Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
I think "sessions" would be considered prostitution. Teaming up with Gun dealers, libtards will love it!
or was forced to, as quickly as he did...What an idiot! Did he really believe that no one would find out about this? What an imbecile.
Boy are they going nuts on the web about this...The lefties are lovin it...I was just on FoxNews.com, and they're going crazy with this story, trashing Repubs, etc. Never mind that this happens in both parties, as we have all seen a zillion times, but of course, it's open season on Repubs right now, thanks to this Lee idiot. I'm just glad that he's gone.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
You need to learn how to copy and paste links.
When you are using a smart phone, you have to do it differently.
otherwise it comes up wrong. Just trying to help.
We Are The 53%
Not my Backyard : )
How did that thread ever evolve into a discussion about incest anyway? ewwww.
Nothing to worry about.
Seemed from my perspective it was a long misunderstanding. Its like at 390 something posts. I stopped following after 300 comments.
Can you give me a condenced version of what happened on that thread so i don't have to go back and read it?
satchmo, wrathful brunette and hoosier conservative rehashed there old "whether one should outlaw incest" fight. HC made an argument that was imo akin to an eugenic one ("limiting gene pool"). I was arguing that this reasoning shouldn't be applied as it can be transfered to other people with mental or physical disabilities and in consequence lead to outlawing of relationships that have nothing to do with incest. As an example I chose people with Down's syndrome. Then the question arose whether DS is genetic and can be inherited. Then the Vet came in and we discussed whether one special form of DS is the only one that can be inherited.
And without wanting to start a fight (it is kind of your blog here): MD may be good judge of character. But before he does that he (mis-)judges political leaning.
Trog, you brought Down's Syndrome into a discussion on the harmful effects of incest. You have yet to admit that it has nothing to do with incest.
In the very beginning of this whole thing I linked to this extensively sourced article about the genetic damage caused over time by regularly practiced incest. Avoiding serious genetic harm to one's descendents by not screwing your immediate relatives doesn't seem like a tall order to me, or even unreasonable. You proceeded to call me a eugenecist for this. Eugenics, my dear nitwit, have nothing to do with simply refraining from incest.
As this is the forum about nothing: I have neither said, nor wanted to imply that DS is caused by incest or the other way around. Got it?
Avoiding serious genetic harm to one's descendents by not screwing your immediate relatives doesn't seem like a tall order to me, or even unreasonable.
It is not unreasonable. But if you use that to argue for an incest ban, what prevents you from using it for banning other non-incestuous relationships where descendants are in danger of serious genetic harm?
So don't start whining, now.
As for the rest of your fallacies, anyone with a serious genetic disorder is either going to have serious issues with procreation, or their immediate descendents will. This scenario poses no risk to the population at large. I'm talking about the irreversible long-term damage caused by regularly practiced incest, as demonstrated in this article I've now linked to about three times.
Like I keep telling you, I don't have to argue for laws against incest, as they're already in widespread use. Quit acting like incest is hunky-dory and I'm just a eugenicist kill-joy.
If you're not too big of a wimp to show up, I'll be waiting for you on The Vet's forum.
We must do all we can to ensure that incest becomes illegal.
you should really do that. First cousin marriages are not outlawed in every state.
Surely you recall the news story behind the original incest thread.
Had nothing to do with cousins, and neither did any of the subsequent discussions here on NB.
WB pointed out more than once that she fears for the gene pool of mankind. And in that context she mentioned the study about the effect of first cousin marriages on arab societies. So yes it has something to do with what we were talking about.
Incest will never be practiced in our culture like it is in the Muslim culture, there's nothing to fear.
Not everywhere there are laws against it. And consider all the liberals out there determined to destroy this country. Who knows they might get the idea that goal is achieved best by massive inbreeding. Perhaps they'll even pass laws that prescribe such relationships as mandatory?
We're on a roll, baby!
Incest is against the law. Any argument would be to make it legal. As if some liberal lawyer were trying to get his client off the hook for screwing his daughter. She never used it to promote an incest ban, she talked about some of the effects of incest.
You are just throwing a strawman out there.
C'mon: Satchmo argued to make it legal. WB and everyone else argued that it is desirable to keep it the way it is (by either employing moral or biological arguments). In my opinion, and I think that should be common sense, that is the same as arguing for or promoting an incest ban.
especially with the comment about mis-judging political leaning.
You have been judged by a number of people here at NBs, and my overall judgement is pretty much the same as what the others think of you.
