Glee: Sex, Songs and Sleaze
The popular show 'Glee' has caused a stir with lesbian fantasies, gay kissing, teen pregnancy and racy photos of the actors - the new season is sure to display more immorality-promoting content. As 'Gleeks' everywhere eagerly anticipate the return of their show, they should be reminded that it isn't just innocent, happy show tunes that this 'groundbreaking' show promotes.
Fox's hit musical/comedy has garnered acclaim from TV critics everywhere, having received in its first season, 19 Emmy nominations, one in every comedy category, and four Golden Globe nominations, including taking home the Golden Globe for Best TV Series - Comedy or Musical.
Video below the fold.
2011 is shaping up to be another praise-worthy year for 'Glee' - the comedy/musical has once again taken the Golden Globe for Best TV Series for its category and gym teacher Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) and gay protagonist Kurt (Chris Colfer) walked away with Best Supporting Actress and Actor awards, respectively. It has attracted as many as 12.3 million viewers on its second season premiere and is one of the highest grossing sales on iTunes, with 'Glee' cast songs receiving more than 13 million digital single sales to date.
UK Guardian writer Sam Wollaston thanked the Almighty for 'Glee's' February return saying, '…praise the Lord its back, at last there's something joyous on television for a man in a mid-winter midlife crisis to look forward to.' Rob Owen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said that 'Glee' is 'delightful enough to qualify as a fall favorite.'
Entertainment Weekly writer Ken Tucker was so confident in the success of 'Glee' that he wrote that the show 'blasts past any defenses you might put up against it.'
The media love 'Glee,' calling the show a 'quirky, sweet, humorous, nonpartisan funfest,' and a 'truly groundbreaking new comedy.' But despite its quick wit and impressive following, 'Glee' has a disgusting track record of underage drinking, one night stands, anti-conservative jabs, teen pregnancy, and smutty performances.
Sexually Confused High School Students are the Norm
Bisexual teen girls making out in revealing cheerleading outfits referencing sex acts is just another typical scene viewers will see on 'Glee.' In April 2010, two of the show's popular cheerleaders, Santana and Brittany, were shown cuddling and kissing on a bed, professing their love to one another. Santana (played by Naya Rivera), lying on top of Brittany (Heather Morris) in their skimpy cheerleading outfits, welcomed the kissing and referred to a lesbian sex act when she said, 'It's a nice break from all that scissoring.' These actors are portraying high school students, all of 16 or 17 years old.
When emotionally unstable and famously gay hero Kurt (Chris Colfer) received an unexpected kiss from a beefy high school bully, the media was unsurprisingly, apathetic. On the November 9, 2010, episode titled 'Never Been Kissed,' typical high school bully character Karofsky, in an emotional tirade, planted a kiss Kurt in a disturbing locker-room scene.
Kurt's emerging sexuality has been a major theme throughout the two seasons of 'Glee' thus far. In one emotionally charged episode, Kurt is forced to confront his inappropriate feelings for straight, handsome football quarter back Finn (Cory Monteith), the fellow Glee club member he loves.
In 'Theatricality,' Finn's mom decided that the two of them are moving in with Kurt and his father and Kurt used the opportunity to encourage the arrangement for Kurt and Finn to share a room. The tension builds Kurt decided to redecorate their shared room while Finn was away. Finn came back and addressed their relationship and the room's effeminate new design. 'You don't think I see the way you stare at me? How flirty you get? You think I don't know why you were so excited we were moving in?' Finn said. Kurt replied by telling Finn that they can redecorate and Finn, obviously offended by the feminine décor, shouted for him to get rid of 'that faggy lamp and then we need to get rid of this faggy couch blanket.'
Kurt's father Burt (Mike O'Malley) overheard the boys' exchange and came running in accusing Finn of calling his gay son a 'fag.' Finn defends himself against Burt, saying that he merely called the decorations by the homosexual slur and not his son. Burt launches into a two minute long lecture about the use of the word 'fag,' calling that rhetoric 'poison.'
Promiscuity Reigns
Risque, underwear-clad musical numbers and prayers for sexual favors mark the first two seasons of 'Glee.'
'Glee' star Lea Michelle who plays 'Rachel,' a high school student, wore a belly-showing, bra-baring shirt, and an extremely short skirt, channeling Britney Spears' infamous Catholic school-girl outfit when she performed the hit 'Baby One More Time' in a Spears tribute episode that aired in September 2010. In the same episode, one of the high school boys, Jacob (Josh Sussman) is caught masturbating to the image of his classmate, Rachel, dressed as Spears.
In 'Grilled Cheesus,' Finn, a high school jock, is seen praying to 'Grilled Cheesus' - a grilled cheese sandwich resembling Jesus Christ in an October 2010 episode. Not only does Finn pray to the piece of bread and melted cheese, his selfish prayer is for help getting to second base with girlfriend, Rachel.
And in October 2010 a 'Glee' controversy became a sexy national story. Actors Lea Michele, Cory Monteith and Dianna Agron engaged in a racy photo shoot for GQ magazine. The actors posed in character, in a high school setting, in seductive positions suggesting a threesome was in order. Michele was pictured in a full frontal crotch shot on a pine, locker room bench seductively holding a red lollipop. Parents Television Council President Tim Winter said the photo shoot 'borders on pedophilia' because the actors portrayed children.
Conservatives Under Fire
But beyond displaying sexually active and sexually confused high school students, 'Glee' also pushes a left-wing political agenda.
'Glee' took a shot at the intelligence of well-known political conservative Sarah Palin. As could be expected, the favorite media punching bag and vice-presidential candidate was the butt of a joke by gym teacher and 'Glee' villain, Sue Sylvester (played by Jane Lynch) in the April 13, 2010 episode. 'You may be two of the stupidest teens I've ever encountered,' Sylvester said insulting two cheerleaders. 'And that's saying something. I once taught a cheerleading seminar to a young Sarah Palin.'
Conservatives who believe in abstinence education for high school students got a slap in the face when the head of a chastity group became pregnant from a drunken one night stand. In season one, in a September 2009 episode titled 'Preggers,' cheerleader Quinn, a cross-necklace wearing good-girl and president of the 'Celibacy Club,' had told her boyfriend Finn that they should pray during intense make-out sessions. She initially believed Finn is the baby's father, and that they conceived the child in a hot tub. It is later discovered that Quinn's baby is the result of a single, alcohol-induced sexual encounter with another high school jock, Puck (Mark Salling).
The show went further to insult pro-abstinence conservatives when leading 'Glee' club member Rachel chastises the 'Celibacy Club,' in a tirade against abstinence education. 'Most studies have shown celibacy does not work in high school,' Rachel tells the club. 'Our hormones are driving us too crazy to abstain. The second we start telling ourselves there's no compromise we act out. The only way to beat teen sexuality is to be prepared. That's what contraception is for,' she said. Underage, drunken, unprotected sex among high school students that have pledged abstinence is the message 'Glee' is sending its viewers.
No Surprise
Objectionable content should be no surprise coming from 'Glee' creator Ryan Murphy. Known for pushing boundaries, Murphy is famous for his raunchy FX show 'Nip/Tuck' and according to the Examiner.com, '…Ryan Murphy has declared that it is his goal in life to remove every barrier to the depiction of explicit sex on TV,' wrote Charisse Van Horn from the Tampa Television Examiner. 'On Bravo's 'Sex in the Box' Murphy said, 'It's tough to get that sexual point of view across on television. Hopefully I have made it possible for somebody on broadcast television to do a rear-entry scene…''
'Glee's' family-unfriendly show has not gone unnoticed by faith and family groups. American Decency Association claimed that 'Glee' is dangerous because it is a mixed bag of 'catchy vocal production numbers' and 'sexualized themes and secular humanist propaganda indoctrinating viewers.'
The Parents Television Council is no fan of the show aimed at teens. President Tim Winter said ''Glee' is only masquerading as a family show and is far from appropriate for young viewers.'
But all this controversy seems to have finally made an impact on Murphy, who told The Hollywood Reporter that he has been hearing about 'pushing the line' from fans. When discussing his reaction to the October GQ photo spread, Murphy said, 'And I think all parties involved learned a lesson about how parents look to the show as something inspirational and aspirational,' Murphy said. 'We all realized that we have to be a little more careful when it comes to sexuality…From now on, I will sweat every single word and how we're presenting it.'
- Erin R. Brown's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I love this show
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:30pm.
It's coming back after Super Bowl. Rupert Murdoch must be happy with the cash cow this show turned out to be. Thx Erin and Mr Bozell for letting me know what I was missing from the first season. :-)Can you
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:27pm.
say pedophilia? I have a feeling you can.
I sure can.
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:11pm.
I can also say immature implication. The dictionary is facinating.Did it teach you to spell
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 9:46pm.
Did it teach you to spell "facinating" as well?
Yeah, yeah, call me a spelling nazi, but I'm savoring the irony here.
Wow you got me. Huge news flash
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:37pm.
Shawn can't spellTo the spelling Nazis and the
Submitted by tvhall on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:11am.
To the spelling Nazis and the Spelltards*:
Spelling Nazis - get over yourselves, you are the ones who judge the form instead of the content - in high school (69 grad talk about irony), I never passed an essay because your brethren anal retentive English Teachers of that era (all dead now thankfully) would scrawl an "F" on every paper upon discovering the third misspelled word - twenty years later I had an affordable machine on my desk that obviated the need to memorize 50,000 words I might use in writing 10 times in a life time. Note: that by that artifice I have improved greatly and find myself also very irritable about other's misspelling (See below for why).
Spelltards* - if you wish to opine in a forum online (and be taken seriously), you know that Spelling Nazis are out there. They will use the occasion of your misspellings to assail your ideas and insult your intelligence plus write you off as a lower life form. So...what you need to do is write your response, copy it, paste it into your word processor, let the spelling/grammar verifier help you, copy again and paste into the post window. Or better yet compose in the word processor copy then post.
*Unrecognized by my word processor’s spelling verifier – but I am sure you recognize them and accept the spelling. Note: I am also a spelltard.
Hiya tvhall
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:26am.
Bretzky is a post and runner. However, then again lets look at all of his solid debating points today.My spelling is bad, Lindsey Lohan is more mature than me and his Facebook feeds determine what makes a show good.
Guess what folks...those
Submitted by msh1973 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:24pm.
Guess what folks...those actors play teenagers but they aren't teenagers...a couple of them are in their late 20's. I am a mom of two teeagers...they don't behave like those characters do, give me a break. What a fantasy that show is, my kids don't watch and neither do their friends.
Good post
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 11:13pm.
Good postNo Thanks
Submitted by DaMama on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:32pm.
More cr@p on TV. This is not entertainment, this is politically motivated to make homosexuality, sexual irresponsibility and debauchery socially acceptable. They pepper their message with singing to attract people, but this is definitely a message show by the writers and producers. They have an agenda to push and use teens and music to get it across.
I'm sure their ratings will be devastated
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:41pm.
......by your absence in the neilson ratingsratings
Submitted by lkotur on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:51pm.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good.
Take a look at Obama.
Game Set Match!
Obamas ratings
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:19pm.
Have been going down because he has done a poor job. Glees ratings keep getting stronger which means the product is good If all you needed was liberal bias and gays to get good ratings then Maddows ratings would be through the roof.um... no... I don't know what
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 9:51pm.
um... no... I don't know what planet you live on, but according to my FB live feed, I get posts from new people every week saying that the quality of "Glee" has gotten so bad that they've had enough. It may be different on your news feed, but more than likely you're the only person who probably talks about it.
OH WOW!!! FACEBOOK???????
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:28pm.
Well that settles it. The fact that Erin says it gets over 12 million viewers per week is trumped by the fact that your FB friends think it sucks. I am in total awe of you, I bet you get daily pokes too and people "like" your clever editorials. Preach it brother.Shawn, You can't be this
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:28pm.
Shawn,
You can't be this immature, can you? LOL
~That is a rhetorical question,
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:40pm.
right?
Lol
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:09pm.
So typical. When I come in between two posters you tell me to mind my own business but when u do it, it's because you are such a caring person. Btw you never did back up your accusation I brought up your behavior in my forum at least five times. That's okay though bru, your better than me so only I have to back up my statements :-)~How many times
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:31pm.
does this make?
Get over it, shawn.
This does not count you big silly
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:58pm.
It's like Lindsey Lohan saying she did not steal anything after returning the necklace. Silly me, asking people to back up accusations about me. We all know you don't hound people when you want them to admit a mistake right your worship? ;-) Interesting how you love to announce to people you ignore me, but here you are again trying to get at me indirectly through another poster. Sigh, I think your the one that needs to get over it. :-(~Zzzzzzzzz....what?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:06pm.
"It was only like, 4 times, not FIVE, and this time doesn't count, and..."
Are you ever going to stop whining?
Gloating about how it's one of life's pleasures to take shots at a pastor's wife doesn't exactly make you look mature, shawn.
Funny how he mentions Lindsay
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:02pm.
Funny how he mentions Lindsay Lohan. She seems so much more mature than him.
Aww bretzky
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:41am.
Do you actually have anything intelligent to say or just a silly one liner. Hey did you ever pm the vet like you promised to teach me a lesson? I'm sure you would not make a a statement U can't follow through with. Edit hello? Oh well, I guess you r just like one of the post and run libs you whine about. Just call u Satchmo part two.OMO
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:17pm.
