If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it okay to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it?" This are serious article. New York Times are serious paper   (nytimes.com) divider line 235
    More: Weird, Jonathan Haidt, Drew Westen, open primary, fitness tests, environmental degradation, morally wrong, George Lakoff, E. O. Wilson  
•       •       •

4398 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2012 at 3:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-27 10:02:06 PM
Nice find subby!
 
2012-03-27 10:05:31 PM
If by 'wrong' you mean immoral?

No.
No if she's of age and its consensual.
Not if you own it and its in your house.
No.

If by wrong you mean disgusting?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
 
2012-03-27 10:18:38 PM
I read this in Andy Rooney's voice
 
2012-03-27 10:18:44 PM
Is the short answer yes?
 
2012-03-27 10:34:05 PM
FTA


The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.
 
2012-03-27 11:25:27 PM
Legally it's ok if the chicken is dead

/or so I have been told
 
2012-03-27 11:44:05 PM

cman: FTA


The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.


Since when are loyalty, authority, and sanctity political values? I thought conservatism was a political ideology. I may not understand conservative "values", but I understand their ideology, and it fundamentally favors the rich over the poor. Keep the rich rich and the poor poor. That's all I need to know.
 
2012-03-27 11:54:30 PM

cman: Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives


Track 3 on the Master's Playlist: Keep the rich rich and the poor poor.


The prosecution rests.

Look, most presidential elections in the last 50 years or so have been decided by a margin of 5% or less, meaning about half the people in the country would identify as conservative.

Do you really think half the people in the US believe what you just said? And nothing else?
 
2012-03-27 11:54:35 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Legally it's ok if the chicken is dead

/or so I have been told


I'm sure sheriff Joe would be able to tell you. He's been doing it for years now.
 
2012-03-27 11:59:22 PM
My old landlord skinned his parents' cat when it died, while he was taking care of it.

I didn't have to ask anyone if that was f*cking strange, wrong, weird...
 
2012-03-28 12:07:28 AM
Just an edible fleshlight.
 
2012-03-28 12:08:07 AM
Oh, and another thing, why do people think its wrong to bang your own sister? What if she was really, really hot?

Thats unfair.
 
2012-03-28 12:09:55 AM

cman: Oh, and another thing, why do people think its wrong to bang your own sister? What if she was really, really hot?

Thats unfair.


Yeah. And what if your penis and her vagina fit together like puzzle pieces? That's destiny, my friends.
 
2012-03-28 01:02:16 AM
Is the sister dead? Meh... *ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiip*
 
2012-03-28 01:46:32 AM

Track 3 on the Master's Playlist: Since when are loyalty, authority, and sanctity political values?


At least since the US Civil War. Lee's choosing to fight for Virginia for the first; the references to God in the CSA constitution for the other two.

The degree the values contribute significantly varies over time, as the US swings between liberal and conservative domination of its politics.
 
2012-03-28 02:33:22 AM
What if I defecate in my dead sister's urinal, then fark her corpse with the help of my chicken buddy Raul del Pollo?
 
2012-03-28 02:50:57 AM
FTFA "Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it? Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why."

Really? None? Not one person can explain why any of those things are wrong? I find that hard to believe.

"The problem isn't that people don't reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours" Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. He says these things as if someone will always believe their one viewpoint and never change, and never actually consider other viewpoints. It's ridiculous. Everybody will justify their own beliefs from time to time, but it's the proportion of how often they use reason over self-justification that matters. He's ignoring this extremely important detail.
 
2012-03-28 03:48:49 AM

Track 3 on the Master's Playlist: cman: FTA


The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

Since when are loyalty, authority, and sanctity political values? I thought conservatism was a political ideology. I may not understand conservative "values", but I understand their ideology, and it fundamentally favors the rich over the poor. Keep the rich rich and the poor poor. That's all I need to know.


Thereby proving the author's point to a capital-T. Your mind is as open as a miser's asshole.*

*not my metaphor, but I'm damned if I remember where I saw it.
 
