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.

(MSNBC)   Dr. Ben Carson will no longer be speaking at Johns Hopkins after comparing gays to NAMBLA and people who want to have sex with turtles   (tv.msnbc.com) divider line 613
    More: Dumbass, NAMBLA, Dr. Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins, National Prayer Breakfasts, andrea mitchell, gay marriage ban, Presidential Medal of Freedom, gays  
•       •       •

13231 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 07:32:40 AM  

DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: quatchi: DrPainMD: Nowhere does he say that NAMBLA wants to get married, nor does he compare NAMBLA members to gays. It's not there.

You said that, dumbshiat, in the post you just quoted.

Gawd, yer thicker than the proverbial brick aren't you?

You are either a troll or incapable of intellectual honesty or simple reading comprehension.

I most certainly didn't. What Dr. Carson said, and I was merely pointing out, is that he believes that those groups shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. Which is what he said. In plain, simple, English. And that's ALL he said. Nothing more.

So why does he compare gays wanting to get married to bestiality and NAMBLA?

Read the quote again. He's not comparing them, he's saying that he thinks that they shouldn't get to decide the definition of marriage. That's ALL he said. Read it.

I did, he said it all under the same breath which usually implies that they're all in one group. Why does he compare gays wanting to get married to people like NAMBLA wanting to marry young boys or beastiality people wanting to marry their animals?

Now it is possible that Dr. Carson just sucks at communicating, in that case, you would probably be correct.

He said it in plain, simple English, and he implied nothing. You inferred something that wasn't there. That's not a failure on his part; it's a failure on your part.


So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?
 
2013-03-30 07:33:53 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?


You'd have to ask him that one.
 
2013-03-30 07:34:12 AM  

DrPainMD: He's not comparing them


Yes he is and the comparison is invalid on every level.
 
2013-03-30 07:38:01 AM  

DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?

You'd have to ask him that one.


Don't you think that if he was a smart guy, then mentioning NAMBLA and bestiality at all in this gay marriage debate would've elicited a negative reaction and probably not worth bringing up?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was just being a dumbass and not trying to compare gays to NAMBLA/bestiality.
 
2013-03-30 07:48:43 AM  

Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?

You'd have to ask him that one.

Don't you think that if he was a smart guy, then mentioning NAMBLA and bestiality at all in this gay marriage debate would've elicited a negative reaction and probably not worth bringing up?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was just being a dumbass and not trying to compare gays to NAMBLA/bestiality.


No doubt it was a stupid thing to say. Even stupider is to say it while claiming to be a conservative. The conservative position (as opposed to the Republican [i.e., not conservative] position) on marriage is that the government is merely a keeper of records, and who marries whom is a private matter left to free people. As long as society gives certain advantages (tax breaks, benefits, etc.) to people who are married, then any two-or-more consenting adults have the basic human right to get married if they so choose.
 
2013-03-30 08:01:10 AM  

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems


It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.
 
2013-03-30 08:02:49 AM  

DrPainMD: The conservative position (as opposed to the Republican [i.e., not conservative] position) on marriage is that the government is merely a keeper of records, and who marries whom is a private matter left to free people.


That doesn't make sense, care to clarify? Conservatives are traditionalists that support the old institutions, so how does it make sense that their view on marriage would support gay marriage in any way?  This is a social issue, so the the kind of conservatism that is relevant to this topic would be the social kind. Maybe you mean libertarian.
 
2013-03-30 08:04:25 AM  
You seem to be talking about classical liberalism. That can be seen as conservative (economically) compared to modern liberalism, so maybe you meant that.
 
2013-03-30 08:13:24 AM  

garron: Liberal McCarthyism is in full effect.


Yup. McCarthyism was nothing but pointing and laughing when someone made word salad after making an ass out of themselves with statements. Truly, he is being hounded neigh unto death, his very living threatened by standing up to powers beyond his ken, for simply speaking "the truth."1

1 Of course, when I say "truth" that translates to "Previous word salad that I now would like to equivocate upon because I realize that I am no longer surrounded by dopes who I have to pander to, yet am unable to back away from the precipice of because for too long I have stared into the yawning Abyss of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, that I have made petition of them, and that Abyss has scarred my soul, deeply cut into the cordage of my moral fiber, and now must bow to the mighty tide of ignorance and rage that has touched me, and made all my hopes and dreams seem petty in comparison."
 