So if you accuse me of something I did in the past and I did something in the future it still counts? Lol Only in your world Bru. You also must have missed the part where I said it does not matter if you back it up because u are better than me. Too much time in the chicken coupe perhaps? Also I am not a fan of Damama caus she decided to call me names instead of debating. Interesting tactics there Bru. Oh Shawn is picking on a Pastors wife. Nice work there bru. Almost as good as when you threatened Jer And speaking for other people that if he agrees with me, that he will never live it down. I left that one alone because I did not want to put Jer in a rough spot. And you have the nerve to call me passive aggresive You want to be full of bravado and tell everyone you ignore me, yet you can't help comin back for more. You accuse me of whining, but your the one that kicks and screams and complains about NB. Like i told you. If you want ignore me that's fine, if you want to be a drama queen and try to get in some digs that is fine too, but don't expect me to be your lapdog. You have been back from your Third self imposed exile now right?~I'm going to take that
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:23pm.
as a "no".
Take that As a
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:28pm.
.........if you drop it I will too :-)~Fallacy
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:51am.
Just like the rest of your posts. I've never once brought it up.
ummm no your worship
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:02am.
I mean if you shut up I will too. For a person that says she is going to ignore me, you sure are obsessive about getting in the last word
Fut buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:17pm.
Ever since Dramama gave me a jab out of left Field a while back, it just feels nice to point out the sucess of Glee because it drives her crazy and it makes my day. What can I say except I enjoy lifes simple pleasures.Shawn, As you were told,
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:04pm.
Shawn,
As you were told, just because something is popular it does not mean that it is good, moral, etc.
Geez, look at Nazi Germnay, Hitler was quite popular, right? he was loved and adored by the vast majority of Germans. Using your logic, Hitler was an awesome individual, great, excellent since his "ratings" were quite high! careful with the logic you use to excuse things.
My wife and kids no longer watch regular television, even cable t.v. we have done away with. We have Netflix streaming through our WII and we watch movies and tv shows that we can control, turn off if we do not like, etc.
I believe that television shows are so horrific, so bad that bad stuff like Glee is about the only thing to watch. While this is anecdotal evidence, all the people that watch Glee watch it for the music. 99% of them said if it wasn't for the music, they wouldn't watch it. And that is the key to Glee and in fact many other evil things, they appeal to the human senses and use it to push a message. You can't deny that Glee is not about pushing Left wing agenda when it comes to homosexuality.
I saw two episodes of Glee, I found it shallow, dumb, pathetic, moronic, simple, stupid, full of Left wing cliches.
Sadly, the more this type of stuff is shown on television, the more people accept the abhorrant behavior shown in Glee.
That's great Fut
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:51pm.
Hey Smallville is returning soon huh? Can't wait.Once again shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:26pm.
You find pleasure in demeaning and condescending remarks toward women. How childish.
Have you asked DaMama why she does not approve of shows like Glee? Here is a hint. For the same reason cajun does not like any of your hobbies.
cajun2, I have never
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:17pm.
cajun2,
I have never understood how anyone has ever bought into the lie that the Left is pro-women.
The Left constantly pushes for legalizing prostitution- Men using women as sex objects.
The Left worships pornography- The vast majority of porn watchers are men. Porn shows women being used by men
The Left loves abortions- Great way for men never to have to take responsability for infidelity, pedophilia, etc. Girls are aborted at a much higher rate than boy babies.
The Left has embraced Islam- Islam hates women.
The Left constantly embraces shows like Glee which trivilize women and portray women as mere sexual objects for the pleasure of others.
so, can anyone please tell me how Left wingers care about women? Since the feminist revolution of the 1960s women have lost more than they have gain!
Don't know Liberallies*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:38pm.
All excellant comments questions you noted. Have no answer. No offense intended but I once had a sociology professor who gave this story. If today's men were sent back to the wilds with a club to fend for himself and live in a cave, you would not see a real difference between them and the neanderthals. The tell tale difference would be the fancy sneakers.
~Slight dis-service to cavemen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:17pm.
I think they treated women better than liberals do; cavemen at least didn't force their women go out and club their own food as well as tending the cave and the babies.
Cajun2, LOL, how
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:22pm.
Cajun2,
LOL, how true!
Also, women today believe that being free, being that being equal is acting like the pigs men are.
Our culture, our values, our civilization is in decline. The Fall of Rome is here and just like back then, people are sticking their head in the sand and prefer to wallow in their own self-pleasures than do something to stop it.
Glee is a terrible show. However, the sad thing, what shows that our civilization is going downhill quite fast, is that over 12 million people watch this garbage.
Once again Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:49pm.
You never want to debate me and just post and run so I really don't care what you think. I enjoy that Rush gets into liberals heads and it makes me happy. The fact Glee can live rent free in your head makes me happy as well. I'm just telling the truth and not being bashful that it gets to you. Sorry about that.Shawn, I am unsure why you
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:05pm.
Shawn,
I am unsure why you are crying over Cajun not wanting to debate you. the last couple of times that I have attempted to engage you, what do you do? bring up something completely unrelated.
don't get offended at others for doing exactly what you do. :-)
That's different fut
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:25pm.
Nobody is as good a debator as you and I just feel privlidged to be able to share a message board with you. I can't keep up to you, please understand I just don't want you to unleash your awesome points against me. Thx buddy.Shawn, Nice try there, Mr.
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:34pm.
Shawn,
Nice try there, Mr. Facetious.
I don't know why you would cry over Cajun not engaging you and you do the same.
once again shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:08pm.
You are again wrong. I dont debate you and I dont run. Actually I try to simply ignore you. Not trying to be offensive but you are much like mamabear, boring because you tend to sing a one note tune. That is not debating, it is simply making noise about the same issues over and over. We all know how you feel about porn, prostitution, and drug abuse. To admit to taking a stance on issues that are extremely offensive to women and others simply for your own pleasure tells a great deal about you Shawn. And that is why I normally do not reply to you. Your offensive comment about Damama is why I originally responded. NBers like her are above your pay grade. Just because you have no understanding of her perspective doesnt make her wrong but in fact, your attitudes only reinforce her professional interpretation and knowledge of these issues.
C'est tout!
Then you are inconsistent.
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:37pm.
You can't just ignore me, but have to tell me and anyone willing to listen that you ignore me, but now you don't because you just feel like it I am always willing to listen to somebody elses point of view and you are calling me childish because I am being honest. Let me be more clear. If you are just not a fan of Glee that is one thing, but I get the feeling you are the type of person that would take it off the air if you had the means. If I am wrong I will gladly retract that. I reason why I take such great pleasure at watching people like you having a hissy fit over a tv show is that you have absolutely no influence at all and fans of Glee do not need to worry about folks like you If your opinion actually mattered to people like Rupert Murdoch I would be worried, but I can sleep at night at fine. Hope this clears things up. :-)Shawn, You seem to be under
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:08pm.
Shawn,
You seem to be under the delusion that your opinion matters to Glee producers, Murdoch, et al.
The only thing these folks care about is the all mighty dollar.
I find it amazing that on one hand Murdoch has Foxnews, which tends to be Conservative and on the other hand a super Liberal television station like Fox. You would say taht they feed off each other and keep each other in business. Sad...but true.
These big wigs could careless about your opinion as much as you claim they could careless about Cajun2's opinion.
The second Glee stops bringing in money, it will be cancelled, regardless how much you believe it is an awesome show.
Liberallies*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:34pm.
I didn't make a comment about Glee. I agreed with your comments regarding the declining standards of morality in our society in general. You have made several comments on this thread that I totally agreed with but shawn will distort my comments to derail any of your attempts at debate. I have never seen this show, nor American Idol for that matter. The Western Channel , SyFy and MLB is the extent of my "entertainment" from TV.
Cajun2, Agreed! I just
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:18pm.
Cajun2,
Agreed!
I just find it amazing that just after Shawn tells you how you won't engage him. He turns around and doesn't engage me. LOL
I am hoping that he sees the irony of complaining to you that you won't engage him.
Let us hope that his arguments on how he can do this are better than his pro-pornography, pro-drugs arguments.
No delusion fut buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:25pm.
Rupert Murdoch does not care about what I think. He cares what me and 12 million other people think. We viewers help with how much he gets paid in ad revenue and royalties on iTunes Rupert is a brilliant businessman. That is why Fox news and Fox Tv are number one. Glee does not have a political agenda accept for making money. I agree, not sure what you are arguing about my friend :-)Shawn, You aren't making
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:16pm.
Shawn,
You aren't making sense buddy.
You said, and I quote, "Rupert Murdoch does not care about what I think." AGREED! then you say, "He cares what me....think" ??? So, which one is it, does he care or doesn't he care?
He doesn't care what you think. The ONLY thing he cares is the AMOUNT of people watching the show. The second that it is is only you and a few others watching the show, he could careless. So, no, he doesn't care what you think Shawn. Stop thinking you are important. LOL
Fut buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:22pm.
I am not trying to make myself sound important. Oky doky if it makes you fell better RupertMurdooch does not care what I think :-)Shawn, Buddy...I was
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:36pm.
Shawn,
Buddy...I was pointing out your illogical and inconsistancy of saying in the same freaking paragraph that Murdoch doesn't care what you think and then you claim that he does care. I am glad that you realize he doesnt' care. You can love the show all you want, but if enough people are not watching, he could careless you still watch it. LOL....sorry to burst your bubble there.
I was also pointing out that you were crying about Cajun not enganging you and then you turn around and refuse to engage me. Much of a hypocrite there buddy? Don't complain about you do to others.
Fut as I told you before Amigo
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:56pm.
You are just too good for me the way you never have meltdowns and is consistently cool as a cucumber and never namecall and stick with the facts. How can a person like me compete with that?;-) okay let me explain again and hopefully you will understand. Glee needs viewers. I am one of those viewers so they need us as a whole, but let's not talk about that. Murdoch does not need Shawn, lets be clear about that. what I mean about happiness is that no matter how much the morality police scream at the top of their lungs to get shows like Glee off the air, it has zero affect. Same with their fruitless efforts to try to bring down certain other things. It makes me happy to watch adult entertainment prosper while they foam at the mouth. It is like reliving the November elections everyday. Hope understand now :-)Shawn, LOL, so, nothing on
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:28am.
Shawn,
LOL, so, nothing on your hypocrisy crying over Cajun2 not engaging you, eh? LOL
Yes, we all know that you applaud the porn industry thriving using under age kids, being involved in drugs, using kidnapped women and pushing pornography on 10 to 17 year olds.
Believe me, it doesn't surprise me at all that you get all warm and fuzzy watching a show which portrays under age kids having sex.
No one wants to censor Glee, it is just about making the public aware of what they are watching. You know, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the press. No where does the author of this article ask for Glee to be censored, duh! But nothing more than perverts hate than the truth being spoken, You are so afraid of your filth being taken away that you equate being told that you are watching filth to censoring. LOL
Glee doesn't need you, Shawn, buddy. Once again you are giving yourself too much importance. You can die tomorrow and Glee will go on or if it loses enough viewers, it will not go on despite you watching it until your little boy is happy. Amazing how selfish people always believe that they are more important than they truly are. LOL
I thought I already established Glee does not need me Fut :-)
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:49am.
I'm not sure why you are still focusing on that. Also not sure why you are bringing up the porn industry. Adult entertainment can mean many things like South Park and Howard Stern.
Mr. Bozells PTC is always trying to get threaten sponsors of Glee which is totally his right, so I believe that he would like to censor Glee. Since you are the one that is bringing pornography up, you have told me in the past that you would always try your best to make it illegal, so I figured you might feel the same about Glee.
I never accused the author of wanting the censor Glee. I figure people like Damama or Cajun most likely would, but I also said I would retract it, if that was not the case.
"LOL, so, nothing on your hypocrisy crying over Cajun2 not engaging you, eh? LOL"
psst, I think we have been debating for about the last 5 posts now and I have not ducked any of your questions ;-)
Shawn, 1) Do you read what
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:11am.
Shawn,
1) Do you read what you type? LOL YOU brought up the adult industry, not I. Do you read what you type? are you so worried about attempting to "win" a debate that you forget what you say? LOL
2) How can you claim that Mr. Bozell wants censorship of Glee? How the heck do you equate boycotting Glee sponsors to censorship? c'mon you can't be serious. Do you even know the legal meaning of censorship? are you aware that only the government can censor you?
3) Pornography should be illegal because it is involved in the trafficking of drugs, it uses under age girls, and it also uses kidnapped girls. I told you once, if it only involved men and women involved in the porn industry out of their own free will, it will be between God and them. But anyone with an ounce of brain and capable of critical thinking knows that there are countless of individuals involved in the porn industry despite their free will.
4) Me asking for Glee to be off the air? nope, I believe in the free market. While I believe the show is shallow, dumb, ridiculous, pathetic, for individuals with IQs below 50, I don't want anything taken off the air which involves adults being involved out of their own free will.
5) You have engaged me after I showed your hypocrisy. You never addressed it. You were crying over Cajun2 not engaging me while at the same time doing everything within your power to not engage me. You have never addressed this.
6) It still obvious to anyone that reads yoru posts on sexuality and porn that you are all happy, warm and fuzzy when you watch Glee. I mean the best thing that they show is adult women playing under age kids having sex. You seem to really enjoy this.
You seem to really enjoy anything that portrays women as being used, abused and treated like sexual objects. Hey, if that is your cup of tea and how you want your daughter to perceive the world, that is on you. but don't get upset when and make false claims about individuals because you do not like the reality of the consequences of what you enjoy to watch and get off on.
Well Fut
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:16am.
Glad you are not one to want Glee off the air. Good night my friend. :-)
Shawn, that's right, run
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:21am.
Shawn,
that's right, run baby run. LOL
of course LL
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:23am.