2012-03-28 03:49:48 AM
Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal?

southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com

/Hot like a dookie.
 
2012-03-28 03:51:20 AM
Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken?

No. As long as it's your dead chicken.


How about with your sister?

If she's consenting, no.


Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal?

If it's your urinal, yes. If it's someone else's urinal, no.


If your dog dies, why not eat it?

Because it tastes bad. Because you have a sentimental attachment to it. Take your pick.

But if you're asking "Is it O.K. to eat your dead dog?" then my answer is yes.

Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.

The things that are wrong in this series of questions are wrong because they harm other people.


/Damn, that was freaking simple.
//It's depressing that more people couldn't answer that just as easily as I just did.
 
2012-03-28 03:54:41 AM

Gyrfalcon:

Thereby proving the author's point to a capital-T. Your mind is as open as a miser's asshole.*

*not my metaphor, but I'm damned if I remember where I saw it.


There's a difference between "being open minded" and "being blind."

People who point out that conservative political values favor making the rich richer and the poor poorer are (or can be) perfectly open minded, just not blind.
 
2012-03-28 03:56:47 AM
FTHL

"Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it?"

I count eight offences in this short headline.

Very tight.

/dnrta
 
2012-03-28 03:59:08 AM

Nobodyn0se: Gyrfalcon:

Thereby proving the author's point to a capital-T. Your mind is as open as a miser's asshole.*

*not my metaphor, but I'm damned if I remember where I saw it.

There's a difference between "being open minded" and "being blind."

People who point out that conservative political values favor making the rich richer and the poor poorer are (or can be) perfectly open minded, just not blind.


Can be. But ending the discussion with "that's all I need to know" pretty much confirms that the speaker isn't very open-minded, wouldn't you think?
 
2012-03-28 04:06:26 AM

Gyrfalcon:

Can be. But ending the discussion with "that's all I need to know" pretty much confirms that the speaker isn't very open-minded, wouldn't you think?


No. It says nothing about the speaker's "open mindedness" when considering the evidence for and against the question at issue.

He could have been the most open minded person in the world when examining the evidence for both sides of the debate concerning conservative belief about rich and poor. But once he has made the decision about what to believe, he could say "that's all I need to know" without being close minded, because he WAS open minded when he examined that issue.
 
2012-03-28 04:10:18 AM
I'd eat my dog but only if it consented first

/doesn't have a dog
 
2012-03-28 04:10:38 AM
Firstly, this is a repeat; we've already had a 500+ post thread on it in the last couple of days.

Secondly, you can replace pretty much any quote from the guy with "I REALLY WANT TO SELL LOTS OF COPIES OF MY BOOK!! CLEARLY I MUST MAKE MORE INFLAMMATORY STAMEMENTS AND ASK MORE RETARDED QUESTIONS!! LIBERALS ARE ALL FASCISTS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE ALL COCKSUCKERS!! WOULD YOU fark YOUR DAD TO SAVE YOUR SON'S LIFE?? WOULD YOU COCK-SLAP YOUR GOLDFISH TO SAVE YOUR DOG FROM BEING DRAFTED!!??"
 
2012-03-28 04:17:10 AM
Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken?

No, as long as it's fresh and you wash your dick off afterward. No one wants salmonella poisoning. (yes, I am assuming that only men would do this, y'all are crazy and stick your dicks everywhere)

How about with your sister?

If she's of age, consenting, and you two crazy kids aren't going to reproduce, fine. Just don't tell me about it.

Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal?

only if it's your urinal. If it's mine, or where I work, fark you. fark you all and if I find you I will kill you. I will farking tear your testicles out through your mouth and feed them through a meat grinder. Especially if I was the one who had to clean it up. (fark YOU UNIPOOPER fark YOU*)

If your dog dies, why not eat it?

uh, because it's been given medications (wormers antibiotics, painkillers etc) that aren't approved for food animals? Because it's old and stringy? Because whatever killed it is not something you'd want to ingest? Because it was a member of your family and you don't farking eat family**? etc

Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.

