First time for everything
-
@morbiuswilters said:
However, we're all on the same ship and we are rapidly taking on water and will soon disappear beneath the cold, inky waves. It kind of sucks being one of the few people who notices we are capsizing even as most people argue over how the furniture should be arranged on the deck.
Don't despair too much. We who work hard and smart are winners. Winners don't give up because of one election. We win no matter what, because we are winners.
BTW, I endorse everying morbius says in this thread, although I think that he went a little easy on element[0].
-
@tster said:
We who work hard and smart are winners.
What is this "we" you speak of? I've never seen you at the meetings.
-
@amischiefr said:
Man, you guys have meetings? We losers just meet up on the streets after work and drink the beer we brewed in the gutter in the hopes that this will be the night when we don't wake up again after passing out face-down in the snow.@tster said:
We who work hard and smart are winners.
What is this "we" you speak of? I've never seen you at the meetings.
-
@bstorer said:
@amischiefr said:
Man, you guys have meetings? We losers just meet up on the streets after work and drink the beer we brewed in the gutter in the hopes that this will be the night when we don't wake up again after passing out face-down in the snow.@tster said:
We who work hard and smart are winners.
What is this "we" you speak of? I've never seen you at the meetings.
I have a day for that. It's called "weekdays".
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I am annoyed at that "African-American" term in general. It's one thing to avoid racist terms like "nigger", but what's wrong with "black person"? I remember that back in 2005, our then-president Fox said about the Mexican immigrants in the US that "they were doing jobs that not even the blacks want to do". While everyone in Mexico understood the context, it caused an uproar with the NAACP. It seems that even saying "black" seems to be banned now. By the way, negro (black) is not used as a racial attack; however trabajar como negro (work like a black) conveys the meaning of overworking.To me, at least, it seems not being racist means judging each person as an individual and not by their race. I can't tell you how much I hate when black Americans are called "Africans". They are American, for fuck's sake! Their families have been here longer than most of ours!
I think one of Obama's key points was that he didn't brag on his "African" heritage, he broke with that "my brothers are in pain" cliché. Even if the media did give the campaign a racial spin, Obama himself didn't. No statements about practicing Kwanzaa, no talk about African ancestors.
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
No statements about practicing Kwanzaa
That would certainly have been odd, as he is a Christian.
-
@belgariontheking said:
@danixdefcon5 said:
No statements about practicing Kwanzaa
That would certainly have been odd, as he is a Christian.
-
@belgariontheking said:
That doesn't stop these guys from stating otherwise. In fact, I was laughing when I checked that this article stated that "Obama would be sworn in with the Koran".@danixdefcon5 said:
No statements about practicing Kwanzaa
That would certainly have been odd, as he is a Christian.
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
@belgariontheking said:
That doesn't stop these guys from stating otherwise. In fact, I was laughing when I checked that this article stated that "Obama would be sworn in with the Koran".@danixdefcon5 said:
No statements about practicing Kwanzaa
That would certainly have been odd, as he is a Christian.The really odd thing is that sweaing on the Qur'an has no tradition in Islam. For one thing, Muslims are explicitly permitted to lie if it serves Islam. The "swearing on a Qur'an" thing is an imitation of the Christian tradition of swearing on the Bible and it seems many Muslim clerics consider it nearly heretical.
-
@belgariontheking said:
@danixdefcon5 said:
No statements about practicing Kwanzaa
That would certainly have been odd, as he is a Christian.I don't see how him being a Christian has anything to do with him celebrating or not celebrating Kwanzaa... Kwanzaa is not religious in nature.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@danixdefcon5 said:
these guys
What the fuck is that site?
It's like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica, but less funny. And with more racism.
-
-
@tster said:
I don't see how him being a Christian has anything to do with him celebrating or not celebrating Kwanzaa... Kwanzaa is not religious in nature.
Only if you don't consider communism a religion.
-
@boomzilla said:
@tster said:
I don't see how him being a Christian has anything to do with him celebrating or not celebrating Kwanzaa... Kwanzaa is not religious in nature.