Like I said, no one can hold a candle to you when it comes to sticking to the facts. How can i help but to tremble when you show up? Again Good night :-)
Shawn, and to think you
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:28am.
Shawn,
and to think you were crying to Bru about she wanting to have the last word. LOL
You are avoiding the obvious points.
and you are once again avoiding debate while you were crying to Cajun that he/she didn't want to engage you. LOL
run baby run.....
but hey, if being facitious is the best you have....
no no no LL
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:32am.
I just see why people you debated in the past did not want anything to do with you. Not that you are a bad debator mind you. They were simply scared of you and could not appreciate your talents like I can.
Last word? Au contrair mon ami. You can have it sir, I will not rob you of all you deserve.
Shawn, Buddy, friend, pal,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:23pm.
Shawn,
Buddy, friend, pal, why the desperate need to have the last word in a debate? You attacked Bru for your believe that she wants the last word and then you go ahead and do it toO. LOL
You attacked Cajun for not wanting to debate you at exactly the same time that you were refusing to debate me. Then I asked you why the hypocrisy and you never addressed it.
You then turn around and claim that you are not important to Murdoch, then you claim you are, then you claim you are not, then you claim you are. LOL
were you off your meds last night?
Meltdown? Look at your last few exchanges with people. All you are doing around here is having diarrhea of the mouth.
CLEAN UP ON AISLE 10 PLEASE! CLEAN UP ON AISLE 10!
Maybe Murphy DID Get The Message
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:56pm.
Maybe Murphy was told to clean it up, or else. He's shown that he won't do it on his own. And it's a damn shame - these young actors are supremely talented and play likable characters, but Murphy has exploited all of that to push his hippie-like view that "if it feels good, do it."
Glee is basically a nice story line, and great things could come from the show without the Machiavellian Murphy's defiance of traditional morality.
They are trying to influence
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:57pm.
They are trying to influence the young to accept those behaviors and the young swallow it because they are void of morals and don't know right from wrong.
The left counts on poo-heads to expand their agenda, wait until these little monsters vote.
→ Part of the plan
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:02pm.
It's no accident that the age of consent in DC is 16.
Fits well with attracting High School Juniors as interns.
I heard next season they
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:09pm.
I heard next season they tackle one of the most important topics affecting teenagers everywhere: necrophilia.
Or was it necrophagia.
Darn it, now I cannot remember.
I heard they are in negotiations with a zombie Aaliyah to guest star.
OK
Submitted by JustAl on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:34pm.
Here are my suggestions:
1. Don't watch it.
2. Don't trade with it's sponsors.
3. Let the sponsors know about #1 and #2 above.
So, let's recap:
We are running up the debt every day in this nation that our grandkids' grandkids won't be able to pay off.
We just signed away our right to develop missle defense.
We have arguably the most openly corrupt regime since Tea Pot Dome in office.
We have effectivly shut down drilling and nuclear while the middle east is exploding in a self destructive orgy of iron age mythologically inspired hate.
And folks are getting worked up over a tv show when all tv's have an "off" switch. Priorities people, when you attack people who like shows like this you assure that they will never, ever, lend a hand to help conservatives with the real problems.
Al, it's all right to be concerned for the culture, too.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:49pm.
We can be concerned for both the challenges from without and the rot from within.
And "Glee" is part of the rot.
It's never been welcome in my home, and never will be. However, it is welcome in a lot of American homes, and more's the pity. How amazing that the Fox network can pump out such dreck.
You do have a point, though. We should contact the sponsors of "Glee" and let them know we're staying away from what those sponsors sell.
And as for Rupert? We should let him know we're spending at least an hour less per week watching Fox.
--Mike
P.S.: And who sponsors "Glee"? Their sponsors have included Kimberly-Clark, Hanes, Domino's Pizza, Dove Soap, and Target.
I've never seen this show . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:36pm.
. . . nor do I intend to.
But I do find it a bit creepy that a Brit TV critic who describes himself as a "man in a mid-winter midlife crisis" looks forward to a show depicting underage teenagers having sex.
No influence at all
Submitted by iveseenitall on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:22pm.
Aw, come on. Nothing influences young people to act a certain way. Nothing gives them them the opportunity to see what are the "accepted" mores of a society. Nothing will change their behavior. This can be seen no more clearly than in the wonderful public schools we have in America. Or in a decent young person's life in the ghetto. Smut is fine. Besides, if a show makes them "feel good"--go for it.
How low can we go? And when will the "liberals" reach their point of satisfaction? Unfortunately, we've only just begun. For those who are defending this crap--open a history book
P.S. Those who defend this probably would condemn their own mother,wife or kid if they apppeard like this on t.v. ( or maybe not)
BTW--Our kids are being exploited by the "liberals" for the benefit of the "liberals" --DUH!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"(progressive)
I'll bet your television has
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:02pm.
I'll bet your television has both a power button and a channel button. No one is forcing anyone to watch a television show. If you object to content, then change the channel.
TV and chicken
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:09pm.
The left goes after radio and restraunts - the right goes after TV and homosexuality
Neither side wants others telling them how to live
It does get confusing at times. (Effect on society argument is used by both sides)
Hold the presses, Incestmo is a Glee fan
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:16pm.
It's about what young vulnerable children are watching, not the adults, you freak.
And don't hand me this crap about parental controls, because my kids are allowed to leave the house and I can't control every TV they may watch.
I've never seen the show
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:02pm.
I've never seen the show because I don't watch television network shows. In fact, I generally don't watch television. I also said nothing about parental controls, so drop the strawman. It's a shame you are unable to understand the very simple point being made.
Well, Satchmo is right that
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:12pm.
Well, Satchmo is right that he never mentioned parental controls.
But one thing's for sure. Satchmo will let vulnerable children be witness to anything and everything.
Ah, yes. Ignore the point and
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:30am.
Ah, yes. Ignore the point and prop up the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, commonly manifest as "think of the children!"Ah, yes. Ignore the point and
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:31am.
double postIncestmo...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:45am.
Incestmo LOVES freedom of speech unless of course it is legitimate criticism of crap on television. In which case he demands you keep your mouth shut.
Nowhere in the post you are responding to is a demand for censorship; it is a mere criticism of crap. Unfortunately for you, sick freak, if we are free to makle a stupid show like Glee, we are also free to not watch, and say why we won't.
Please point out for me where there is a call for censorship here.
Until then, keep you mouth shut in regards to anyone else's reading comprehension skills other than your own. Besides, I bet you are ALL OVER Glee if they ever get around to depicting incest.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
This is another example of
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:27am.
This is another example of your lack of critical reading (and thinking) skills.Shut up Incestmo
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:12pm.
Sick freak, what is it they say about people like you who live in glass houses?
STFD and STFU about other people's reading and critical thinking until you address your own.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Fox
Submitted by Gothampc on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:10pm.
So let me get this straight. Fox gives liverals a show that upholds all the values they love, and they still hate Rupert Murdoch and the Fox Network?
My wife and kids like this
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:36pm.
My wife and kids like this show and don't watch it while I am in the room. The show is popular because of teh interaction an dynamic between the characters. And it is a musical of reasonable quality. It is a tool to desensitize the public to teh issues it presents.
Your wife has a stronger
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:15pm.
Your wife has a stronger stomach than I do. I saw it once. I enjoyed the musical performances but the plot, characters, and acting were ridiculous.
Great Post Dan
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:22am.
You don't watch it, but you have no problem with your wife watching it and you won't judge her for it. More people should have that attitude
As far as your kids watching it, I guess it depends on how old they are, but it is always a parents job to decide what their kids watch, not society or the FCC.
Just so I'm clear...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:34am.
...it's all right in your mind to contaminate the culture at large, just so long as one can personally shelter oneself from the contamination?
--Mike
It's not contamination
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:38am.
It's free will. If you like it you watch it, if you don't watch it, don't judge someone else that watches it Mikey.You dodge the point, shawn.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:16pm.
Were we talking about the consumers, or the product?
The product.
In this case, a product that contaminates the culture at large. So, if you could keep your focus on that, it would be great.
--Mike
Shawn, how about I
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:48pm.
Change the channel, and criticize the show, and judge those that watch it? Is that okay?
Libertarians, is that enough personal freedom, or by doing such, am I exercising too much?
Not allowed, RESTLESS1
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:09pm.
For NB's "libertarians", the concept of freedom of speech for the purposes of this thread ONLY applies to the creators/producers of Glee and Fox. No one has ANY right to criticize the show. Don't like it? Change the channel. Want to tell us why you are? Too bad. You have zero right to ciriticize the show. Your role - and Erin Brown's role - is to SHUT UP.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Do what you like bud
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:04pm.
I just said I like Dans method.Another Example of Hollywood's lack of creative talent
Submitted by Nightfly on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 9:07pm.
What kind of world do the writers and producers of this show promote? One that is morally bankrupt where anything goes. They can keep their sick perversions to themselves and stop pushing them at our young people disguised as "popular" shows. If a steaming pile of crap was the best thing on TV it would be called popular and receive and award. God help us!
Okay, this is Dave's libertarian self surfacing yet again
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:33pm.
If you don't like what's on the boob toob, then change the damn channel.
And don't ask the government to be your nanny, because they won't stop with just the programming you don't like.
BTW: Radios have knobs, too. Are you listening, Al Sharpton?
Dave
Vote for the American in November
The selective application of freedom of speech
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:50am.
You can't be much of a libertarian when you demand critics of a program change the channel and SHUT UP.
I see no call for censorship here; for some reason this aspect of freedom of speech enrages you and far too many others. What the hell is the problem?
I guess freedom of speech/expression applies to a select few.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually, that is exactly the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:26am.
Actually, that is exactly the libertarian position. Not surprising that this is something else of which your knowledge is absolute zero. We can also add your misguided concept of freedom of speech to that empty knowledge bank.Incestmo the authoritarian
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:35pm.
And this is why you are not a libertarian either. (Libertarians don't feel comfortable with the government dishing out allowance money either, but you are positively in love with the idea. But that is a different topic for a different time.)
See, both you and Dave are comfortable with the existence of Glee and cheerfully support its right to exist. As do I. I think that it, along with the rest of television, provides me with a good enough reason to condemn the medium as a cesspool. My seeing the Glee previews (how can I miss them watching local news on Fox?) and my interactions with the shows fans shows me that it has a special appeal for those for whom high school was a wonderful experience. Right there its appeal stops, even before I take anything else into consideration.
But if you, or Dave, or shawn, TRULY libertarian - you would welcome criticisms such as that provided by Erin Brown. Why? Because if some sort of work for television, radio, theater, whatever, is produced - it will draw both praise AND criticism for a variety of reasons, and both will inform potential viewers of the product. All three of you should be singing Erin Brown's praises.
But NO! You AND Dave (and shawn) are ENRAGED to no end that someone would DARE to point out the flaws of Glee. Your response? "Change the channel" or "use the power button on the television".
Actually, since you are not just a sick freak who desperately needs to be locked up but also a condescending, authoritarian asshole who has a penchant for scolding and lecturing people for YOUR OWN FAILINGS, I'll quote you directly.
"I'll bet your television has both a power button and a channel button. No one is forcing anyone to watch a television show. If you object to content, then change the channel."
In other words, while the creators and producers of Glee have limitless freedom of speech, Erin Brown and other critics have no right to criticize Glee. Her ONLY right is to shut up and change the channel. Glee even has the right to be perpetually shielded from ANY criticism.
Incestmo, your own words repeatedly show me that you are no libertarian, but rather, an authoritarian. And it also shows me you like freedom of speech for some, but definitely not all.
Now, STFU until you can show me where Erin Brown called for the censoring of Glee. And learn to stop scolding and lecturing people for YOUR OWN FAILINGS. It is you, not I, who has a very flawed understanding of what a libertarian is and has zero understanding of freedom of speech. Being a libertarian means a lot more than fighting for the freedom to have sex with your relatives.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The only person who is
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:02pm.
The only person who is enraged, emotional, and who is using vulgarity is you. It is impossible to even try to have a conversation with someone who is so willfully ignorant as you are. I can only pity you. it is really, really sad. Sincerely sad.
If the quote popularly attributed to you is accurate...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:18pm.
...you might want to save the condescention, since you would have no room to speak.
--Mike
~If?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:36pm.
Why not do a search or just ask one of us for a link instead of implying we (and I, in particular) might be lying?
Good Grief, Bru
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:58pm.
I'd forgotten exactly what a vile bunch of posts Incestmo made on that thread.
Disgusting.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Yeah,
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:18pm.
When you go back and look it's shocking all over again.
Oh, let me be clear.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:38pm.
"If" was a courtesy.
--Mike
But don't you love the way he's accepted the nickname Incestmo?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:38pm.
He's "libertarian" to da max.
~I bet
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:47pm.
he tells his cousin to call him that now.
The quote is accurate, the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:34pm.
The quote is accurate, the context isn't.Deal with the consequences
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:17pm.
Shut up. You will never, ever, live down the fact you endorsed incest here. If that bothers you so much, you may as well quit posting on NB now.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It doesn't bother me at all.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:42pm.
It doesn't bother me at all. And there is nothing to live down; I will always continue to stand behind my questioning of government intrusion into personal liberty. If you possessed any reading skills, you would know that I never endorsed incest. Also, I'll point out that you are the only person here who is telling someone else to shut up, even though you falsely accuse others of doing so, but that's the poor reading skills and projection thing again. It's sad.Personal liberty = incest A-OK
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:21pm.
You should have taken my advice in that first incest thread-for-the-ages: change your screen name and never say another thing about incest.