Uh, I'm assuming they didn't ask the right follow up question there.

/*to be fair, he was shiatting on the floor and smearing it on the walls, rather than the urinal. NONETHELESS if I ever find out who he was I will commit homicide
//**unless you're a Papua New Guinea Highlander I guess
 
2012-03-28 04:18:04 AM
To continue my previous point, if he had said "That's all I need to know, and nothing will ever change my mind," THEN he's being close minded.

I assume (and he can correct me on this if I'm wrong) that his "that's all I need to know" was a statement about the conclusion he draws based on the premise he open mindedly considered. So, in other words, He was open minded about whether the rich got richer and the poor got poorer under the conservative ideological system. When he decided (after examining both sides with an open mind) that he did indeed believe the conservative ideological system valued that, then his conclusion was sufficient to color his views of the conservative ideological system.

So in other words (again, I assume) he is open minded about more evidence concerning the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" premise, but as long as that premise holds true, that is enough for his views of the conservative ideological framework to be negative, and nothing can change that sufficiency.

"Open mindedness" does not prevent one from taking a moral stand on issues. It prevents one from rejecting new evidence concerning the premises for those moral stands.

In short:

You should be open minded about whether X is true. Consider all evidence. See all points of view. But once you've made a decision about X, you are free to believe it to your heart's content, and advance the cause of X until the day you die, and tell the people who don't believe as you do about X that they are wrong without being close minded. (Notice, I didn't say "without being wrong")
 
2012-03-28 04:30:02 AM
fta: authority, loyalty and sanctity

I utterly reject Haidt's inclusion of these three things as evidence that conservatives are more "broad minded" morally. The idea is farcical. RW unquestioning obedience to authority is a moral failing as is their blind faith. Particularly when it leads to imposing laws such as the recent slut shaming/rape wand and attempts to amend the Constitution to make gay folks official second class citizens.

Broad minded?

[inigo]
 
2012-03-28 05:02:15 AM
FTA: "These moral systems aren't ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they're common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature."

Warfare, rape, murder, torture, autocracy, rape, oppression, slavery, and bigotry are common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature, too.

Perhaps in Mr Haidt's view, such things have been adequately vetted now by the lengthy process of cultural evolution and a party with these core priorities would suit a modern constitutional democracy rather well.

/no one accepts your argumentum ad populum, so it's wrong
 
2012-03-28 05:05:44 AM
'Sex with a dead chicken' sounds like an apt metaphore for these threads. They just keep stupping that chicken..
 
2012-03-28 05:10:23 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: argumentum ad populum


It's the Naturalistic Fallacy, surely?
 
2012-03-28 05:23:24 AM
FTA: The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

Well, that right there isn't an indicator of much. You need to do controls, dammit. How was each group at predicting the judgments of each group, including itself? Are liberals bad at predicting everyone, or is nobody good at predicting conservatives? If I make all my judgments based on rolling dice, and you make all yours based on a clear and consistent philosophy, I'm going to have an easier time figuring out what you'll say than vice-versa. That doesn't mean it's your fault for not understanding me.

Also, the idea of "more values" as somehow better or more "broad minded" is really, really weird. I can make up a bunch of arbitrary strictures on my behavior right now, but they wouldn't necessarily make me more moral or accepting than you. In fact, when those new values conflict with the ones we have in common (not treating other people like garbage), I'm going to be worse off.

FTA: But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking.

Oh Jesus Christ. "Evolutionary fitness" is about doing well for your self, mate and offspring; it is not the same as "morality" or "good ideas." And did he seriously just say that if people vote for it, it is therefore good? Do we really need to Godwin the thread this early?

FTA: Haidt has read ethnographies, traveled the world and surveyed tens of thousands of people online.

He based his research on internet surveys? ...Okay, NYT people. A scientist is someone who does a carefully controlled experiment, eliminates as many biases and sources of error as possible, and then says "this is a thing that happens," or "this is a reason why that thing happens." We do not do an uncontrolled experiment on a sample known for being self-selecting and skewed, and then take the results and say "this is morally right." That is not science. Stop calling this guy a scientist!

