Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 51 of 51
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    45,088
    Quote Originally Posted by PatsFan2003 View Post
    I have faith in mankind figuring out how to reproduce.
    Pfft, it's national masturbation month. Can extinction be far behind?
    "the blade itself incites to violence." - Homer

    --

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - Kung fu Monkey

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    20,105
    Quote Originally Posted by PatsFan2003 View Post
    I have faith in mankind figuring out how to reproduce.
    Walsh talking out both sides of his mouth. Again.
    Tell me where the bomb is or I will kill your son.

    "Responsibility without conviction is weak, but it is sane. Conviction without responsibility, in the current incarnation of the Republican Party, is raving mad."

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    'Philly'
    Posts
    54,783
    Quote Originally Posted by JackBauer View Post
    Walsh talking out both sides of his mouth. Again.
    A double entrance of an orifice. Interesting. Blew me away.
    I promise I won't do it again

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Stephens City, VA
    Posts
    25,304
    Quote Originally Posted by thelittlecheese View Post
    DAYUM! Houston, I think we solved the problem! It's impossible to argue with those numbers. It's staggering and at the same time sad that so many children have had to live in poverty and crime because so many grown adults can't manage their lives correctly.
    Yeah, and its a point that everyone seems to be tap dancing around to some degree... Unless we're settling on the fact that it is a, "Chicken vs. Egg" argument and leaving it at that?

    But when you have the Bill Cosbys of the world constantly preaching that black fathers need to be more responsible for their offspring, it shows that some do acknowledge this as a root cause of poverty in their community and the resulting inability to improve one's lot in life from generation to generation....

    This isn't to say there isn't a multitude of other reasons that play into it, but this has to be one of, if not, THE biggest...
    "Yeah, everything that guy just said is Bullsh!t..... Thank you.." -Vincent LaGuardia Gambini-

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Oak Cliff
    Posts
    21,752
    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    I would think that heterosexuality SHOULD remain normal, otherwise we're going to die out pretty quickly when we're left with dudes putting penises in buttholes and women eating fish tacos and wondering why kids aren't popping out.
    "Heteronormativity" is not concerned with data, it is concerned with ideology. Despite your absurd warnings about the dire consequences of everyone going gay, most people will remain primarily heterosexual. What needs to go away is the rigid gender, sexuality, and family roles that usurp a person's personal experience for the sake of societal comfort.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    Wasn't it something about teaching a man to fish vs. giving him fish?

    Isn't it better to improve someone's entire life and help them reach their potential, rather than patting them on the head and saying "Here's some stuff?"
    Great! I assume you will be supporting job training programs, reparations, universal child care, expanded family leave, mandated vacation time, universal health care. All of these things give a person freedom to go fishing. But since you're really full of **** and don't want to do a goddamn thing to help anyone, I'll just try to give people money instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    Just trying to adhere to the "Throw the person's post history in their face" routine around here. Sort of like this-
    I have no problem with an honest question about past posting and how that coheres with a current argument. However, I did not make any assertions about how heteronormativity intersects with poverty, which means that you just brought it up to distract and dismiss substantive arguments. Or you're just being a dick.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    So you admit that 2-parent households are better than single-parent households as it pertains to childrearing.

    Tell me again why you rail against "heteronormativity" and "gender constructs" and the old stay-at-home mom structure (patriarchal abomination!) that feminism helped to destroy?
    I don't rail against them. I only ask that they not be considered the defaults that constrain a person's choices. That is, if people choose to live within those constructs, I have no problem with that. I would like to see more critical inquiry as to why they would choose that and whether or not it is really a free choice. Further, I reject the notion that "stay-at-home moms" are some secret to parenting success. A stay-at-home dad is just as good. I reject these gender-based distinctions. Research shows that two parents who work 60 combined hours outside the home is ideal, regardless of how that is divided.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    Special pleading. I don't mistake cause and effect either. If you have two parents who are married before having kids, stay married, and provide gender role models for the kid (even if one is working a lot), the odds of that child being raised in poverty or growing up to have children raised in poverty is greatly lessened.
    I only question the gender roles. They add nothing to the equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    Now, are you out there promoting stable family structures and patriarchal family units in the black community? Are you fighting against racist minimum sentencing laws, drug laws, are you fighting against the social programs enacted by LBJ ("I'll have those n****ers voting Democratic for the next hundred years") which only attempt to keep a segment of our culture barely fed, rather than helping them to break the chains of a more insidious type of government-dependent slavery?
    1) I make a point not to tell disenfranchised people how to live their lives. Instead, I look at their lives and ask what I might learn from their struggles. "Compassionate curiosity" rather than "suspicious scrutiny." IOW, I try not to be a dick. YMMV.