Only if you don't consider communism a religion.Kwanzaa is Communist? I had no idea. Then again, I'm pretty sure Kwanzaa had no idea. I actually think it's more racist than Communist, to be honest. A holiday that honors a specific race and consists of dressing up in funny clothes and lighting stuff on fire? It sounds like the KKK, really.
-
Same-sex couples cannot reproduce naturally, hence the union is not natural. OK, so you're saying that older couples and infertile couples have an "unnatural" union?
Normalizing abnormal behavior tends to increase the prevelance of the behavior. Being gay is "abnormal" the same way being left-handed is abnormal - it's a rare behavioral variant. Being gay is no better or worse than being straight.
There is value in children having both a mother and a father figure at home. There is also value in having two loving adults bringing up a child regardless of the gender of those adults. There are no studies that have proven that a male/female couple is intrinsically better than a same gender couple in bringing up kids - it's more a function of how good the parenting is. A stable, kind gay couple is better for kids than a couple of drunken heterosexuals.
If you can have gay marriages, then you need polygamist marriages as well. And that is bad why? As long as polygamy takes place between consenting adults (no child marriages or forced marriages), it has proven to be a viable type of marriage in some cultures.
-
@AMerrickanGirl said:
Same-sex couples cannot reproduce naturally, hence the union is not natural. OK, so you're saying that older couples and infertile couples have an "unnatural" union?
infertility is a defect (something is broken). Are you really wanting to compare gay people to infertile people? Are you saying they have a defect?
@AMerrickanGirl said:
Normalizing abnormal behavior tends to increase the prevelance of the behavior. Being gay is "abnormal" the same way being left-handed is abnormal - it's a rare behavioral variant. Being gay is no better or worse than being straight.
Left-handedness has been linked toa specific gene and is therefore inherited. I have yet to see any evidence that homosexuality is inherited.
@AMerrickanGirl said:
There is value in children having both a mother and a father figure at home. There is also value in having two loving adults bringing up a child regardless of the gender of those adults. There are no studies that have proven that a male/female couple is intrinsically better than a same gender couple in bringing up kids - it's more a function of how good the parenting is. A stable, kind gay couple is better for kids than a couple of drunken heterosexuals.
my assertion was never that every straight couple would be better than every gay couple. I'm saying simply that there is value in having a mother and father at home. I haven't seen any good studies that conclude the opposite mainly because it's a tricky thing to study. How do you compare the lives of two people? Who do you compare someone raised by a gay couple to (a child raised by straight biological parents, a child raised by straight adoptive parents, a child raised by 1 biological parent and 1 adoptive parent). If you are comparing adoptive parents it gets even trickier (Where the gay couples that adopted more thouroughly vetted because they were gay?)
@AMerrickanGirl said:
If you can have gay marriages, then you need polygamist marriages as well. And that is bad why? As long as polygamy takes place between consenting adults (no child marriages or forced marriages), it has proven to be a viable type of marriage in some cultures.
If you bothered to actually read what I wrote you would have realized that I am pro-polygamist marriages.
-
@tster said:
my assertion was never that every straight couple would be better than every gay couple. I'm saying simply that there is value in having a mother and father at home. I haven't seen any good studies that conclude the opposite mainly because it's a tricky thing to study. How do you compare the lives of two people? Who do you compare someone raised by a gay couple to (a child raised by straight biological parents, a child raised by straight adoptive parents, a child raised by 1 biological parent and 1 adoptive parent). If you are comparing adoptive parents it gets even trickier (Where the gay couples that adopted more thouroughly vetted because they were gay?)
Although I agree in theory, there have been significant psychological studies showing that children raised by a stable homosexual couple turn out just as healthy as children raised by a stable heterosexual couple. Obviously unstable couples usually result in less psychologically healthy children, but there are plenty of unstable heterosexual couples so it certainly is not a problem isolated to homosexual couples. Even stable, good single parents tend to have less psychologically healthy children, which is just a fact of basic child psychology. Therefore even moderately-stable homosexual parents should be preferred to unstable heterosexual parents or a single-parent situation.
-
@tster said:
Are you saying [gay people] have a defect?
Yes, but it's a non-issue, so do any of you have new material to put on the table?