To say "he may be a good judge of character", but then state " But before he does that he (mis-)judges political leaning", is to take a bath in cognitive dissonance.
Spin that, dorkmeister.
edit: not to be "nit-picky", (h/t troglodyt), but the possessive "their" is not spelled "there".
And 'transferred', note, is spelled "rr-ed".
Not one of your more enlightening posts
So there were some enlightening posts? But never mind. You don't have to spin that question.
Is that an argumentum ad populum? That is a little weak, don't you think?
Perhaps it was badly phrased. Let me put it that way: Many of your posts addressed to me contained arguments that were along the lines of "You are a liberal, therefor...". Whatever comes after "therefor" is thereby based not on a judgement of character, but on a judgement of political leanings. And I know (or at least it appears to me that way) that you think both of them are inextricably intertwined. So don't bother.
Concerning the spelling mistakes: It was kind of late where I live. And I was too tired for proofreading.
Now I'm interested: How does my thought process work and what are my beliefs, according to what you see in my posts?
Regardless of how you choose to interpret it, the general disdain shown here at NBs for liberals and the way they present, makes it most obvious that a judgement on political leanings is indeed a judgement of character as well.
Does that mean, in your opinion, that there are only two different characters possible for politically involved people?
So you think the same about Jer then? That you quote Marshall McLuhan in this context is hilarious.
Concerning the spelling mistakes: I wasn't complaining. I'll never stop learning. So keep them coming.
What I note in and perceive from your posts is that your main desire is to be considered correct in all you present, whether you are right in what you type out or not.
You are oblivious to the hammer of truth that has been gonging off your skull throughout this whole Down's Syndrome affair. Monty Pythons' Black Knight, indeed.
While there are as many "different" characters reference politically involved people as there are people involved, ultimately, the concern comes down to: Are you for something political (regardless of the issue) or are you against it?
Simple as that.
For, or against.
Those in agreement on a political issue make up one side, those who disagree with that issue make up the other side.
Those who absent themselves from making a decision on the issue are out of the picture.
Asking me if I think the same about Jer, is out of place in the foregoing context, as Jer is by no means ambivalent.
If he believes, he supports that belief.
You appear to be somehow conflating what Jer, as a liberal, believes; with statements that he has made that are extremely complimentary to Ronald Reagan, as though Jer were one person embodying two ideologies.
That simply is not the case.
I believe Jer is stating what he feels about Reagan as a person, and while you may like a person, you may at the same time disagree with his political persuasion(s).
In that regard, speaking of political leanings, not personality issues: yes, there are only two options: for, or against.
That my reference to Marshall McCluhan struck you as hilarious as far as the context in which it was used, indicates your contextual cluelessness to be on a level with your lack of comprehension in that area.
little chickensh!t troglodyt has left the building, changed the subject, and is bustling about pretending he can't see the forum The Vet made.
"I'll never stop learning" *smirk*. Yeah, that's right, trog. If you pretend you didn't get proved wrong nine ways from last Saturday then it didn't happen. We can't see it on our computer screens. What a sniveling little weasel.
to do something you want. Really!!!!
The fact that you're here while refusing to venture into The Vet's forum demonstrates that you know you lost.
I won't discuss this with you in the future? I am reaching out for an expert opinion on this first.
I think you have incorrect medical information on your website. I've stuck my scrawny neck out claiming you're wrong, as a matter of fact. I want you to review your information and get back to me on how wrong you are.
But you know how things tend to be around here when people don't agree.
What I can say, is that prostitutes, who register themselves, are able to work as "freelancers". Thereby they have the possibility to get health insurance and can choose their own pension plan. Obviously they have to pay taxes too, but they are free from working for any pimp.
Similarily prostitutes in legal brothels are employed, get comparable benefits (Health care pensions) and could probably even form a union. But I am not sure about the last one. Any such legal activity is highly regulated by the public health department (compulsory health checks etc.). In that sense they are better off, than before legalization.
I have nothing about how this affected sex slavery and human trafficking. I guess that segment is still huge, because obviously they don't have to follow government regulations, don't have to pay taxes, can treat women like sh!t and can thereby "offer" women for cheaper prices.
I'll do some digging and will come back to you.
In the future I'll refrain from posting anything related to that discussion in your forum. But thx for your patience.
Don't rush into anything.
Thank you for sharing that.
Keeping up a three day argument with the contention that he is right and the Mayo Clinic is wrong.
Editor at Large
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
P. J. Gladnick
D. S. Hube
Julia A. Seymour
Dialog New Media
Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.