2013-03-30 08:14:37 AM  

Silly Jesus: RyogaM: Silly Jesus: Oh, I didn't get that that was your point. I'm not locked in to the 10%...I just liked the flat tax idea. I was just throwing a number out there.

Everyone was arguing that The Math Did Not Add Up.  That's an argument against a 10% flat tax, not the tax itself.

Being for a Flat Tax without mentioning a rate that is actually mathematically realistic is like being for Free hookers and Blow for everyone, without saying how you pay for it.  It's asinine.  Like Doc. Carson.

Usually libs argue against the flat tax on the basis of "the poors will have to pay as much (percentage wise) as the wealthy, and that's not faaaaaaiiiiiiiirrrrrr."  I was caught off guard.


As a guy in the 28% bracket now, call me when we decide to put people like Romney pay that same flat tax rate. Color me suspicious but I am sure the Cayman islands crowd will continue to avoid paying their share.
 
2013-03-30 08:16:23 AM  

TheJoe03: DrPainMD: The conservative position (as opposed to the Republican [i.e., not conservative] position) on marriage is that the government is merely a keeper of records, and who marries whom is a private matter left to free people.

That doesn't make sense, care to clarify? Conservatives are traditionalists that support the old institutions, so how does it make sense that their view on marriage would support gay marriage in any way?  This is a social issue, so the the kind of conservatism that is relevant to this topic would be the social kind. Maybe you mean libertarian.


Libertarians are the only conservatives left. Republicans certainly aren't conservative. On this issue, they are no better than the Progressives who brought us laws against interracial marriage.
 
2013-03-30 08:17:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: garron: Liberal McCarthyism is in full effect.

Wait, how is this liberal McCarthyism again?


I have a list. And in this list it has all the names of republicans that are going to say something racist, sexist (or rapey) or homophobic between now and 2016.

Spoiler: This list contains everyone that is a member of the RNC.

;)
 
2013-03-30 08:17:47 AM  
Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.   Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.
 
2013-03-30 08:17:59 AM  

quatchi: DrPainMD: He's not comparing them

Yes he is and the comparison is invalid on every level.


scottberkun.com
 
2013-03-30 08:19:30 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.


You know what else is equally as deviant, adultery and sex outside of marriage.

When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.
 
2013-03-30 08:21:11 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.


You poor delicate flower you.

People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.
 
2013-03-30 08:24:57 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.   Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.


Pointing and laughing at people with views on sexuality from the Middle Ages is not silencing them. Such people have been getting quite a bit of attention lately, actually. It's just that people aren't afraid to tell people like you to fark off when they judge what other adults do in the bedroom.

Sir, go fark yourself.
 
2013-03-30 08:25:21 AM  

Mrtraveler01: When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.


Because getting heads put on pikes is a reality of being gay, right?

Mrtraveler01: People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.


2 posts to the same thing in a row? Did you forget to change your alt?  Btw, black is a race, homosexuality is an act, they're not remotely the same thing.
 
2013-03-30 08:25:51 AM  

DrPainMD: No doubt it was a stupid thing to say. Even stupider is to say it while claiming to be a conservative. The conservative position (as opposed to the Republican [i.e., not conservative] position) on marriage is that the government is merely a keeper of records, and who marries whom is a private matter left to free people. As long as society gives certain advantages (tax breaks, benefits, etc.) to people who are married, then any two-or-more consenting adults have the basic human right to get married if they so choose.


You know, you make sense here. If the government is involved in marriage it needs to recognize any two adults of proper age. Our choices are to grant those benefits to all able to enter a contract, or to get out of the business altogether. None of this is rocket surgery, yet here we are as a nation basting in emotional arguments rather than approaching the issue rationally.

Your remark about the conservative position is what we libtards have been saying for years. The only "small gubmit" that 'conservatives' enjoy is the one that appeases Job Creators (blessed be thy name). When it comes down to brass tacks and your body, they want control. Some Democrats want to force sugars and fats from school lunches; some 'conservatives' want a government so small it fits in your anus. I think both of you look ridiculous.

/bsabsvr
//libtard
 
2013-03-30 08:25:51 AM  

quatchi: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: He should have just said "Any group does not get to determine society's definition of that group" which is what I think he was trying to say and left it at that without mentioning nambla or bestiality.