But no, here you are months later, 500 beatdowns later, STILL defending your reprehensible position. Do you think we're just gonna go "Oh yeah, I get him now!" at some point?
Do me a favor: explain what you're getting out of this. In case it hasn't dawned on you, you are an effing pariah here, yet you seem to enjoy it. Maybe it's because you're so principled that the rest of us hicks just don't get it.
I believe you are a textbook example of a delusional passive-aggressive.
And I'm just guessing, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing you in a Planned Parenthood sting someday.
Freak.
Where did I say incest is
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:10pm.
Where did I say incest is A-OK? I never have. I know you don't care for facts, otherwise you wouldn't have titled the post the way you did. It's much easier to attack strawmen.A man is arrested for having sex with his daughter---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:22pm.
and you, SatchelMouth, type out, "But what if it was consensual?", meaning that you feel if it was consensual that he shouldn't have been arrested, therefore putting the imprimatur of 'A-ok' on consensual sex between blood relatives. To say otherwise is to spin like a whirling dervish.Your deduction is incorrect.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:45pm.
Your deduction is incorrect. They shouldn't have been arrested, yes, but that doesn't mean incest is A-OK. Regardless, personal liberty does not equal incest is A-OK, as he disingenuously tried to frame my argument.Whining
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:37pm.
When you typed "What if it was consensual?", that was your first foray into cheerfully endorsing incest. End of story. Beyond that you are just whining because people are calling you out on your illness.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As SoL said, many posts ago, Uns---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:36am.
this fool is a pariah.
Incestmo-SatchelMouth doggedly perseveres, and presses forward; but his momentum is forever slowed because it is extremely difficult to make headway with both feet stuck in his mouth.
He apparently believes he can get that toothpaste back in the tube.
Ain't gonna happen.
MD
honestly satchmo
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:48pm.
Don't you understand that incest creates babies with limited gene pools and they are more likely to have issues like down's syndrome? It's really not a good idea to let incestuous idiots propagate their species. That's why it's illegal, not just because it's gross. Besides, you can't seriously think a father willing to sleep with his daughter is guilty of anything less than domestic abuse.
I think you are the first one
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:53pm.
to spell out the eugenics argument and not only hint at it.
~LOCKING IN THE STUPID
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:58pm.
NEWSFLASH: Refraining from inbreeding=equals eugenics.
In case anyone wants to know, the sky is a pale lavender on trog's planet.
And there she is.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:03pm.
The wrathful one in action. Watch and learn.
~Shut up and hand me that fur wrap
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:08pm.
My audience is waiting.
Well, dont post stupid
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:09pm.
And there wont be any stupid!
well almost none
The argument that
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:12pm.
because it limits the gene pool it shouldn't be done is an eugenic one.
~LOCKING IN THE STUPID
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:39pm.
Again.
It damages the gene pool, you thrice-accursed cave dweller.
Liberals faint with horror over a woman who smokes or drinks while pregnant, but deliberately getting pregnant in a way that increases debilitating birth defects is cool with you guys.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Link.
seventy percent of Pakistanis and forty percent of Turks are inbred (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”). Research shows that the same goes for close to half of all Arabs (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 “Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs”).
Research published in The Journal of Aggression and Violent Behaviour has proven a connection between suicide bombers and depression and physical handicaps (BT, December 15th 2010 “Why most terrorists are useless”). Research suggests that many suicide bombers are suffering from depression, and their actions are just a socially accepted (among Muslims) way of committing suicide in order to end their mental torment.
Yusuf Yadgari of the Medical University of Kabul has autopsied the remains of suicide bombers and his findings support this theory. Yadgari found that close to ninety percent were suffering from severe illness such as blindness, cancer, missing limbs or leprosy. Many Muslim societies, including that of Afghanistan, have a low social acceptance of handicaps and severe illnesses. According to Yadgari, being physically handicapped or mentally retarded often leads to exclusion in a society like Afghanistan, and becoming a martyr might be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honour — if not just a way to end the pain of being socially isolated (which is especially traumatizing in collectivist cultures like Islam). Al Qaida’s use of people with Down’s syndrome might be another unpleasant side effect of the many chromosomal illnesses resulting from inbreeding between first cousins.
WB
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:44pm.
but deliberately getting pregnant in a way that increases debilitating birth defects is cool with you guys.
So do you want to outlaw the procreation of people with down-syndrome? I assume not. Just be careful what you are argueing here and where it leads you.~It's a moot point
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:20pm.
A relatively low percentage of those with DS get married or have children. Most have significant fertility issues. It's mentally, psychologically, and physically difficult for them to enter or maintain a reciprocating sexual relationship or become parents.
You keep looking at this from a social stigma-type viewpoint, when we're pointing out the biological trauma unnecessarily inflicted on innocent children. Get your head out of your liberal box.
bru
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:26pm.
DS should be seen as pars pro toto for every genetic disorder that is inheritable.
Again: What I'm concerned with is that your argument leads inevitably to the notion that all people who have elevated risks of inheriting genetic disorders should be banned from procreating. That is something I find highly problametic.
The question whether and how people should consider what it means to procreate when such risks are involved is a different matter.
Troglodyt, Hmmmm....what?
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:22pm.
Troglodyt,
Hmmmm....what? Please tell me you are not arguing for incest to be allowed?!!!! HOLY COW!!!!
The problem with your argument is that eugenics is based on false "science", lies, etc, much like pro-abortion arguments are based on lies and false "science".
It is a proven fact that a brorther and sister having a child leads to genetic defects.
I hope I am wrong in reading what I read and understood, Trgolodyt, Liberals are getting weirder and weirder by the minute. Please tell me you do not believe in incest?!
Nope
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:53pm.
One level higher: I'm arguing against arguing for outlawing of incest by using arguments of biology. I think one should stick to morals when supporting laws against incest.
~You're a tad behind the curve
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:05pm.
It's already against the law in every state. Outlawing it now would be, um, redundant.
The one who is behind is certainly not me.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:13pm.
What have you tried on this by now legendary thread with Satchmo? Let me remind you: Arguing for laws against incest. I'm critizising your mean here not your end.
On a sidenote: Bringing up the stats about first cousin inbreeding in muslim societies, keep in mind that this is not outlawed in every state in the US.
~Did you do research on it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:18pm.
while deciding what state you wanted to live in?
Last one.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:28pm.
And you were surprisingly nice up to this point.
~Awwwww
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:40pm.
Don't cry, little feller. Here, wipe that with a hanky and tell momma all about it.
Geez.
How's that pale levender sky in NAMBY-PAMBY land lookin'? Need a parasol?
all done Bru*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:12pm.
I believe Troggy has made a complete circuit. Our job is done. Next thread please!!!
ROFL
~Now, if only the thread
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:21pm.
weren't so dayem skinny we'd have some enjoyable reading. I like reading left to right, not straight down. >.<
here is the definition
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:24pm.
eugenicsa science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.
Eugenics is inherently race or ethnic driven. That's what it is. You are lying.
From wikipedia.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:35pm.
To population geneticists the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without necessarily altering allele frequencies, for example J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent."[29]
wikipedia
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:51pm.
wow. that's all I can say. I'd call you stupid but that would be offensive to stupid people.
I'm sorry to inform you
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:05pm.
that merriam-webster or similar dictionaries don't necessearily give exhausting definitions of words. And you can leave wikipedia for example by clicking on the link provided in the citation.
trog
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:07pm.
So to prove you have some understanding of eugenics you cherry-pick one obscure quote from a marxist.
Good move.
And your point is?
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:15pm.
Marxists can't be good scientists?
I think it illustrates your
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:18pm.
I think it illustrates your belief system. Joey Mengele might have been a good scientist too, but that doesn't mean one must follow his teachings.
Have you ever thougt about
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:25pm.
how many scientists, whose achievements are celebrated today, were leftists, socialists or marxists. If we should ever have a discussion about space-time don't bring up Einstein, as it would illustrate your socialist belief system.
Circle the wagons trog.
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:43pm.
Circle the wagons trog.
C'mon
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:50pm.
It would be nice if you avoided fallacies like that one above.
It's not a fallacy- you
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:54pm.
It's not a fallacy- you either purposefully selected an obscure reference by a marxist to illustrate your point about a scientific proposition that is commonly known as the selected and deliberate extermination of a perceived lesser being, or you didn't know he was a marxist and simply looked up eugenics on wiki and found definition number two. In either case, it was poorly done.
Why?
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:07pm.
Because the scientific notion does not match what you think it means? That you are inflexible to adopt, for the time being, a new meaning of a word is poor on my part?
try again Trog*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:32pm.
Eugenics and genetics are two very different issues. Eugenics is a theory or ideology designed to redo or redesign a societal or racial determination. That can be done by isolation, genocide, or racial profiling for reproduction. Genetics is an entirely different biology/ science though eugenics can be used to alter societal make up,it would take generations.
When you have a DNA strain/sequence with a dominate/recessive gene say for webbed feet, that particular genome in its dom/rec form is inherited by offspring. If you mate parent/offspring, the chances of that particular dominate/recessive gene of becoming dominate/dominate increases significantly and, then you have offspring with webbed feet. Because of the repeated genome of dominate for webbed feet, the greater the chances of each generation of offspring for webbed feet. By avoiding mating closely related genetic strains, you can eventually have the rec/rec gene for webbed feet and reduce its chances of appearing for generations.
See the difference troggy?
Please read again what I'm argueing.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:40pm.
I do know the difference between eugenics and genetics and I do know the basic theory of how traits are inherited.
When you feel it necessary to ask intelligent people to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:46pm.
"read again" what you are arguing, your 'points' are either incoherent, non-sensical, or outright balderdash.your arguments do not support that trog*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:58pm.
Trying to keep a race "pure", for instance, the link Bru showed you regarding the Brit/Pak. genetic problems, has risks since it is only a theory or ideology. Intermarrying for the purpose of keeping the race or ethnic group "pure" is called EUGENICS and generally has the opposite affect. Genetics and simple biology has a way of disrupting any societal "theories". The results of biology are predetermined and no societal theories or belief in eugenics is going to go the way you hope.
If indeed, pedophilia and incest is acceptable to Brit/Pak for the purpose of keeping the group "pure" has resulted in a large percentage of the population "retarded" then that could eventually become another eugenics theory of genocide self imposed as an inadvertant result of the GENETIC manipulation.
If you dont understand my last paragraph, give it some thought or ask someone like stratman til I stop laughing.
cajun
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:17pm.
That something is called eugenics, doesn't necessarily mean that something else can't be called that way.
semantics now Troggy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:25pm.
Eugenics can be re labled as some are want to do. Lets name a few. Social Justice, Ethnic Purity, Women's Reproductive Rights(Planned Parenthood). By any name Troggy, its Mengele garbage.
eugenics?
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:54pm.
Limited gene pools via incest is not the same as race or class-based genocide. Nature functions quite well with disabled people having children. It does not function with limited DNA supplies.
What is a limited DNA supply
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:01pm.
?
huh troglodyte?
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:07pm.
You don't understand the concept of a limited gene pool?
But oh well. At least liberals are being honest about incest for once in their lives. Five years ago when we asked about the difference between gay marriage and incest, we were told of course incest is disgusting and we will never allow that to happen and how dare you drop the i word in comparison to gay people.
now we know the truth.
If you meant
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:10pm.
gene pool, then you should have wrote it.
I suppose it's also wrong
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:02pm.
for anti-tobacco groups to release research that smoking while pregnant increases the risk of a miscarriage or a disabled baby. and schools should stop warning teenagers that drinking while pregnant can hurt the fetus. can't keep promoting eugenics, you know.
Huh?
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:23pm.
No, that's called avoiding health risks for your baby.
~?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:29pm.
Like the debiliatating effects of inbreeding?
That is a different argument.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:36pm.
The appeal to the health of a child is something different than the appeal to not "damage" (what does that mean anyway?) the gene pool.
~Children
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:43pm.
ARE THE GENE POOL. We are all the gene pool. The gene pool does not have a separate existence outside of us and our children. You damage the children you damage the gene pool, and vice versa.
damage the gene pool?
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:44pm.
You seem to have this strange idea that we're saying incest babies damage the overall gene pool? No that is not it.
For a fetus to develop it has to have certain contributions from the father and the mother. When people are closely related the baby doesn't get the proper chromosomes. It doesn't have anything to do with them being black, white, gay, "special needs" or anything. It is NOT something nature tolerates.
Concerning your first question.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:00pm.
That is exactly what WB says. If you want to make the argument, that there are health risks for the child. That is fine. If you want to argue that this is the reason why it should be outlawed, then you have to consider that other couples might have similar risks while not being related. This in turn would imply necesseraly that procreation in such cases has to be outlawed too. I am not willing to go down that road. You don't have to justify policies with science. Morals can be enough.
On a side note: What increases is the risk. And "nature can tolerate" something like that, as there are numerous examples of children born out of incest.
~The gene pool is not some body of water
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:02pm.
it's US. It's all of our children. If behavior that is known to cause permanent, irremediable damage to children and their children and their children is condoned, it's the worst kind of child abuse.
"Honey, sorry about that crippling genetic disorder, I just cared more about getting my jollies with your uncle/dad than I did about the consequences you would face."
So you do want
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:12pm.
people with genetic disorders like Down-Syndrome to abstain from procreating? As it is the worst kind of child abuse you probably think it belongs outlawed. I think there won't be many people here supporting you.
~See response to this question above
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:30pm.