    2) I fight against minimum sentencing laws and drug laws. That you lump in social welfare programs with those says more about you than it does about reality. That said, I would like to see those programs reformed so that they don't create perverse effects that keep people in poverty rather than lifting them out of poverty. That probably means spending more money. Glad you're on board!

    The rest is not worth responding to.

    And, BTW, go **** yourself for saying that I don't care about poverty because I actually want to do something about it in contrast to your experimentation with social evolution. (Yeah, I know: abortion, blah, blah, blah. Again, go **** yourself and the tangents you rode in on.)
    "And if there is nothing that can so hide the face of our fellow-man as morality can, religion can hide from us as nothing else can the face of God." -- Martin Buber

    "You do not like religion; we started from that assumption. But in conducting an honest battle against it, which is not completely without effort, you do not want to have fought against a shadow like the one with which we have struggled." -- Friedrich Schleiermacher

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    17,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Pink Monkey View Post
    "Heteronormativity" is not concerned with data, it is concerned with ideology. Despite your absurd warnings about the dire consequences of everyone going gay, most people will remain primarily heterosexual. What needs to go away is the rigid gender, sexuality, and family roles that usurp a person's personal experience for the sake of societal comfort.
    Oh yeah? Why does it need to go away? Says who? You? And if everyone engaged in individualism, in having the maximum super-awesome personal experience, wouldn't you need to get rid of government? Don't societies establish governments, laws, don't cultures have traditions, rituals, by which people behave in a manner that is conducive to the greater good, and not that individual person's desire to engage in sexual deviancy?

    Do you really think that by pretending that everything is relative, or that there is no absolute truth or absolute morality, that you can somehow craft a world full of ignorance that would go along with such a plan contrary to their own human nature and intuition?

    Like gay sex is just as "good" or "natural" as hetero sex, it's just different............. even if you insulated everyone from any dissenting views on the subject, and trained little kids from day 1 to believe it, they would still reject it because we all know in our hearts that it's bullcrap.

    Great! I assume you will be supporting job training programs, reparations, universal child care, expanded family leave, mandated vacation time, universal health care. All of these things give a person freedom to go fishing. But since you're really full of **** and don't want to do a goddamn thing to help anyone, I'll just try to give people money instead.
    You'll pat them on the head and continue to use them in your quest to feel and seem important. And what kind of pastor drops "gd" as much as you do? I don't like hearing it, I certainly don't like seeing it, and it's really pathetic that it comes from somebody who preaches to people and pretends to understand the Bible.

    I have no problem with an honest question about past posting and how that coheres with a current argument. However, I did not make any assertions about how heteronormativity intersects with poverty, which means that you just brought it up to distract and dismiss substantive arguments. Or you're just being a dick.
    You went to the well first. Don't cry like a little baby when I give some back.

    I don't rail against them. I only ask that they not be considered the defaults that constrain a person's choices. That is, if people choose to live within those constructs, I have no problem with that. I would like to see more critical inquiry as to why they would choose that and whether or not it is really a free choice. Further, I reject the notion that "stay-at-home moms" are some secret to parenting success. A stay-at-home dad is just as good. I reject these gender-based distinctions. Research shows that two parents who work 60 combined hours outside the home is ideal, regardless of how that is divided.
    1) They are defaults for a reason- because it works, has worked for thousands of years, and no matter how smart or super-awesome you think you are, or what wonderful insights you think you have into the world and how it works, you are fighting an uphill battle against everything that almost every society ever has agreed on- social structure starts with THE FAMILY and THE FAMILY is father+mother+kid(s). When civilizations abandon that, they begin the downhill slope into destruction. Maybe you don't understand history, maybe you don't know how many times this cycle has been repeated, but your opinions on this subject aren't so different than some pompous windbag from ancient Rome who probably suggested the same crap and boo-hooed about those oppressive social constructs causing people to "default" to forming a traditional family. Maybe he cried enough that he got his way. Maybe people thought he was smart and were real impressed with him. The outcome was the same as always- that civilization ended up accepting widespread divorce, devalued life (abortion legalized), began to accept widespread homosexuality, and in no time the whole civilization was ruined and a new one took its place- and guess what? IT WAS A PATRIARCHAL, RELIGIOUS, FAMILY-ORIENTED SOCIETY THAT PROSPERED FROM THE ASHES OF THE STUPID MORONIC IDEAS THAT YOU ARE ESPOUSING.