Any group?

It's not just gays who think gay people deserve to be treated like equals.

For the longest time bigots outnumbered gays and their political allies but the times they are a'changing.

If you want to stay on the wrong side of morality, justice and history that's your right just like it's my right to come onto an anonymous internet forum and point and laugh at you till you STFU or have an epiphany.

K?

/Also, although you are probably unaware you are just making the same arguments anti-race mixing bigots were making back in the 60s if you just substitute "gays wanting to marry" with "blacks wanting to marry whites".
//Didn't work then and it aint gonna work now but go on make an ass of yourself. It amuses me to see you fail.
///My other hobbies include watching moths bump their heads on light bulbs till they fall to the ground.


I apologize for my own poor choice of words, but you could have been nicer about in pointing out my mistake.  It's like the difference between asking nicely and demanding with a bad attitude.

Now I'm wondering since society can be wrong in defining a group (bigots defining gays and racial minorities) and a group can be wrong in defining their own selves (moral crusaders who think they're saving society from chaos), who or what defines a group and how does one go about it to ensure a correct definition?
 
2013-03-30 08:27:07 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.

Because getting heads put on pikes is a reality of being gay, right?

Mrtraveler01: People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.

2 posts to the same thing in a row? Did you forget to change your alt?  Btw, black is a race, homosexuality is an act, they're not remotely the same thing.


They were both viewed as deviant practices during their respective time.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrtraveler01: When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.

Because getting heads put on pikes is a reality of being gay, right?

Mrtraveler01: People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.

2 posts to the same thing in a row? Did you forget to change your alt?  Btw, black is a race, homosexuality is an act, they're not remotely the same thing.


So how come people who have sex outside of marriage don't get treated with the same scorn that gay people do?
 
2013-03-30 08:29:19 AM  

Zeno-25: Pointing and laughing at people with views on sexuality from the Middle Ages is not silencing them. Such people have been getting quite a bit of attention lately, actually. It's just that people aren't afraid to tell people like you to fark off when they judge what other adults do in the bedroom.


So naturally the rest of us can point and laugh at people who think farking an orifice that expels babies is no less valid as farking an orifice that expels feces.  Fair enough.
 
2013-03-30 08:36:44 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Zeno-25: Pointing and laughing at people with views on sexuality from the Middle Ages is not silencing them. Such people have been getting quite a bit of attention lately, actually. It's just that people aren't afraid to tell people like you to fark off when they judge what other adults do in the bedroom.

So naturally the rest of us can point and laugh at people who think farking an orifice that expels babies is no less valid as farking an orifice that expels feces.  Fair enough.


Which has what exclusively to do with homosexuality, exactly? Plenty of hetero people like to take the Hershey highway route too. At least the ones without views on sexuality from a few centuries ago.
 
2013-03-30 08:37:57 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So naturally the rest of us can point and laugh at people who think farking an orifice that expels babies is no less valid as farking an orifice that expels feces.  Fair enough.


Most straight guys love taking the occasional dirt road. If I like doing to a woman (beg for it, in fact), I don't see how a gay man thinks any differently. It's a hole. It's tight. Sometimes it's a mess but, c'mon, so is a vagina. You ever taken a good look at that thing? It's an hatchet wound that bleeds 25% of the time.
 
2013-03-30 08:42:05 AM  
BTW: You know what else is a deviant act? Eating Shellfish.

Leviticus 11:9-12
 
2013-03-30 08:45:02 AM  
Oh, for fark's sake. Anybody who says it's legally impossible to have consensual sex with an animal has obviously never met a horny bull mastiff. Let me tell you something: you get a horny bull mastiff humping your leg, you let the farker finish.
 
2013-03-30 08:45:59 AM  
Found a pic of BraveNewCheneyWorld:

cdn.front.moveon.org
 
2013-03-30 08:59:18 AM  

Mrtraveler01: BTW: You know what else is a deviant act? Eating Shellfish.

Leviticus 11:9-12


Don't bother; this guy's either just doing a (pretty poor) satire of conservative bigotry or is just a regular douche doing it for whatever stupid kicks people get from trolling.

I mean, even the guy who actually made the NAMBLA/bestiality comments had the sense to at least try to walk them back. Nobody with enough sense to use internet actually believes what this troll is saying.
 
