a group can reinforce a reactive, bitter, us-against-them mentality? This "school" is a terrible idea. Gay people are as much a part of society as women, or blacks, or Jews. They neither need nor deserve special treatment of any kind. Giving them their own school isn't a triumph for "diversity" or "sensitivity" or "multiculturalism." It is a triumph for bigotry and defensiveness and apologetics. Nothing's happened to me, thanks. I still dislike O'Reilly immensely and a number of Coulter's claims just make me laugh (see McCarthy, Joe, and Hoover, J Edgar). That doesn't mean I'm so ideologically or emotionally blind that I'll refuse to see it when they make good points.

Gay Crime Syndicate? A disturbing but excellent column by Joel Mowbray. "[E]ight arrests out of 100 students in less than three months of existence are not numbers to be ignored. Maybe there's no connection between the gay school and the violent Starbucks attack and the serial robberies. But maybe there is. There's obviously nothing inherent to homosexuality that causes or leads to violent crime, but maybe there is something about a homosexual high school that does... Protecting kids who are getting picked on - or worse - is actually a noble goal. But why resort to the bigot's tool of segregation? Why not just teach gay teens how to beat the snot out of bullies? Wouldn't that be better preparation for life in general? What's a gay man or woman to do, for example, if a thug attacks? Run to a segregated area? Of course not. But self-defense training would seem essential in such a situation. When news broke this summer that Harvey Milk would become the first public school of its kind, Principal William Salzman said, 'This school will be a model for the country and possibly the world.' If the early results are any indication, let's hope not."

As for black parents' apathy towards their child's schoolwork, that comes from having MANY friends who entered the world of education and ALL have said, without fail, that when it comes time for parent-teacher conferences, black parents, by about a 95% rate thus far, are NEVER there. Should they call because they are worried about the problems the child is having in school, they can get nobody to even talk to them. "[A]n NAEP study of TV watching habits shows that almost half of black fourth graders spend five hours or more watching TV on a typical school day. Nearly a third of black twelfth graders watch five hours or more of TV a day. That's five times the proportion among whites and more than twice that for Hispanics... Harvard economist Ronald F. Ferguson's survey of students in 15 affluent school districts shows that black students 'were 20% less likely to complete their homework each night.' Ferguson also reports that nearly half of all black students state that most of the time they don't understand their reading assignments very well - nearly twice the rate of non-comprehension for white students... The Thernstroms also cite Laurence Steinberg's analysis regarding the "trouble threshold" - the lowest grade students can receive before getting in trouble with their parents. For Asian-American students, that point is an A-; for whites, a B-; and for blacks and Hispanics, a C-." - Peter Kirsanow on No Excuses

Then you're misinterpreting what I said. There's absolutely no evidence of any genetic cause for homosexual behaviour. I think it's entirely behavioural, but that isn't substantiated by any concrete evidence either. If you're trying to make a case for homosexuality being "scientifically unnatural," as SpiderPoet would have it, you're barking up the wrong tree. Homosexuality in animals is practically omnipresent, and neither the fact of evolution nor the theory of natural selection has anything to say about wrong or right. Science in general has nothing to say about wrong or right. There are only traits which make reproduction more likely or less likely. Homosexual behaviour does neither. Exclusively homosexual behaviour makes reproduction less likely, but that does not exist across any species; if it did, the species would cease to exist. And if exclusively homosexual behaviour were a genetic trait, or even a tendency, I would expect that tendency to diminish over time. However, simple observation proves that that has not occurred. Sorry to disappoint you, but sinners like me have always been around, and we'll probably be around for as long as life exists.

...which is about as coherent as the 9th Circuit ever gets.

Well, that would entail some sort of understanding of why any species engages in homosexual behaviour at all, and that isn't a question we have the answer to at this time.

What's the point of the question?

Get outta here!