    2) What research? Link to it. Don't make hot-air assertions. Sort of like how anyone who has read "Family and Civilization" can vouch for exactly what I just asserted. Since you and probably everyone else who argues with me on this message board can't be bothered to read it and educate yourselves, let me quote someone else who has read it-

    According to this research, eight specific patterns of domestic behavior have signaled the downward spiral and imminent demise of every culture:

    Marriage lost its sacredness; it was frequently broken by divorce.

    Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony was lost. Alternate forms and definitions of marriage arose, and traditional marriage vows were replaced by individual marriage contracts.

    Feminist movements appeared, and women lost interest in child bearing and mothering, preferring to pursue power and influence.

    Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased.

    Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerated

    People with traditional marriages refused to accept family responsibilities.

    Desire for and acceptance of adultery grew.

    Increased tolerance for sexual perversions of all kinds, particularly homosexuality, with a resultant increase in sex-related crimes.
    http://www.case-studies.com/nation-in-decline

    And I'm sure that some of those things you would not only advocate for, but would be out there in the streets with your pompoms. If you want to cheerlead the car going into the ditch, I'm free to tell you how stupid that is and point out that EVERY OTHER TIME EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY the car has gone in the ditch when we take your stupid suggestions and implement them. Think this time is different? Think you're soooooo much more advanced and enlightened than anyone who has lived before you?

    I only question the gender roles. They add nothing to the equation.
    Maybe you should stop posting "gd" on the internet, telling people to "**** themselves" on the internet, and spend a few days reading about childhood development.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/206316.pdf
    http://udini.proquest.com/view/emoti...id:1872905041/

    Kids NEED gender role models of BOTH sexes. To pretend otherwise is simply put, STUPID.

    1) I make a point not to tell disenfranchised people how to live their lives. Instead, I look at their lives and ask what I might learn from their struggles. "Compassionate curiosity" rather than "suspicious scrutiny." IOW, I try not to be a dick. YMMV.
    The only place many of these groups of people are marginalized happens to be in conversations among faux-intellectual white liberals. It's actually presumed out of the gate that various groups (gays, women, blacks, etc) are disenfranchised, when in reality, they have the SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE. Sort of like how VoterID laws are viewed as "racist" by a bunch of racists who stereotype black people as being too dumb/poor/ignorant to get a Photo ID if they don't have one already in order to vote.

    2) I fight against minimum sentencing laws and drug laws. That you lump in social welfare programs with those says more about you than it does about reality. That said, I would like to see those programs reformed so that they don't create perverse effects that keep people in poverty rather than lifting them out of poverty. That probably means spending more money. Glad you're on board!
    Those social programs ("spend more money") exist in order to entrap a demographic of voters so that Democrats can remain in power. The war on poverty has been a colossal failure, we could have just given everyone a check for tens of thousands of dollars if we hadn't tried to feed people fish through the government. Some safety nets are necessary. Others are simply a way to erode work ethic, self-worth, and establish a culture of cyclic dependency. Which you support on one hand, while railing against "systems of power" on the other.

    And, BTW, go **** yourself for saying that I don't care about poverty because I actually want to do something about it in contrast to your experimentation with social evolution. (Yeah, I know: abortion, blah, blah, blah. Again, go **** yourself and the tangents you rode in on.)
    You stay classy, pastor.
    “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” -Gandhi

    Rational skepticism is not the same thing as being a conspiracy theorist.

    Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream. -Muggeridge

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.