the real fallacy is that people who dislike h*mo practices and immorality
> supposedly are "homophobes".
> that's just another hate term used by the "progressives";disagree and
> you're a "phobe".the intent is to stifle free speech and free association.
Research says normal people aren't attracted to homoerotic material, but homophobic people are (and either deny it or don't want to admit it).
Tim
Umm...aren't liberals supposed to be opposed to blanket stereotypes?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
"Tim Williams" wrote in news:So9%l.77$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe01.iad:
people may not be attracted to that material,but they sure can be disgusted by it,and the h*mo behavior.They don't want to associate with it,and should not be forced to.
Also by the -much- greater rates of serious STD transmission by male homos. Just think if they were allowed to donate blood.
1000's of years of History has shown that h*mo behavior and practices are unhealthy and destructive.
Only if it's their ox that is gored ;-)
...Jim Thompson
Not in real life. There's a too-common contempt among liberals, especially coastal libs, for the plain people who live in flyover territory. It's the "What's Wrong with Kansas?" syndrome, indignation that some presumably ignorant rednecks have principles that make them "vote against their own interests."
This is interesting:
John
Yet evolution hasn't weeded it out; can you imagine a stronger culling factor than the failure to breed? So it must have a useful function.
John
Otherwise we'd breed a generation that would think voting for Obama was a good thing ;-)
...Jim Thompson
I saw that, but how many leftist statists admit that they're leftist statists?
If homophobia is a slur, shouldn't homophilia also be?
...is that a quilted blanket?
Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
That ASSumes that it's genetic.It's not. It also doesn't explain bisexuals(who -choose-),or people that go h*mo,then revert to normal and live the rest of their lives happily.(THEY regained their sanity.)
Evolution would not "breed out" mental illness. People are capable of really deluding themselves,to extremes.
This shows one of the advantages of applying engineering thinking to other problems. It may also show one of its pitfalls.
It also happens in dogs which are another "pack animal" so it looks like helping out the pack may be enough to improve the odds of the genes making it through. It also happens in penguins which I don't think has any such advantage.
On Jun 21, 1:51 pm, snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: [....]
[...]Also check out where that airline steward flew when he was on the job.
How does citing the implications of Darwinian selection constitute "engineering thinking"? Why didn't you call it "biologist thinking"?
Or just "thinking"?
John
Yes, "patient zero" was a Canadian airline steward.
Read Randy Shilts' superb book "And The Band Played On", about the early years of the Aids epidemic.
"HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character."
John
In , Jim Yanik wrote in part:
The infamous William Dannemayer effectively conceded 4%. I remember a counterpoint of his on a USA Today editorial page where he said, as best as I remember, his opposition to a government sex survey in part that it could say that 20% of everyone is gay, twice what the gays claim, 5-10 times reality.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
It's only one-dimensional. They've omitted the Statist/Libertarian axis.
Try this one:
Thanks, Rich
How many "right"ist statists admit that they're statists?
Thanks, Rich
True, but leftists are by definition statists.
Not necessarily:
Though, I find the above philosophy impossibly logically inconsistent.
This is clever:
No chance for me to score less than 100%!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required