FTA: The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don't start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status - elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality.

These moral systems aren't ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they're common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we're given.


Oh, of course. We shouldn't get upset about slavery and about women being treated like livestock. It's just like food.

/mad
 
2012-03-28 05:28:06 AM
FTA: He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking.

This is so utterly, so preposterously stupid that I cannot even begin to describe the rage I feel at such an idiotic mouth-queef.

The ugly truth is that conservatives are deluded -- and they get more deluded the more informed they think they are. Liberals, on the other hand, are capable of changing their beliefs if they receive new facts. (new window)

And let's not even get into the fact that IQ is positively correlated with liberal political beliefs (and atheism and sexual exclusivity, to name a few other things). (new window) To those who say "both sides are bad": you are clearly mistaken. There is a better side.
 
2012-03-28 05:29:35 AM

Gunther: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: argumentum ad populum

It's the Naturalistic Fallacy, surely?


D'oh. Yes, but...uh...I instinctively called it argumentum ad populum, so that must be right.
 
2012-03-28 05:53:59 AM

James F. Campbell: FTA: He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking.

This is so utterly, so preposterously stupid that I cannot even begin to describe the rage I feel at such an idiotic mouth-queef.

The ugly truth is that conservatives are deluded -- and they get more deluded the more informed they think they are. Liberals, on the other hand, are capable of changing their beliefs if they receive new facts. (new window)

And let's not even get into the fact that IQ is positively correlated with liberal political beliefs (and atheism and sexual exclusivity, to name a few other things). (new window) To those who say "both sides are bad": you are clearly mistaken. There is a better side.


Yeah, but educated and monied Republicans are likely working in areas of industry that are a problem. They refuse to believe because it feathers their nest in the short term. Selfish and rational, just like they idolize.
 
2012-03-28 05:55:11 AM

If our politicians would take this to heart, and learn from it, we would have electoral mastery for the next century over the Republicans.

If the Farkheads who frequent politics tab would learn from this, these threads would be so boring.



This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left's electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters' neural roots - playing on our craving for authority, for example - to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to "explain away" conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that's what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren't fools. In Haidt's words, they're "voting for their moral interests."
 
2012-03-28 06:01:02 AM
It is morally wrong to have sex with your sister under all circumstances, but it is best for the state to leave that alone unless the brother or sister was below the age of consent.
 
2012-03-28 06:08:48 AM
Tusz

You almost certainly put more thought into that post than he did into his whole book.
 
2012-03-28 06:15:51 AM
sex with animals (chickens, etc.) & their own kids were popular "back in the day" Shogun times. I seem to remember a religion making this popular in it's book.
 
2012-03-28 06:23:05 AM

Track 3 on the Master's Playlist: cman: FTA


The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

Since when are loyalty, authority, and sanctity political values? I thought conservatism was a political ideology. I may not understand conservative "values", but I understand their ideology, and it fundamentally favors the rich over the poor. Keep the rich rich and the poor poor. That's all I need to know.


You're confused a political modus operandi with a political philosophy. Moreover, you've confused what people accuse conservatives of with what conservatives think.
 
2012-03-28 06:29:02 AM

James F. Campbell: FTA: He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking.

This is so utterly, so preposterously stupid that I cannot even begin to describe the rage I feel at such an idiotic mouth-queef.

The ugly truth is that conservatives are deluded -- and they get more deluded the more informed they think they are. Liberals, on the other hand, are capable of changing their beliefs if they receive new facts. (new window)

And let's not even get into the fact that IQ is positively correlated with liberal political beliefs (and atheism and sexual exclusivity, to name a few other things). (new window) To those who say "both sides are bad": you are clearly mistaken. There is a better side.