2013-03-30 09:03:45 AM  
Mrtraveler01: Yeah but there are states too!

States work the same way countries do right?


Unfortunately I live not far from Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, so I have to say Yes.

/failed countries
 
2013-03-30 09:16:29 AM  

Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.

You know what else is equally as deviant, adultery and sex outside of marriage.

When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.


Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.

You poor delicate flower you.

People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.


Deviance is NOT an entirely invalid description. At least, in the sociological sense of normative behaviors in large population groups. Of course, within many cultures, this deviance, as in behavior that differs from the majority, doesn't always carry the same hostility towards it that it does in some cultures. That we see vehemence against it in some sub-cultures, and acceptance in others, that is likewise about those populations norms.

In Provincetown, gay and lesbians are not quite in the same minority status. Numbers-wise, they are in the minority, but represented with far greater numbers and as a higher percentage of the populace, their behavior is not seen in the same light. Deviant, in that is not the hetronormative that is pervasive, but socially accepted deviance. Deviance in the sociological standpoint of being different from the norm, but carrying no proscription. Other sub-cultures and communities, it is not only deviant, but proscripted by the larger populace.

Deviance, in the sociological sense, happens in all populations. It is, in fact, natural. Deviance from norms occurs, and has a role in our social behavior. Some behaviors are frowned upon. Some are simply different from the norm, and accepted as just folks being folks. Some are considered minor hiccups, and their disruption is seen as merely being gauche--say, wearing white after Labor Day, or having a fondness for ripping farts in public and calling attention to them--and some are seen as disrupting normal social give and take. Merely being deviant from the norm doesn't necessarily mean, in the sociological sense, that these are bad things. Helping strangers in a park after a mugging, is often deviant behavior. It flies in the face of normal behaviors, and is rewarded, as this form of deviance reinforces the mores of society. Charity and extreme compassion are likewise deviant from the norms, but as they reinforce mores, they are seen as good forms of deviance. Deviance, alone, is not a bad thing. We have behaviors that often fall between the accepted, the unacceptable, and those that reinforce ideals. The deviance from these norms is natural, and deviance in a society is a function of society working.

Mind you, our Beamish Boy wasn't using this descriptor for his definition of deviance, but it is, I think, important to put things in context. Because mores do change. What is acceptable and what is not changes as societies progress, they mix with other cultures, as they mature, as needs impact the population. Morality changes as time goes on. What we are seeing, are those who hold a form of morality witnessing the mores of the larger society shifting, and as they have had a lock on what these mores should be, they see this shifting as an attack upon themselves. This is a natural outgrowth of societies with populations with differing forces working upon them.

What is fun here, is that folks who profess to hold certain mores to be in higher esteem than others, are latching onto an issue as being indicative of the "permissiveness" of society. That the old values don't matter as much. And in a way, they ARE entirely correct. What is interesting is that the very values that they claim to hold dear--family, faith, charity, fidelity--often fall to the wayside when it comes to one of their own sub-culture, and those that they see as other. It is a way of attacking a perceived threat to their values, without having to actually look at their own too closely, because that might reveal some startling truths. That they themselves have not "kept the faith" as it were, in keeping their own houses clean, so to speak. Instead, it's easier and safer to point to the outside forces, that are "tearing society apart" because a deeper look, is a bit too close for comfort. It might reveal that they themselves have deviated from the very mores that they tend to hold in higher esteem, as well as those that they tend to vilify. So long as it is others, who are the threat to norms, then they can safely rage, and pat themselves on the back for being stolid watchdogs. It is likewise normal. All societies have these features built in. We social apes LOVE to keep our troop mates in line, while those closest to us get a bit of a pass. Up until a point. The issue within the issue of marriage equality, is that this smaller grouping would like to impose its mores upon the whole, including populations far outside their own scope. They are looking to use whatever means and justification to acquire and keep power, the outward behaviors seemingly far more important than the deeper and core values. This is normal, but not entirely in keeping with spirit of the documents that they tend to invoke. In part, because they are merely looking to distract and acquire and keep power, as opposed to truly being concerned. It is less about morality, than it is about face.