Oh, and while I'm here. You can't conflate the issue of a few people with DS who are capable of getting married choosing to do so, (they rarely choose to get pregnant, as it is life-threatening for a woman with DS to get pregnant) with a widespread acceptance of incest. The first poses no risk to the population, while the second leads inevitably to serious genetic decline of the entire population that practices it.
-------------------------------------------
More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:
The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders." (Times of India, 17/11 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).
answer three questions for me
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:31pm.
1) should we take reasonable steps to protect healthy babies or should we let mothers do whatever they want?
2) why is polygamy still illegal?
3) when Muslims in America insist that 16 year olds are perfectly capable to choose marriage with a 60 year old man, will you gladly join them?
1.) Yes 2.) Because there
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:41pm.
1.) Yes
2.) Because there is no majority in your or my country for that.
3.) No.
ok
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:48pm.
You say you won't tolerate Muslims lowering the age of consent. We'll see. If/when a Huffington Post blogger proposes that very thing, we'll come back here and see.
I'd like to stay and continue this oddly fascinating discussion, but I have to get up tomorrow morning and pay for 10 million people to get unemployment checks.
Actually
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:19pm.
I think if marriage is supposed to keep part of its meaning of a lifelong commitment one should consider to raise the age of consent.
Troggy's background
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:49pm.
In Troggy's country, children are of age at 14 with parents permission.
Details are sketchy, but rumor has it Troggy was forced into an arranged marriage with a well-to-do Schnitzel industry executive named Heinz von Zipper, Eric's cousin.
~Here's a little something
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:54pm.
to back that up.
thank you brunette
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:59pm.
It starts as minor issues and then it gets to the point that people become mentally disturbed. I'm amazed that people like troglodtye and satchmo have no problem with planned parenthood openly targeting black babies for genocide - but they cry eugenics when we explain why incest is outlawed.
~It's amazing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:04pm.
What kind of liberal-crazy bubbles to the surface if you wait long enough. And now it's enshrined for all to see till NB wipes the archives again.
Deja vu*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:13pm.
This is the result of troll incest.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/baby-troll-dade.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.saynotocrack.com/index.php/2008/12/16/intelligent-debate-is-impossible-on-the-internet-part-final/&h=320&w=266&sz=15&tbnid=ELuHGANdtT4gwM:&tbnh=246&tbnw=205&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpics%2Bof%2Bbaby%2Btrolls&zoom=1&q=pics+of+baby+trolls&hl=en&usg=__aA5669gV6BQZ6ZvaW0WePivm1m0=&sa=X&ei=sTw6Te3xL4PEgAeWleDgCA&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAA
~Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:18pm.
At least that generation is apparently sterile.
LOL cajun!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:16pm.
LOL cajun!
I cry eugenics
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:30pm.
when I see the eugenic argument. Let me spell it out
It's really not a good idea to let incestuous idiots propagate their species.
Replace the word incestuous with down-syndrome or any other genetic abberation and you might get this.
oh stop
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:38pm.
People with special needs end up having "normal" kids all the time. Incest never, ever has a happy ending.
The risk of a child
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:58pm.
having Down-Syndrome when one of the parents has it, is significantly elevated. To put it in numbers 50%.
~Give us more numbers
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:17pm.
Like the percentage of women with DS who are physically capable of carrying a pregnancy to term. Cross-reference that with the percentage of women with DS who actually get married. Then cross-reference that with the percentage who do choose to have a baby. It's infinitestimal, not to mention irrelevant to a discussion on incest. Or are you going to posit on incestuous disabled people, now?
Read your history
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:39pm.
BEFORE there was a eugenics movement - millenia before there was a eugenics movement, or even the thought of one - incest was (and is) considered taboo in the extreme by countless societies, cultures, and religions around the world.
This blows your flawed notion straight to hell.
Besides, since you are using Wikipedia, you demonstrate yourself once again to be an intellectual flop. Use an actual legitimate source for a change.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Troglodyt, What the hell
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:30pm.
Troglodyt,
What the hell are you arguing for? incest? WOW....Liberals are disgusting individuals, but I don't think that is news.
I have heard the pro-incest argument always from Liberals. WOW!!!
Any and all arguments, debates, anything and everything you have ever said on NB....you just discredited with this disgusting pro-incest argument.
But that is what happens to a mind and culture when Liberalism is taken to its full logic. When anything and everything goes, when sex is only about pleasure and children can be aborted, why worry about incestual relationships, right? WOW!!!!!
This is just freaking disgusting!!!
I don't recall ever
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:17pm.
I don't recall ever mentioning Planned Parenthood here, let alone black babies or eugenics. You have absolutely no idea what my views are on them. Don't go putting words in my mouth or attributing views and beliefs to me that I've never expressed and don't hold at all.You dont have too
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:26pm.
This is what your sacred abortion policy has become. And if you support it, your saying you support it in it's entirety, because you cant separate it. So, what are you going to do about it?
Keep those strawmen comng.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:46pm.
Keep those strawmen comng.I guess when you can't break the argument
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:53pm.
All you can do is support killing kids, and pretend your not racial profiling? Lightwieght
Thanks for the edit,,, ha
Yes, I do understand that
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:06pm.
Yes, I do understand that there is that potential. I never once defended incest. I said that It is no business of government's what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, so long as no one's life, liberty, or property is being violated. And no one is arguing that it's a good idea or should be a means of propogation. The reason why it's illegal is debatable. As for your last comment, if there is consent without force or fraud, then there is no abuse.Sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:52pm.
You whine that you never defended incest, yet in your last sentence, you defend incest, and say that the reason incest is illegal is debatable.
Sick freak.
Go study a subject you are clearly totally unfamiliar with, and treat with much contempt: history.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sick
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:25pm.
If only you worried about your own lack of reading skills.
You sick, diseased bastard. You attack my reading abilities in one breath and then you turn right around and cheerfully defend incest AGAIN, regarding laws against incest as a "government intrusion into personal liberty". You NEED to be locked up, and have the key to your cell thrown away. Failing that, you need to say goodbye to your testicles, and they need to be cut off without anesthetics.
The INSTANT you asked "What if it was consensual?" is the ONLY thing I needed to see to show me that you are a sick, disgusting freak.
SHUT UP about other people's abilities and learn to address your own, sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~The context
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:49pm.
was you defending a man having sex with his own daughter. Just like my tagline says. It's accurate, alright.
the true context Bru*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:40pm.
When you are a superior intelligent being, so far superior to those around you, it is imperitve that types like troggy and the incestmo mate with one of their own in order to generously share that superior intellect in order to upgrade the gene pool. There is your context. Pedophilia, intrusive government, morality, all strawmen arguements when it is all about dropping your wonderfulness into the gene pool.
The comment was about a
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:19pm.
The comment was about a specific case of two consenting adults and government's involvement in the affairs of two consenting adults, not on incest as a whole, as your purposefully misleading signature implies.~You said it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:27pm.
about a father having sex with his daughter. And you do realize that arguing against laws banning incest means you're arguing for incest as a whole, right?
Same with abortion
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:31pm.
If your for it, your for racial culling. No way around it that I can see?
But I didn't say that there
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:54pm.
But I didn't say that there shouldn't be an laws against it, and your if-then is very flawed. One can be morally opposed to drinking or gambling yet also believe that neiher activity should be illegal. I'm sorry that you can't - won't, really - understand that this is a larger discussion about the role of government and personal liberty.Sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:47pm.
Indeed, and a legitimate role of government is to enforce millenia-old standards, like the idea that having sex with your relatives is disgusting and indefensible.
But keep right on defending incest, sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:29am.
You won't read this post as well but a small reminder. When a man abuses his parental authority over his own child to groom that child into a sexual relationship, the age of the "child" is irrelevant because it is no longer "consensual". She has been programmed to accept abnormal behavior for the parent's pleasure, certainly not in the best interest of the child. That distortion of parent/child relationship has been perverted in such a way that the "child", regardless of age, is unable to make valid judgement for consent.That is why it is against the law.
Incestmo: "I lost the argument"
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:39pm.
Thanks for the concession speech, Incestmo. I know you have lost the argument when you refuse to face the counter-argument, use phrases like "willfully ignorant", and become insulting, condescending, and dismissive.
Go on and leave NewsBusters and worry about which of your relatives is the most hot and available.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There was no counter argument
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:48pm.
There was no counter argument due to your inability to comprehend what you read and your inability to understand basic concepts. Topic after topic, this is the way you are. To not have knowledge of a subject is to be ignorant, which can be fixed by even minimal research. That you refuse to do so means your ignorance is willful. This isn't meant to be condescending, it's an objective observation. Like I said, I truly do feel sorry for you just as I feel sorry for anyone who refuses to learn, think, and understand.Quit groveling, quit trying to be condescending
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:24pm.
There IS a counter-argument, and you don't have the ability to deal with it adequately. You lack the intellectual firepower to do so. You have been defeated in the arena of ideas (again) so you do what you always do: attack the poster you are debating in a variety of ways, none of which deals with the counter-argument.
Therefore this pseudo-intellectual post of yours, and its attempt to be condescending, only means that I won the argument and you lost it, and that you are absolutely committed to losing the argument.
You feel sorry for anyone who refuses to learn, think and understand, you say? Self-pity is not a good thing. Stop feeling sorry for yourself, your pathetic, sick freak, and try to actually defend yourself for a change.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
With every post, you continue
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:45pm.
With every post, you continue to underscore my points.with every post*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:03pm.
You keep digging deeper "post holes". You are as done as Dave's bbq ribs. You may need to contact "userofathousandpostnames" for instructions.
geez satchmo
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:23pm.
I went and read that incest thread just to see what the big deal was. Do you really want the government to put everyone on food stamps? And you call yourself a libertarian? What is wrong with you?
Anticipated response from Incestmo
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:16pm.
"I have never seen such willful ignorance. What a strawman you have there. It's really sad to see someone who can't read and think critically. So very, very, very sad."
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No. That is a
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:23pm.
No. That is a mischaracterization of the FairTax. The FairTax has nothing to do with putting people on food stamps. Please visit the FairTax website and learn for yourself.For the sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:48pm.
Under the Unfair Tax you so crave, the government will hand out allowance money every month, and the all-knowing, all-powerful government will determine (it knows best after all, right, Incestmo?) how much allowance money people will get, and what they will spend their allowance money on.
Proof once again that Incestmo is not a libertarian but rather an authoritarian.
I already pay an 8.25% sales tax, and not even the State of Texas gets all its money from sales taxes. It gets 64% of its revenue from sales taxes. This tells me that the Unfair Tax is doomed to fail. Revenue neutral my ass.
Worry about other things. Like your rigorous, passionate defense of incest. Sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You are wrong on all counts,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:57pm.
You are wrong on all counts, but what else is new. For those with a basic aptitude for reading: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faqYou have nothing, sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:50pm.
You once again lose the argument by demonstrating you have zero intellectual firepower.
It seems that when you are getting your ass kicked in a debate, because you are a lightweight of the highest order, the ONLY thing you can do is to childishly attack people's literacy. So here's a new rule just for Incestmo:
The INSTANT Incestmo begins attacking people's ability to read, instead of actually being a man and facing a counter-argument squarely, he immediately concedes the point and loses the argument.
Besides, you have so much work to do on your own reading skills, you need to shut up about anyone else's.
And you STILL want the government to hand people monthly allowances.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Incestmo's idiocy continues
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:17pm.
In what way? Do you even HAVE any points? You are only digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
SickofLibs (I believe I have his name right) is right. You are a frigging pariah here. You are the most vile, disgusting poster I have seen here in quite some time.
With each and every post, you prove yourself to be completely intellectually bankrupt and committed to losing the argument.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wow I guess I did not realize.
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:21pm.
I could have sworn I was not enraged or said or implied anyone to change the channel. I also don't recall accusing anyone of censorship I do recall saying I enjoy this sucessful show, liking the fact that this show drives some folks crazy and admiring Dan his his take on it. I guess I have to figure out a way to deal with my rage.Clarify
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:41pm.
So you do in fact like this post by Erin Brown?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes I do
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:44pm.
I love different POV. I also love disagreeing with her and telling her how good the show is.Fear of a Blank Planet
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:07pm.
Well, good. At least you have been intellectually consistent for once...
Glee is crap, and I do love watching the previews as I had to watching the news on KTBC this morning. Why? Because the previews are all I need to see it is crap. But if you love to watch crap, the remote is yours, feel free. But all it does is induce within me a fear of a blank planet...
P.S. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Thx Unsane
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:32pm.
Your right that being popular does not. make it good. I hated Pulp Fiction. However I like the show Glee. I guess enough people like it to make FOX a nice profit.To be clear
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:37pm.
I enjoy any post by Erin. Her pic comes with them. :)
You have to understand,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:59pm.
You have to understand, Unsane doesn't read too well and suffers from a terminal case of projection.More Incestmo stupidity
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:30pm.
This laughable comment coming from a sick freak who refuses to read other counter-arguments. (We are supposed to take everything Incestmo says as gospel. And if you dare to loft a counter argument at him, it just means you construct strawmen, you are willfully ignorant, you can't read, etc etc etc. Incestmo is the most brilliant thinker and THE supreme expert on ALL things and is to NEVER be questioned. At least in his warped mind.)
Why is it the people who make a living off of projecting their own failings onto others the very first to accuse people of projection? YOU are the one constantly scolding and lecturing people for YOUR OWN FAILINGS, not I.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Jeezum Crow Uns,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:54pm.
LOL - I didn't suggest they should shut up, but just change the channel.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Let me clarify, Dave, since we are on good terms and all
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:34pm.
To me it seems you are very upset that Erin brown would even write this piece.