It's almost funny to see somebody declare that intelligence in on their "side" when it's not very intelligent to reduce the political spectrum to conservatives versus liberals. Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
 
2012-03-28 06:37:08 AM

Sensei Can You See: Look, most presidential elections in the last 50 years or so have been decided by a margin of 5% or less, meaning about half the people in the country would identify as conservative.


I don't think you can make that conclusion.
 
2012-03-28 06:38:31 AM

Gunther: Tusz

You almost certainly put more thought into that post than he did into his whole book.


I take pride in being trained in the scientific method, so when I see people try to pass off their backwards political beliefs as facts by putting words like "scientific study" in front of them, it touches a nerve.

Side more: I know a few religious people who actually do the "love thy neighbor" stuff, so every time I see pseudoscience like this, I think to myself, "this must be how those people feel every time they read the news." I wouldn't be able to handle it.
 
2012-03-28 06:42:38 AM
i'm still trying to figure out how this got the weird tag...
 
2012-03-28 06:57:24 AM
You shouldn't defecate in a urinal because it can't flush the feces properly. That means that someone is going to have to do extra work to clean the urinal, and unless that person is you, it is gauche to increase their workload.

It could be argued that diarrhea may be deposited into a urinal since it would be flushable, but now we're just splitting hairs. Even with urine, some splashing is expected, and the bodily fluids are not always confined to the porcelain. So we can expect that diarrhea may also splash and find its way to the floor, not to mention the person defecating. Unlike urine, which is mostly easily evaporable water, salt, and ammonia, feces is decaying matter which carries many thousands times the germs of urine.

It's not a good idea to defecate into a urinal, and it's a good rule of thumb to try not to do so.
 
2012-03-28 06:57:54 AM

Tusz: FTA: But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking.

Oh Jesus Christ. "Evolutionary fitness" is about doing well for your self, mate and offspring; it is not the same as "morality" or "good ideas." And did he seriously just say that if people vote for it, it is therefore good? Do we really need to Godwin the thread this early?


No, he didn't say that "it is therefore good", he implied it is therefore fit. Fit does not equate with good in it's myriad meanings.

Haidt does reject the impulse to say that people who think things I/we disagree with must be stupid.

This can go too far and you need to also recognize that people who agree with you sometimes do so for the wrong reasons. A lifetime of trying to get past the "you disagree with me? you must be stupid" knee-jerk reaction has shown that the "stupid" reason isn't usually correct.

By the same token, I've discovered that most who "believe" in evolution, don't understand evolution. They get the right answer for the wrong reasons. So be careful about picking at every mistake in the people who disagree with you and ignoring that the people who agree with you may be just as mistaken in the details of the whys.
 
2012-03-28 07:11:06 AM
FTA: But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there's something in Republican messages worth liking.

You're confusing "success" with "merit". I can defraud a country of billions of dollars, escape overseas, and live it up for the rest of my life with no consequences. But the fact that I was rewarded for my actions doesn't mean my actions are "worth liking", I just happen to know how to game the system in my favor.

People are naturally inclined to not act in their best interest because it usually requires more effort than they're willing to give. Putting your chores off is something everyone does and doesn't necessarily harm anyone, but those two facts are hardly justification in saying that there's something "worth liking" about it.

And that's what the definition of conservatism is: Keep doing what we're already doing because doing things differently is too hard. It doesn't mean that what we're already doing is necessarily better, it just means that it's easier.
 
2012-03-28 07:12:26 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: FTA: "These moral systems aren't ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they're common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature."

Warfare, rape, murder, torture, autocracy, rape, oppression, slavery, and bigotry are common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature, too.

Perhaps in Mr Haidt's view, such things have been adequately vetted now by the lengthy process of cultural evolution and a party with these core priorities would suit a modern constitutional democracy rather well.

/no one accepts your argumentum ad populum, so it's wrong


You said rape twice...
 
2012-03-28 07:13:09 AM
Wow. Sounds like a worthwhile read. And I suspect if his conclusion was that conservatives were more closed minded they right wing would be in this thread whining just as loudly as the liberals have upthread.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report