And that is part of it right there. We are shifting more and more into face based culture. Outward appearance and reputation are important. Even bankable in social context. Value is determined by reputation. So long as you can keep face, then you can act in private all sorts of a'fool, and yet, still carry that reputation. Mind you, we are shifting from a responsibility based culture to more of a face based culture, because of the mechanics of communication, and a mixing of cultures. The monoculture is increasingly pressing upon us. Many would like to be in control of that monoculture, and crush any and all competition, and thus we are seeing some of the issues we have as late. Less and less about duty and responsibility, than what reputation has been secured by actions. Even actions that fly in the face of many folks' values, so long as they serve the monoculture, are seen as enhancing reputation. Yes, being a "Maverick" is deviance, but in many of the sub-cultures, that is not a bad thing. If that deviance serves the greater mores. What is odd, is that we are not quite to a face based culture yet, and folks are still trying to play to both these reputation based systems, as well as hearken back to a more responsibility based culture to give themselves a feeling of rootedness in society. And it is a sometimes rocky transition, as we have seen in the last fifty years or so.

So, yes, we can point and laugh when folks make asses of themselves, because they are negotiating these somewhat tricky waters, because what we are in fact doing, is establishing what is normative, and feeling out as a society what we will and will not accept, and those who are seeking to establish more face, must decide if they want to increase their reputation with the larger culture, or sub-cultures. What we are in fact doing when we point and laugh at the ridiculous is establishing the very norms that folks will then have to decide if they will then deviate from themselves, and for what reasons that they will do so. We saw in the last election, folks seeking to establish face within subcultures, and the election proved to them that less folks found that pandering to be seen as less effective for leadership. We will continue to see how this plays out. It's not a "culture war" but we ARE in the midst of cultural shift, and some folks REALLY don't like it, because it may force them out of the firmly entrenched holes that they've dug in, and cross lines in the sand that they've boldly drawn, in order to establish their reputations...
 
2013-03-30 09:19:24 AM  

CorporatePerson: Pretty much every Republican I know has assured me at one time or another that Obama only got elected president because he's black.


That happens when they were told for a year the only reason they didn't vote for him was that they were racist.
 
2013-03-30 09:20:22 AM  

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: Mrtraveler01: DrPainMD: Mrtraveler01: So why mention NAMBLA and bestiality at all if his central message was that gays shouldn't get married?

You'd have to ask him that one.

Don't you think that if he was a smart guy, then mentioning NAMBLA and bestiality at all in this gay marriage debate would've elicited a negative reaction and probably not worth bringing up?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was just being a dumbass and not trying to compare gays to NAMBLA/bestiality.


"The are a lot of people who were upset with Barack Obama being re-elected.  The Aryan Brotherhood, Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Republican Party.  If you infer that I was implying the GOP has a similar motive to the other three, you're just reading way too much into it."


Good job.

"There are a lot of people who want to use the government to curtail the rights of gays.  Nazis, small-minded Muslim and Christian fundamentalists like the Westboro Baptists and the Republican party.  If you think I am implying that the Republicans have the same irrational hatred of gays as Nazis and Muslim terrorists, you're just reading too much into it."
 
2013-03-30 09:21:26 AM  

hubiestubert: Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Homosexuality is no more or less deviant than the others, it's just not illegal because it's an act that can be engaged with the consent of two adult humans.

You know what else is equally as deviant, adultery and sex outside of marriage.

When we start people those people's head on a pike, then there can be a moral high ground.

Mrtraveler01: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Of course you people need to silence anyone mentioning this or any other valid comparison on the national stage, because you can't have anyone get in the way of your efforts to conflate 'legal' with 'moral'.   If you were in the right, you wouldn't need such organized efforts to silence your opponents anyone who isn't in lockstep agreement with you.

You poor delicate flower you.

People though interracial marriages were just as deviant back in the day, deviance is a matter of opinion and not actually based on anything concrete.

Deviance is NOT an entirely invalid description. At least, in the sociological sense of normative behaviors in large population groups. Of course, within many cultures, this deviance, as in behavior that differs from the majority, doesn't always carry the same hostility towards it that it does in some cultures. That we see vehemence against it in some sub-cultures, and acceptance in others, that is likewise about those populations norms.

In Provincetown, gay and lesbians are not quite in the same minority status. Numbers-wise, they are in the minority, but represented with far greater numbers and as a higher percentage of the populace, their behavior is not seen in the same light. Deviant, in that is not the hetronormative that is pervasive, but socially accepted deviance. Deviance in the sociological standpoint of being different from the norm, but carrying no proscription. Other sub-cultures and communities, it is not only deviant, but proscripted by the larger populace.