Bumped, because I'm still waiting for an answer from SpiderPoet on this one. I'm easily amused by a piss-poor understanding of elementary science combined with theological convolutions so ridiculous they make selling the Pope's shit seem almost reasonable.

Oh good Lord, here we go again. HEY LOOK EVERYONE, MARNEY ATTACKED A CHRISTIAN! You're missing the point. As expected. Moore's beliefs are not the issue. The issue is a series of facts: 1) Moore used this exact same controversy to promote himself politically in 1995. He is doing the same thing now. He has a well-established and well-documented history of doing precisely this. 2) Whether or not Moore felt that the order to remove the monument was morally correct is irrelevant. "Pro-life" judges allow abortions every day. Judges who decry mandatory minimums still follow federal sentencing guidelines. Why? Because 3) Judges are bound to follow the law. Judges do not legislate from the bench. Judges interpret, apply, and strike down laws; they do NOT write them. In short, a judge's personal beliefs DO NOT MATTER. A decent judge would understand this. Moore is not a decent judge. He is a showman and a shameless self-promoting political hack who is prostituting a loud, belligerent, graceless faith for fifteen minutes of fame. One more time: If Moore felt the order to remove the monument was morally wrong or incompatible with his faith he would have been within his rights to resign or appeal (the latter of which he did, and he was rejected). He was NOT within his rights to refuse to obey a lawful order. His personal beliefs have no bearing on his duty to uphold the law as defined by the Constitution and by Congress. Do you get it now?

Nuke the Moon Finally, a plan for world peace that will really work.

You mean after oh say the last 12 years or so? Hilarious.

I have no idea what FBP was trying to say.

Or he could just want to be seen as a martyr. If he had any real faith he wouldn't be concerned about a statue. Unless he's an idolater. He's a single-issue publicity whore; a few years ago, he pulled exactly the same shit in order to divide people both as Christians and as citizens, and to get his name in the paper. Faith has nothing to do with it; Moore is purely and simply an ambitious, unscrupulous, and deceitful opportunist. A man of faith would have resigned rather than follow an order he truly considered illegal, but Moore set himself up above the law and used the issue to hurl himself onto the national stage. Faith? Don't give me that. He's a cheap scam artist and nothing more. It's not surprising that SP appreciates his bullshit.

Some more so than others. It's a question of degree. I'm not saying that nothing of the sort can ever happen here, but with its constitutional basis, freedom of speech, transparent procedures, accountable institutions, and finely tuned system of checks and balances, the US is unarguably far less susceptible to corruption, injustice, and evil than authoritarian regimes such as Communist China, Stalinist Russia, or Moslem Saudi Arabia. But throughout history, religious regimes have caused great suffering. It's the nature of revelation - how can anyone dissent from the word of God? Once you're convinced that you're privy to divine truth, argument is futile and compromise meaningless. Since Moslem countries usually enforce revelatory laws (the Shariah &c), and since the Koran's rules reach into practically every aspect of people's lives and social structure, Moslem countries inevitably tend towards totalitarianism and repression. And that leads to corruption, injustice, and evil. QED

Or not.

drunk drunk drunk drunk drunk wahahaha wheeeeee That is all.

BDC already took care of this one. Have you taken a poll? Quite true. And as a result, they are barbaric, vicious, ignorant, filthy, vile, and downright loony. I agree, but don't be too confident: - My Name is Adolf Most are.

I'll consider it.

At least I can safely say that I haven't and never will. Ditto. And Watch your language. This isn't NHB.

CNN story Okay, I hate Wal-Mart as much as anyone, but what the fuck? "Discrimination" against ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS is illegal? So what, are we going to start arresting UCIS officers who deport ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS because they're discriminating in favour of law-abiding immigrants and law-abiding citizens?

There's something wrong with both of you. You're hallucinating. You're delusional. Pitifully delusional. There is no "Sandro." Stop talking about this. Just stop it. Go away.

No there isn't. Stop saying that.