In my view, she IS changing the channel, encouraging others to (well, she viewed enough of this stupid show to write commentary on it), and this should be CELEBRATED by you and other libertarians. I'll reread her bit, I guess, but I don't see ANYTHING where she is calling for censorship by the government.
Hence, she is happy to see Fox exercise its First Amendment rights, and she is exercising her own. What in the hell is the problem?
I think this anytime Miss Brown's, or Mr. Bozell's columns on television and entertainment are greeted with people bitching "Just change the channel".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
But don't tell him he has a
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:26pm.
But don't tell him he has a problem with reading comprehension.Sick freak...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:49pm.
A poster with an extremely severe problem with reading comprehension scolding and lecturing others about their problems with reading comprehension.
What's that they say about people who live in glass houses, sick freak?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Relax People! (Freedom of Speech?)
Submitted by tvhall on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:28am.
You people say “homosexual pedophile incest" like it’s immoral, a bad thing and the perpetrator uh person doing it is doing something wrong or a bad person.
Relax people! Go have sex with your cousin.
:-0
We already have one of those here,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:38am.
and one is plenty.
Two actually
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:37pm.
If one counts both Incestmo and sicksnark.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hey, What Happened To "Skins" Being The Dangerous Show?
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:39pm.
Did you run out of advertisers to boycott on that show? Did the Obama administration turn down your application for child pornography charges or something? Are you just running out of excuses as to why teenagers must be as chaste as the Amish? Face it, you're just jealous that the show is doing so well and that treacly garbage like Sarah Palin's Alaska is being sent in the trash bin where it belongs (and I mean the show, not the politician).
For the Bigot
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:36pm.
You on Voyage 34 again, TheBigot7Sticks?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
After considerable rumination on the subject---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:11pm.
I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Incestmo the SatchelMouth is a fookin' mook.
TheReal7Sticks is hot on his heels.
MD
trog
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:26pm.
You're not submitting a new meaning for the word eugenics, you're inserting an alternate rendition -and an extremely loose one at that- to deflect from the fact that you've been caught with your pants down, and apparently your sister's in the room with you. You're not introducing science, you're frantically searching for something to help you explain that awkward situation you find yourself in. Your mutation of incest to eugenics to population genetics is a clear signal of wagon-circling.
Honestly
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:37pm.
I find it awkward that christians (or to be more specific Catholics) seem to support Bru's argument or at least that they don't argue against it. That you didn't follow or comprehend the content of this discussion in its entirety is, in light of your remarks, obvious.
Yes, I'm sure that's
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:38pm.
Yes, I'm sure that's it.
Keep your head down, trog.
~Catholics?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:44pm.
Are you under the impression that I'm Catholic?
The issue of people who have severe congenital disorders like DS reproducing does not apply to the issue of genetic damage caused by incest. Down's Syndrome IS NOT GENETIC. It IS NOT INHERITED.
You know not whereof you speak. Do some research before you open your ignorant piehole.
You've just "lost" the argument.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:59pm.
Down's Syndrome IS NOT GENETIC.
Yes it is a genetic. And it can be inherited.
And no I don't believe you are Catholic, otherwise it would be inexlicable why you argue the way you argue.
Good night.
LOL! Wow! Down Syndrome is
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:59pm.
LOL! Wow! Down Syndrome is inherently genetic.Whoops. Someone is LYING.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:59am.
Wrathful Brunette: Down's Syndrome IS NOT GENETIC.
troglodyt: Yes it is a genetic.
Pervmo: Down Syndrome is inherently genetic
Hmmmm. Someone is not talling the truth. Wrathful Brunette has a history of telling the truth. Whereas the 2 Liars, Little Boy Liar and his butt buddy Pervmo do not.
Judge? The Vet has arrived.
There is more than one definition for genetic. Let's get the full context here.
WB: The issue of people who have severe congenital disorders like DS reproducing does not apply to the issue of genetic damage caused by incest. Down's Syndrome IS NOT GENETIC. It IS NOT INHERITED.
As she is speaking to the idea of inheritance and reproduction, we must chose the following definition.
S: (adj) familial, genetic, hereditary, inherited, transmitted, transmissible (occurring among members of a family usually by heredity) "an inherited disease"; "familial traits"; "genetically transmitted features"
Now, by that definition, is Down Syndrome genetic? Can it be passed along in a family tree.
Can Down syndrome be inherited?Most cases of Down syndrome are not inherited. When the condition is caused by trisomy 21, the chromosomal abnormality occurs as a random event during the formation of reproductive cells. The abnormality usually occurs in egg cells, but it occasionally occurs in sperm cells. An error in cell division called nondisjunction results in a reproductive cell with an abnormal number of chromosomes. For example, an egg or sperm cell may gain an extra copy of chromosome 21. If one of these atypical reproductive cells contributes to the genetic makeup of a child, the child will have an extra chromosome 21 in each of the body's cells.
Mosaic Down syndrome is also not inherited. It occurs as a random event during cell division early in fetal development. As a result, some of the body's cells have the usual two copies of chromosome 21, and other cells have three copies of this chromosome.
Translocation Down syndrome can be inherited. An unaffected person can carry a rearrangement of genetic material between chromosome 21 and another chromosome. This rearrangement is called a balanced translocation because there is no extra material from chromosome 21. Although they do not have signs of Down syndrome, people who carry this type of balanced translocation are at an increased risk of having children with the condition.
+++
Three percent to 4 percent of babies born with Down syndrome have translocation Down syndrome.
++++
Translocation Down syndrom can be inherited BUT only from an unaffected person. What did WB say? ...people who have severe congenital disorders like DS reproducing... Whoops. She did not say the unaffected person reproducing. SHE SAID THE DS PERSON REPRODUCING.
+++
Although there have been rare exceptions, men with Down syndrome cannot father a child. In any pregnancy, a woman with Down syndrome has a 50/50 chance of conceiving a child with Down syndrome, but many pregnancies are miscarried.
+++
Where one parent has Down's syndrome, there is a 35% to 50% chance that the child would inherit the syndrome. This chance is even higher where both parents have Down's syndrome. There is also a high chance that pregnancy would end in miscarriage. Women with Down's syndrome are also more likely than other women to have a premature baby, or to need a caesarian section.
+++
So in general, 97% of DS comes from RANDOM events in cell formation and reproduction.
The 3% of DS comes from largely from unaffected people.
DS men are infertile. DS women have a high chance of miscarriage if they do opt to have a child and they rarely do.
______________________
---> Point goes to WB <---
______________________
Wait. There is one more thing.
WB: ...does not apply to the issue of genetic damage caused by incest.
++++
Does incest increase the risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker Incest wouldn't increase the risk of Down Syndrome, which is caused by failure of the chromosomes to split up evenly when a cell divides. Extra genetic material from Chromosome 21 interferes with proper development of the fetus. The longer an egg waits before dividing, the more likely it is to divide improperly, so older mothers are more likely to have fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities. This happens before fertilization, and the status of the father (age, relationship to the mother, etc.) has nothing to do with it. If the same error occurs in development of a sperm cell, Down Syndrome could come from the father, but this is rare and also uninfluenced by incest. There are also uncommon cases of Down Syndrome resulting from translocation of part of Chromosome 21 to another chromosome. Men or women who carry such unbalanced chromosomes have a high risk of producing offspring with Down Syndrome, but incest would not increase that risk, either.
Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_Down_syndrome
+++
Point goes to WB again
+++
So should WB have explained all this in detail as I did? As she was largely correct, and by largely I mean really really largely correct, no. And she did not need to delve this far into detail just to get a point across that is really really really largely correct.
Her detractors could have said it, instead of dismissing her out of hand but they are 2 little Sissies just like balboa, j. frank wilson. And has anyone seen any sissy troll now or in the past go this much into detail to get their point across? Hah, that will be the day.
troglody LIES again.
Pervmo LIES again.
He has thought about it at least.
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:32am.
We must choose a definition. We must. Otherwise the vet can't prove his point. So we must. What a judge! Genetic as in relating to genetics cannot be considered, because otherwise he doesn't have anything to brag about.
Translocation Down syndrom can be inherited BUT only from an unaffected person. What did WB say? ...people who have severe congenital disorders like DS reproducing... Whoops. She did not say the unaffected person reproducing. SHE SAID THE DS PERSON REPRODUCING.
Haven't you read your source? Most cases of Down syndrome are not inherited. Well Vet: Tell me what does the word "most" indicate? Is it synonymous to "all"? No? So there are cases where DS is inherited. Liar, Liar pants on fire? In your world yes.
That you bring up the hitherto unmentioned question whether incest increases the risk of getting children with DS is interesting, but unrelated to what we are talking about.
Pack sand little liar. Pack it hard. Pack it tight. Pack. Pack.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:10am.
The little boy liar: whine. whine. whine.
The issue was your dismissing of her using the genetic word. Little butt hurt troll that goes into full on whiny diaper mode.
Wrathful Brunette: Down's Syndrome IS NOT GENETIC.
troglodyt: Yes it is a genetic.
Pervmo: Down Syndrome is inherently genetic
So you fill those diapers and you thrust that hand down in there. You thrust it in there and you start that furious scratching because those poor little nads of yours that got the itchies.
You see me disputing your And it can be inherited little crybaby whiner troll with the full diapers? I would give you a point for the can be part but for a few things.
1. you are already way way way in the negative for all the lies you have told here.
2. You disputed another user without clarifying what the truth was.
3. You were wrong on the genetic disputed statement.
4. You are a full on whiner troll with full diapers.
5. I don't like you.
6. You don't pay me.
7. It can be inherited from an unaffected person in 3% of the cases. WB was talking to the issue of DS producing children. Not all cases. SInce that number is so small making WB largely in the right as I pointed out, you should have clarified it little diaper troll. Oh, and pack sand.
8. Whiner.
9. Crybaby.
Looks like we have a whiner disputing a judges call. Can a friend of troglodyt's please speak up in his defense? Do we have any other impartial judges in the room?
Good morning Vet
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:51am.
You may not be right about him pounding sand. I thought he was digging a rat hole to hide in. I believe you and Bru have him rattled.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
You appear to be a friend of the court and WB.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:03am.
Wow. LBL troglodyt is not off to a good start.
Whoops. Did troglodyt LIE again? He linked to an oxford definition but forgot to copy this ---
genetics 1 relating to genes or heredity:
OR heredity. Hmmmm. more from oxford --
heredity 1 the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another:
Whoops. Another point ----> WB. What was my definition?
S: (adj) familial, genetic, hereditary, inherited, transmitted, transmissible (occurring among members of a family usually by heredity) "an inherited disease"; "familial traits"; "genetically transmitted features"
That you do not understand how
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:35pm.
the word "or" doesn't surprise me.
That is why we use the context of how the word is used LIAR.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:12pm.
I put the OR from the definition in my post in BOLD FRELLIN' LETTERS.
Little Lying Sissies like you and your new buddy Satchmo come here and act like there is only one definition for a word and SURPRISE that just happens to be the one you want today.
Sissy.
Liar.
Fill up those diapers.
That there is more than one meaning to a word
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:50pm.
makes negative claims as the one of Bru more difficult to evaluate or in her case wrong. If x has more than one definition, than to say "y is not x" is the same as claiming that y does not meet any of the definitions of x. That that makes her claim false is probably beyond your comprehension. Idiot. And liar.
~Hey, dimwit
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:03pm.
I'm going to type this s l o w l y for you. You specified parents with DS. The kind of DS that can be passed on through a parent comes from a parent who doesn't have it. Who exhibits no symptoms of DS and does not fit the paramaters you initially set.
Refer to my post below for details and links. Focus dahling, focus.
Do you really
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:16pm.
want to repeat his lies? Educate yourself before you do that.
Yes. Idiot. She repeates what I repeatedly sourced.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:07pm.
A DS mother has a much higher RISK of having a chlid with DS. It is not inherited. But I only brought something like a dozen sources that states that. Sissy Liar.
The point is whining liar
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:28pm.
you don't understand what you source. And then you sum it up in a way so that your stupid shines through. Liar.
Another lie.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:52pm.
A DS mother has a much higher RISK of having a chlid with DS. It is not inherited. But I only brought something like a dozen sources that states that.
Where did you source that again?
Pegged.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:13pm.
The idiot just confirmed he has been lying all along. DS is not inherited.
C'mon liar
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:19pm.
A DS mother has a much higher RISK of having a chlid with DS.
Where did you source that?
You lost the right to demand anything from me long ago
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 6:14pm.
Pack sand little lying liar.
Ah you didn't
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 6:17pm.
and now you can't admit it. What a coward. And you served? Dishonorable discharge ended that, I guess? Yeah whine and whine as long as you want to.
Trollie Flop Sweat.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 6:42pm.
Now it thinks it can raise bile bringing up my military record. Whatever Sissy, you iz first trollie to try that evah, huh?
~Excuse me?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:24pm.
Did the doctor who delivered you slap your mother when he saw you or just file charges against her for her crime against humanity?
Everything I've written here has been sourced from the Mayo Clinic website and the National Down's Syndrome Society. Everything The Vet has posted has confirmed what I posted from the Mayo Clinic website and the National Down's Syndrome Society. If you want to call it lies take it up with them. Go to the National Down's Syndrome Society and tell them they're wrong.
Sorry but were you refering
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:35pm.
to yourself when you wrote "It's really not a good idea to let incestuous idiots propagate their species."?
The Vet has just contradicted you and you didn't get it apparently.
for the record
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:08pm.
Wrathful Brunette did not write that sentence, I did.
But keep up more lies.
My apologies
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:40pm.
for misattributing this quote. You deserve the honor and you shall have it. Although WB probably thinks the same.