Deviance, in the sociological sense, happens in all populations. It is, ...


That is perhaps one of the most intelligent posts I've seen on Fark.
 
2013-03-30 09:22:33 AM  

hubiestubert: Deviance is NOT an entirely invalid description.


Well sure; interracial marriages remain "deviant" even after decades of complete legality, because most people still end up marrying others of the same race as them.
 
2013-03-30 09:25:47 AM  

dickfreckle: DrPainMD: No doubt it was a stupid thing to say. Even stupider is to say it while claiming to be a conservative. The conservative position (as opposed to the Republican [i.e., not conservative] position) on marriage is that the government is merely a keeper of records, and who marries whom is a private matter left to free people. As long as society gives certain advantages (tax breaks, benefits, etc.) to people who are married, then any two-or-more consenting adults have the basic human right to get married if they so choose.

You know, you make sense here. If the government is involved in marriage it needs to recognize any two adults of proper age. Our choices are to grant those benefits to all able to enter a contract, or to get out of the business altogether. None of this is rocket surgery, yet here we are as a nation basting in emotional arguments rather than approaching the issue rationally.

Your remark about the conservative position is what we libtards have been saying for years. The only "small gubmit" that 'conservatives' enjoy is the one that appeases Job Creators (blessed be thy name). When it comes down to brass tacks and your body, they want control. Some Democrats want to force sugars and fats from school lunches; some 'conservatives' want a government so small it fits in your anus. I think both of you look ridiculous.

/bsabsvr
//libtard


Ohhhh....can I steal that phrase?
 
2013-03-30 09:41:16 AM  

Kittypie070: Ohhhh....can I steal that phrase?


Kittypie, everything I own belongs to you!

/except my dog
 
2013-03-30 09:43:11 AM  

Kittypie070: Deep thoughts concerning yogurt


D'awwwww!

Nice palate cleanser.

/Sending you virtual catnip and skritchies
 
2013-03-30 09:43:48 AM  

Biological Ali: hubiestubert: Deviance is NOT an entirely invalid description.

Well sure; interracial marriages remain "deviant" even after decades of complete legality, because most people still end up marrying others of the same race as them.


True. I wanted to put "deviance" into perspective. I don't think our Beamish Cheney exactly thinks in that fashion, nor even has a solid concept of mores and values, at least in that larger and more expansive concept, but his argument is a symptom of the cultural shift that IS occurring. And his hesitance to accept this shift IS entirely natural. He represents a demographic that sees itself under "attack" because they see the culture shifting, and nossir, they don't like it. Because it means that power is being lost, that their ability to control the monoculture is fading, and in order to gain power, or at least hold onto it, they are circling the troops to call it a moral crusade, rather than accept that population shifts, generational changes, and in fact political realities are fluid ground. Instead, they want to recast the discussion to being "fundamental differences" and thus try to regain ground.

Mind you, in doing so, they are ignoring a great deal of the basis of the very documents and the society that they are trying to "defend." In some case, it's willful ignorance, in others, it is outright recasting of the foundational documents by dint of their subjective reading of said documents, and given the philosophical leanings of the NeoCons as a movement, that isn't entirely surprising. Investiture into the concept of "subjective reality" and a somewhat interesting way of their use of the concept, both in media and scholastic work, is increasingly becoming their modus. It is, in my opinion, a very deliberate misrepresentation of subjective reality as a concept, but it is one that they base a great deal of time and effort upon, in order to create a reality. It is odd philosophic territory, but then again, NeoCons began as Ivory Tower types, who were walled up in academia, and it was Reagan who brought them out of those towers to shape policy, which they had only theoretical experience with. We have been soaking in the execution of those policies, and they don't exactly work in the same way that their games theory predicted, in part because theory doesn't necessarily always pan out. The difficulty has been that they control presses to try to reinforce their position by generating defenses to positions that are clearly not working as advertised, and instead of reworking the policies, they seek only to discredit those who attack the policies and their very real outcomes, and to reinforce the policies with papers of often specious foundations. In order to shore up policies that they are invested in, and a very real unwillingness to admit that the policies were flawed.
 
2013-03-30 09:45:58 AM  

dickfreckle: Kittypie070: Ohhhh....can I steal that phrase?