And please at least get my name right when you want to quote me every time you write something.
~Trog, you can't even keep track of who said what
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:37pm.
on this thread, as Hoosier points out above, and you want us to take your word for something? ROFL
Let me get this straight. You say The Vet contradicted me..but we're both wrong, according to you. This is great, I love it.
In his inability to stick
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:49pm.
to a topic he sometimes says something true, but doesn't hesitate to follow up with a lie shortly after. No surprise there.
~What bull, trog
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:12pm.
So. You brought up Down's Syndrome in a convo about incest. Tell the class exactly what Down's Syndrome has to do with incest. If you can.
Oh you really want to get back
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:16pm.
to where we started from? I'm surprised. I mean the whole argument about the eugenics argument you outlined earlier. You still want to debate that?
You lose, trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 6:57pm.
and if you are going to continually show your inability to recognize that fact, I will be forced to accept that for once, a troll username is accurate: troglodyt(e) - a member of a primitive people dwelling in caves. Or did you select your username for the definition "arthropoid ape", as that more closely describes your debating skill level?do you just lie about everything or can you not read?
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 7:17pm.
I am the one who initially brought up DS because I mistakenly thought it was one of the possible side effects of DS. Wrathful Brunette linked us to an article that explored incest-related disorders and emphasized dimensia/mental instability as the primary result. I've read over this forum twice and I can't see where Wrathful Brunette said DS came from incest.
Feel free to rake me over the coals for that mistake. But if you want to keep going after Brunnette or Vet, you'll need to show me where they asserted such "where it started from."
Troggy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 7:51pm.
Your post #116 on 2-4-11 is the one where you detonated the land mine. You mistakenly likened sociological theories of eugenics to the biological science of genetics. Now you want to walk backward on the same path? Not a good plan. Call it a day Trog and "the forum about nothing" is a good place for you to hover for awhile.
Again
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:06pm.
You mistakenly likened sociological theories of eugenics to the biological science of genetics.
When you invoke the notion that the gene pool is to be kept from deteriorating you are exactly at the point where genetics meets eugenics.
so Troggy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:14pm.
Are you then in favor of protecting the gene pool from deteriorating? And how would you do that most superior Dr Trollicus?Whatever Sissy.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:24pm.
As usual, you won't shut up when you have been shown to be the lying little snit you are.
W H A T E V E R.
Pissy little whiner gets bested again and goes into a 8 day whining spree spewing piffle and whatever passes for wit in trollieville.
Balboa is looking for a buddy, little Sissy Troll. Go join his pity party.
And there
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:17pm.
the whining starts again.
Whatever Little Lying Sissy Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:11pm.
The Lying Sissy troglodyt: If x has more than one definition, than to say "y is not x" is the same as claiming that y does not meet any of the definitions of x.
Of course, if X slapped the poo out of Y, and Y went screaming to MumzieTroll claiming the Z was laughing and W pushed him down and.... Makes more sense than the Little Lying Boy Troll, don't it?
And
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:19pm.
you forget to mention that Y is The Vet, X is moi and Z is every sane person in this world. Stop whining and complaining and man up and admit your mistakes. Everything else is pathetic you liar.
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:25pm.
Only and idiot puffs up his feathers and whips around the liar word when the evidence of what I wrote is right here on this page. It is all here and most of it is locked up and uneditable since the lying last word troll can't shut up.
As I stated on day 1 in my judge posts, anyone is free to come here and show a flaw in my logic. But you puff out that little sissy chest of yours and act like it is all The Veet lying and throwing around the hurty wordz on top of the truffie little trollies. Keep acting like you won something here little lying trollie. It is all you have left.
Oh poor guy
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:38pm.
Do I treat you unfairly? Do you want an icecream?
Whatever balboa.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:17pm.
Again, people can read that post and see it was about you and your constant lies and was by no means anywhere near the whining trolls do here. But you parrot the kind of things I say to trolls because it sounds wise to you. Sissy.
Ignore him. He is a paranoid
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:44am.
Ignore him. He is a paranoid delusional who makes things up then calls other people liars.
"Down syndrome (DS), also called Trisomy 21, is a condition in which extra genetic material causes delays in the way a child develops, both mentally and physically."
http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/genetic/down_syndrome.html
"Down syndrome (also called Trisomy 21) is a genetic disorder that occurs in approximately 1 of 800 live births."
http://www.medicinenet.com/down_syndrome/article.htm
Down Syndrome is inherently genetic. WB, once again, displays his/her ignorance. In this case, genetics, and confusing genetics and heredity.
~Whine, whine, whine, whine
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:25am.
Pervmo and his sister trog just never stop whining, mewling, and puking when they've been proven wrong. They redouble their efforts, in fact.
The Vet did the heavy lifting after I retired for the night, I see. Thanks Vet. Your homemade jelly-filled doughnuts are in the mail. ;)
Oh, and one more thing, Pervmo. If you're going to take my use of genetic in that instance to mean, simply, 'having anything to do with genetic material", you merely prove your ignorance..again. Using 'genetic' in the singular form, as I did, means this..
(used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
To mean what you are indicating it means requires the use of the plural form. If I said, "DS has nothing to do with genetics" that would have been incorrect. As it is, you have made a fool of yourself. Again.Proven wrong? You are the one
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:51pm.
Proven wrong? You are the one who said, "Down's Syndrome IS NOT GENETIC." It is, in fact, a genetic disorder. And you weren't using genetic as a noun; it was an adjective. Singular and plural is a red herring that does not apply.~G E N E T I C
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:04pm.
(used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most cases of Down syndrome aren't inherited. They're caused by a mistake in cell division during the development of the egg, sperm or embryo.
Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child. However, only about 4 percent of children with Down syndrome have translocation. And only about half of these cases are inherited from one of the parents.
In these translocation cases (50% of 4%, mind you), the mother or father is a balanced carrier of the translocation, which means he or she has some rearranged genetic material, but no extra genetic material. A balanced carrier has no signs or symptoms of Down syndrome, but he or she can pass the translocation on to children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject under discussions was whether or not people with Down's Syndrome having children has any detrimental effect on the overall gene pool. Trog brought this up in an effort to smear those against legalized incest as eugenicists. I pointed out that there is no connection between Down's Syndrome and incest. I also pointed out that the percentage of people with DS who are physically capable of reproducing is very small, and that it is not an inherited condition. Translocation DS does not apply to the argument because it is not inherited from a parent who suffers from it. Trog's parameters did not specify balanced carriers with no extra genetic material who present no signs of DS and in fact do not have classic Down's Syndrome.
It's a fool's errand, Bru
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:17pm.
Trying to educate the willfully ignorant (liberals) like Troggy.
Refer to my excellent tag.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Pfffftt. What do you know outbreeder?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:34pm.
You prolly chose someone with genetic material outside of your immediate family as your mate.
Incest is Best!
Sincerely,
A Skeezemo that is focused on the genetic material of the immediate family.
++++
How was that Blonde? Did my imitation of Pervemo convince you?
~You ain't kiddin', J
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:28pm.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
You can slap them with facts all day long and they just bound back up and pretend it never happened.
That's right, Pervmo and trog. If you pretend it didn't happen then the rest of us can't see it on our computer screens.
Bwahahahahahahaha
No matter how often you repeat it
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:30pm.
"Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child."
is not true.
Source it then little Sissy troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:36pm.
You saw me extensively source. Prove it. Little Butt Hurt Diaper Troll. Oh wait, you are so trusted to tell the truth here you don't have to, right? Not like you have a nickname that includes the word liar. Right Little Boy Liar?
You didn't
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:54pm.
source the claim in question.
The first paragraph after the summary of this should be the end of this inane discussion. I don't expect an apology.
troglodyt LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:07pm.
Benda43 commented that Down's syndrome males very often have small testes and that spermatogenesis was only rarely present. Steams et aP4" showed a complete absence of sperm in four out of nine patients and only occasional spermatozoa in the other five. Histology performed on Down's syndrome testes usually shows markedly decreased spermatogenesis. 45 The inability of Down's syndrome males to reproduce may be related to their sexual impotence as well as to their inability to produce sufficient gametes."6
His own link confirms what I read last night. But yeah, the lying Butt Hurt Little Boy Troll thinks I have to SOURCE every single statement whereas we have to SHAME him into providing a source.
NOW. Back up what YOU said. Prove that any male from this study passed a form of Down Syndrome OTHER than Translocation DS. Butt for a hat. This study only says some DS males MAY be fertile.
The LYING LYING LYING SISSY TROLL THAT EXPECTS EVERYONE TO SOURCE BY HIM: "Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child." is not true.
Nice try in moving goal posts.
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:43am.
Back up what YOU said. Prove that any male from this study passed a form of Down Syndrome OTHER than Translocation DS.
I never claimed anything about males. Nice try though. Liar. Do you expect people to be incapable of reading? Liar.
Back to the claim in question though, which was:
"Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child."
You do see that there is no distinction between males and females in that claim? No? Idiot. To prove that this claim is wrong I quote from the same source I linked above and the first paragraph after the summary, as I said and you conveniently chose to ignore because it proved you wrong:Twenty-six non-mosaic trisomy 21 females, in 29 pregnancies, have produced 10 offspring with Down's syndrome...
Quit whining and man up. Liar.What?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:16am.
Does anyone else here see the buttload of Stupid from this idiot? I hope this is being witnessed.
I don't have time to read 655 page studies YOU LINK to. You want me to do something other that take a cursury glance at a 655 page study. Copy in the PERTINENT QUOTES and LINK. But no, You THE IDIOT links to something then tells us to go there and read pages after pages of a 655 page study. This AFTER I have told you to knock it off.
I went there and guess what?
A. Whatever paragraph the Retard pointed out had nothing to do with his point. STILL DOES NOT.
B. I read a little further. It talks about MALES. The name on top of the page in BIG BOLD LETTERS ----
Fertility in a male with trisomy 21
C. The Retard is still not making sense. We already told him only translocation DS can be passed on.
D Now he points out a study with 21 non-mosaic females that had DS and offspring. AND...? What Retard? How does this change what we have been told?
OK, you are just plain stupid.
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:40am.
Now he points out a study with 21 non-mosaic females that had DS and offspring. AND...? What Retard? How does this change what we have been told?
That you are disingenious I knew. So don't try to prove it again again. Oops his stupid shines through again:We already told him only translocation DS can be passed on.
The part I qouted mentions cases where trisomy 21 is passed on. What do you do? Whine and deny. You are truly pathetic. And a liar.troglodyt LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:06pm.
Whatever little Sissy troll. Everything I learned about Down Syndrome while researching your LIES against Wrathful Brunette, I QUOTED and SOURCED. Not a single thing came from the inside of my noggin'. I QUOTED and SOURCED from reputable sites. NONE OF IT came from any knowledge I had prior to 3 days ago. NONE OF IT. I sourced from Government and Medical sites.
So take your PATHETIC STUPIDITY and PACK SAND.
I. HAVE. NEVER. LIED. ON. THIS. SITE.
IT. IS. ALL. YOU. DO.
OH Little Boy LIAR. Yo. Little Boy LIAR.
What kind of DS is NON-Mosaic?
Huh?
What kind LIAR?
non-mosaic trisomy 21 females
IS Translocation DS non-mosaic? Huh?
COME ON.
Tell us.
Is TranslocationDS non-mosaic?
Is it?
non-mosaic trisomy 21 females
non-mosaic
not mosaic
as in another kind of DS
Fish for a Hat.
non-mosaic trisomy 21 females
Say, if it is NON-mosaic, it must be another kind.
Idiot.
We have found articles on the web that say OVER and OVER that only translocation can be heritable. SO TAKE whatever it is you think you learned from that study on a MALE DS and SHOVE IT UP YOUR REAR. You are a damnable liar. And no matter how many times you and your fellow trollies try to throw it back in my face, IT WILL NOT EVER STICK.
A chromosome study is also valuable to rule in or out a translocation (a type of rearrangement) of chromosome 21 that can be heritable in which case it can give rise to more cases of Down syndrome in the family .
Translocations resulting in trisomy 21 may be inherited...
Can Down syndrome be inherited?This happens when there is an error in cell division and instead of 46 chromosomes dividing into two new cells with 23 each, one of the new cells will have 24 (and therefore the extra '21' chromosome). So it's not really a hereditary thing -- the chances of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome increases after the age of 35 or so, and in general the odds are 1 in 800 of having a child with Down syndrome.
Most cases of Down syndrome are not inherited. When the condition is caused by trisomy 21, the chromosomal abnormality occurs as a random event during the formation of reproductive cells. The abnormality usually occurs in egg cells, but it occasionally occurs in sperm cells. An error in cell division called nondisjunction results in a reproductive cell with an abnormal number of chromosomes. For example, an egg or sperm cell may gain an extra copy of chromosome 21. If one of these atypical reproductive cells contributes to the genetic makeup of a child, the child will have an extra chromosome 21 in each of the body's cells.
Mosaic Down syndrome is also not inherited. It occurs as a random event during cell division early in fetal development. As a result, some of the body's cells have the usual two copies of chromosome 21, and other cells have three copies of this chromosome.
Translocation Down syndrome can be inherited. An unaffected person can carry a rearrangement of genetic material between chromosome 21 and another chromosome. This rearrangement is called a balanced translocation because there is no extra material from chromosome 21. Although they do not have signs of Down syndrome, people who carry this type of balanced translocation are at an increased risk of having children with the condition.
In Mosaic Down syndrome, the extra chromosome spontaneously appears as the embryo develops. Translocation Down syndrome, which accounts for approximately five per cent of cases, is inheritable
+++
Standard Trisomy 21The events that cause Down syndrome occur before conception and lead to a fertilised egg with an abnormal number of chromosomes in each cell - 47 rather than the normal 46. This is called a meiotic nondisjunction event.
‘Meiosis’ is the technical term used to describe the cell division that occurs in the reproductive organs of men and women and when it happens correctly eggs and sperm should each carry a set of 23 chromosomes. This is called a disjunction. However in some cases a pair fails to separate which leads to the one gamete (i.e., either a sperm or egg cell) having 24 chromosomes and the other 23 chromosomes. This is called a nondisjunction. As a result when this gamete of 24 chromosomes merges with a normal gamete (23 chromosomes) the embryo will have 47 chromosomes, which includes 3 copies of chromosome 21.
This is known as Standard Trisomy 21 and occurs in approximately 95% of children with Down syndrome.
Translocation Trisomy 21Occasionally the extra copy of chromosome 21 is attached to another chromosome in the egg or sperm and this may result in Translocation Trisomy 21. This rearrangement of genetic material usually sees the extra copy of chromosome 21 attached to chromosome 14. Whilst the number of chromosomes present appears to be normal there is still a triplication of genetic material from chromosome 21 and hence Down syndrome results. The incidence of Translocation is 2-3% and without a karyotype test it is indistinguishable from standard trisomy 21.
Whilst Down syndrome is usually an unexpected event without a detectable cause, in 1 out of every 3 cases of Translocation it is possible that the condition was inherited from a parent. Some parents have what is called a ‘balanced translocation’ where the extra genetic material is attached to another chromosome but it does not affect their health. It is important for the parents to undergo a karyotype assessment to assess the risk for future pregnancies.
Mosaic Trisomy 21In Standard Trisomy 21 all cells in the body carry 47 chromosomes however in Mosaic Trisomy 21 there is a mixture of trisomic and non trisomic cells i.e., some cells have 47 chromosomes whilst others have the usual 46. This occurs in approximately 1-2% of cases.
There are 2 ways Mosaic Trisomy 21 can occur. One is that a nondisjunction event (refer to Standard Trisomy 21 above) occurs in the early stages of a normal embryo’s development that leads to a small number of cells carrying triplicate material. The other is that an embryo already carrying Down syndrome splits in nondisjunction and a proportion of the cells revert back to a ‘normal’ formation.
The ratio of normal to abnormal cells varies widely amongst individuals with Down syndrome and impacts on the extent to which Down syndrome is evident.
I AM SICK TO DEATH OF LINKING TO SITE AFTER SITE THAT SAYS THE SAME THING SIMPLY BECAUSE ANOTHER LYING SISSY WON"T ADMIT HE LIED.
For The Vet a liar extraordinaire.
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:01pm.
Repeat with me: Translocation DS is not the same as trisomy 21.
Again:
Translocation DS is not the same as trisomy 21.
Again:
Translocation DS is not the same as trisomy 21.
More to the point: unbalanced Translocation DS is a subclass of trisomy 21, where the patient doesn't have three separate chromosomes 21 but one part of chromosome 21 is connected with chromosome 14.
There are cases where mothers with trisomy 21 (which causes Down's syndrome) give birth to children with trisomy 21 (you know which causes Down's syndrome). Neither the mother nor the child have Translocation DS. That is confirmed by table 1 in the study I linked. There the karyotype of the DS offspring is identified as 47, XX +21 or 47, XY +21 which is not Translocation DS as there is an additional chromosome, indicated by 47 and +21. Got it?
I believe you, that you didn't know anything about this 3 days ago. It is laudable that you want to learn about it. It is necessary though that you actually read what you link, that you think about it for a minute and that you are willing to understand it.
So. You. Have. Lied. Again. And. Again.
BTW: Another example for one of your lies is that "DS men are infertile". Proven to be a lie by the linked article.
Bored with you again little Liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:17am.
Little lying boy troll's only contact with the outside world is trolling on a website.
You were told DS cannot be inheriited. I have sources until my source button broke again that it cannot be inherited. Now you want to whine and repeat over and over what can be found in the sourced quotes I have put here over and over. And to make what point? That you can count?
You are once again saying things so blindingly stupid, it is pointless to continue.
Translocation DS is not the same as trisomy 21 -- Who said it was. My quotes show it is not. Who claimed it was? Pointless repeated blather for what purpose?
unbalanced Translocation DS is a subclass of trisomy 21 -- Huh? There are unbalanced translocations. There are unbalanced translocations. There is NO unbalanced Translocation DS.. And Translocation DS is one of the 3 types of DS NOT a subclass of one of the others.
...the patient doesn't have three separate chromosomes 21 but one part of chromosome 21 is connected with chromosome 14. -- Huh? Translocation DS seen in 4% of DS has the extra 21 translocated to other chromosomes or to the acrocentric chromosomes of D and G group that is, 13,14,15,21 and 22.
trisomy 21 (which causes Down's syndrome) -- Huh? Trisomy 21 is one of the 3 types of Down Syndrome. Not a cause.
mothers with trisomy 21.. give birth to children with trisomy 21 -- And? A mother with DS is a greater RISK of having children with DS. Greater RISK. DS is not inherited with the exception of Translocation DS.
your lies is that "DS men are infertile" -- there have been only three recorded instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children There have been millions of DS people walking around this planet. Millions. I brought forward what I read. 3 documented cases out of millions. Wow. I iz liar because I wrote here what I read during researching DS because the Little Boy Liar and his girlfriend/sister Pervmo called someone a liar.
More whining.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:07pm.
And stupid. And lies.
DS is not inherited with the exception of Translocation DS.
Again my source proves beyond a doubt that this is wrong. Go back, read it and learn. I explained it to you. But again: There exist DS mothers without Translocation DS who gave birth to children with DS without Translocation DS. Period.
Next is terminology (although I admit confusion is abundant): A syndrome is
a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition.
DS is comprised of the well known phenotypical signs (i.e. the typical facial abnormalities, sometimes heart problems, usually lower IQ levels etc.). The cause of DS is one of the forms of trisomy 21 (a source if you want it). Another example is the relationship of HIV and AIDS. They are not the same, but the former causes the latter. Pretty basic stuff.
But you are right about the (un)balanced Translocation DS. One shouldn't use the words together. Notice that Translocation DS (now you might ask huh? why is he talking about a syndrome when he means the cause? That is what I mean by confusion.) is actually Translocation trisomy 21 thereby a subclass of trisomy 21. Got it?
3 documented cases out of millions. Wow. I iz liar because I wrote here what I read during researching DS because the Little Boy Liar and his girlfriend/sister Pervmo called someone a liar.
By your standards you'd not only be a liar, but I'd have to repeat that ad nauseam. Liar.
Adios Little Liar. You are just repeating your stupid.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:18pm.
troglody: But you are right...
Yes. I am little lying trollie. Yes. I am.
Stop ridiculing yourself, liar.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:25pm.
You give him one point and he thinks he wins the game. Liar. Liar. Translocation DS is not the only form of trisomy 21 that is inheritable. Come on! You can admit that you were wrong. Liar.
~Trog
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:36pm.
Obviously, you didn't look at the link I provided. The sentence you quote as untrue is lifted directly from the Mayo Clinic website. That's why it's separated from my own text with a line like this..
-----------------------------------------
.. and a link to the copied text is embedded in the copied text. Are you telling me the Mayo Clinic has incorrect information on their website? Perhaps you should enlighten them by e-mail.
WB
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:25am.
Are you telling me the Mayo Clinic has incorrect information on their website?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, because here is said: Twenty-six non-mosaic trisomy 21 females, in 29 pregnancies, have produced 10 offspring with Down's syndrome... And I will write them an E-mail. Can you (wo)man up and admit that you were wrong or are you pursuing the path The Vet laid out, i.e. moving of goalpost and constant denial?troglodyt LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:09pm.
translocational DS
IS
non-mosaic
LIAR.
Where did I say
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:08pm.
otherwise?
troglodyt LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:32pm.
quotes from the little boy liar --
"Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child." is not true.
To prove that this claim is wrong I quote...because it proved you wrong: Twenty-six non-mosaic trisomy 21 females, in 29 pregnancies, have produced 10 offspring with Down's syndrome...
The part I qouted mentions cases where trisomy 21 is passed on...
+++++
Only Translocation Down syndrome is passed on from a parent that has a balanced Translocation. The only possible way for the idiot to be correct, actually there is no way for the idiot to be correct. Trisomy 21 cannot be passed from mother to child. But then we have sourced that to friggin' death.
~Yes, we have
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:41pm.
I'd like to copy this all to a forum where it can be seen in all it's glory. We shall build a monument in honor of the ignorant lies of trog and pervmo, so that their shame will have no end.
So let it be written, so let it be done. <she intoned>
Ok. But it will take a few days.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 1:52pm.
Unlike the friendless, spouseless, boyfriendless, lonely Little Boy Liar; we all have stuff to do in meatspace. I have to clean the basement right now. In addition to the usual dirt and grime that comes from having 7 cats and 7 dogs, I can see from my seat here ---
Lying again!
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:58pm.
Now you are arguing with a false statement to prove me wrong? If there ever was a fallacy, it is this.
But I try it once more: The karyotype of the DS offspring in the study mentioned above is either 47, XX +21 or 47, XY +21 (depending on whether the child is male or female). If it was Translocation DS (which is the only one being able to be passed on, according to you) it would be for example 46,XX,t(21;14), that is the number of chromosomes is still 46. But how I know you, you will simply ignore that and brag on as if nothing ever happened. LIAR.
Pack sand again. again. again. again. again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 2:02pm.
Do I look like a Genticist little liar. If you can't act like you are talking to non-professional in the field, of which you yourself have acknowledged you are not, then we are free to dismiss anything you have to say.
LINK. I have told you again and again. Bring a link that says EXACTLY what you are trying to prove. None of us here are experts so bring LINKS from experts that do know what they are talking about. IF THIS CONFUSES YOU, see the dozens and dozens of links here from people that PROVED you lied.
How many times do we have to link that ONLY Translocation DS can possibly be inherited from a parent with a balanced translocation.
Idiot troglodyt sits there and acts like he knows what he is talking about by throwing XX's and chromosomes at us. If you are so right, GIVE US A QUOTE FROM SOMEONE SAYING THE SAME THING.
You are amazing.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:27pm.
1.) Your implicit moving of goal posts (I'd call it backpeddling) and disingenuity: How many times do we have to link that ONLY Translocation DS can possibly be inherited from a parent with a balanced translocation.
Yes you have linked and claimed that, but it isn't the only claim you made and not the one I dispute.
2.) I thought you were educated about this topic now and would understand what a karyotype is. Well you don't really need to understand what it is, just notice the difference in the description (you know the 46 xx stuff)
Free and homogeneous trisomy 21 (92,5 % of cases)
...
karyotype: 47,XY,+21 ou 47,XX,+21.
Trisomy 21 due to translocation:
...
karyotype with 46 chromosomes; the extra chromosome 21 is most often translocated with another acrocentric (groupe D: 14, 13 or 15 or groupe G: 21 or 22) chromosome; example: 46, XY, t(14;21).
Now go back to the source I linked, table 1 to be more precise, and notice that the karyotype of the offspring with trysomy 21 always matches the first case, that is they inherited it and it wasn't due to translocation. If you take all this into account I proved my point.
Let's sum up, shall we? I've proven you wrong on your claim: "Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child."
I've proven you wrong on your claim: "The balanced translocation is not passed from parent to offspring."
I've proven you wrong on your claim: "DS men are infertile." Ok on this one you've proven yourself wrong, too. I'd even consider not calling it lie, but you make it so damn hard. And there it is: LIAR.
The Stupid never stops with this idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 4:50pm.
I've proven you wrong on your claim: "DS men are infertile." - Already proved he lied in another post. This was 4 or 5 lines from a sourced quote that says it is with rare exceptions. REPEATING A LIE.
Saying you have proven something in the complete absense of actual proof, most especially when all are able to scroll up and down this page and read, is yet more lies on the pile..
Oh little lying trollie. We don't need to know nor do we care what a karotype is. It is not germane to showing YOU LIE over and over.
And selectively editing a website THAT PROVES YOU LIE is not the most intelligent move for a troll at all.
That "..." in his post above is this (about Trisomy 21 due to translocation) -
de novo or transmitted from a parental translocation (being a balanced translocation in the parent)
confirms this --
ME if he quoted correctily : How many times do we have to link that ONLY Translocation DS can possibly be inherited from a parent with a balanced translocation.
YOU KEEP TALKING LITTLE LAST WORD TROLL. THE LIST OF YOUR LIES JUST KEEPS EXPANDING.
Nice dodge.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:11pm.
Keep it up. You probably changed your narrative two posts ago because you understood that you were wrong.
But back to the claim from before, the one I disputed. So do you support the claim: "Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child."?
Come on yes or no?
And as we are on it already:
How does this website proved I lied. Come on. Give me a specific quote which is contradicted by what is written on this website.
~TAKE IT UP WITH MAYO
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 5:23pm.
Translocation Down syndrome is the only form of the disorder that can be passed from parent to child. However, only about 4 percent of children with Down syndrome have translocation. And only about half of these cases are inherited from one of the parents.
In these translocation cases, the mother or father is a balanced carrier of the translocation, which means he or she has some rearranged genetic material, but no extra genetic material. A balanced carrier has no signs or symptoms of Down syndrome, but he or she can pass the translocation on to children.
-------------------------------------
Go ahead, contact them and call them liars, trog. Do it. DO IT.