Kittypie, everything I own belongs to you!

/except my dog


Squeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
2013-03-30 09:50:22 AM  

rewind2846: Internet Meme Rogers:
Dr. Ben Carson has a lot to teach us about how to defend yourself from fresh fruit. What if a gay guy comes at you with a crate of raspberries?

Then you unleash the Bengal Tiger.


I always love waking up to a Monty Python reference in the morning.  It's like waking up to....... victory!
 
2013-03-30 09:59:23 AM  

RyogaM: I really don't get who much gayness causes certain people to loses their minds.  I mean, really.  Whether it's the Republicans, the Nazis, or brain-dead Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists, it's amazing how gayness just causes them to lose all perspective and make them want to turn to governmental "solutions" to a "problem" only they can identify.  Whether Republican, Nazi or Fundy, you are not allowed to use the government to enshrine your prejudice into law.



"you are not allowed to use the government to enshrine your prejudice into law."

Just remember that my liberal friend...
 
2013-03-30 10:09:16 AM  

Kittypie070: dickfreckle: Kittypie070: Ohhhh....can I steal that phrase?

Kittypie, everything I own belongs to you!

/except my dog

Squeeeeeeeeeeeeee


My dog loves cats, and tries to face-hump other male dogs. Perhaps we can work something out. Right now he's on the balcony whimpering desperately at one of the feral cats we feed. Am pretty sure he's bisexual but also doesn't understand that he's supposed to stick to his species. Damn, dude. At least keep it in the family.

/retarded mutt with a heart of gold
 
2013-03-30 10:09:43 AM  
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

You know, what?  I think maybe the Dr. should avoid any abstract comparative rhetoric altogether.  Stick to brain surgery, dude, metaphor and analogy are far too complex for you to handle.
 
2013-03-30 10:13:24 AM  

Mrtraveler01: How can a brain surgeon be this stupid?


He's a homeschooled brain surgeon.  They practice on themselves.
 
2013-03-30 10:18:19 AM  
Meh.  He likes big fat libtards like you. When they fall they make more noise and sometimes they never get up!
 
2013-03-30 10:19:13 AM  

Silly Jesus: [media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com image 192x307]
[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 487x371]


just jump over the new hurdles Edwin
or is the President an obstacle?
 
2013-03-30 10:20:26 AM  

nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.


Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.
 
2013-03-30 10:23:59 AM  

YodaTuna: I knew this guy was going to crash and burn after watching the prayer breakfast speech.  All the right winger got wet panties about the speech, but clearly didn't watch it.  They just thought it was neat he was "sticking it" to Obama (which he wasn't).  His entire speech was extreme right wing talking points.  Nothing new, nothing helpful.  The speech wasn't even particularly well delivered.

For the last time, it's not the messaging, it's the message.  Hating gays, punishing poor people/minorities and corporatism are not where the majority of american's sit ideologically at the moment.


Yep. This. My mom told me about him and I basically said he's nothing but a typical Tea Tard nut who says the same shiat. I also keep referring to him as a proctologist, because it's funnier that way. The only thing I took away from his stupid speech was that the President was in attendance and this jackwagon decided to be the biggest bore in the room and force the President to sit and listen to his bullshiat.

Christ, what an asshole.
 
2013-03-30 10:25:51 AM  

Silly Jesus: nocturnal001: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I liked his 10% flat tax idea.

Ah, so he can't do math either huh?

Unless this is an additional tax, which in that case is heresy in the GOP.

Flat taxes aren't math?  Potato?

That's the kind of thinking one has to have to think that a 10% flat tax is sustainable.

These 41 countries with a flat tax might be interested in your expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_s ys tems

It's not that flat taxes can't work, but rather that the plans we usually see claim to be our solution yet never bother to actually do the math. It seems like these guys just pick a percent that sounds good and run with it.

In the absence of spending cuts, lowering one person's taxes means you have to raise somebody else's.

Good.  We can raise a hell of a lot of people's taxes from 0%.


Damn those deductions!

You know the flat tax would have to be close to 30% in order for it to be revenue neutral right?
 
2013-03-30 10:27:04 AM  

thamike: You know, what?  I think maybe the Dr. should avoid any abstract comparative rhetoric altogether.  Stick to brain surgery, dude, metaphor and analogy are far too complex for you to handle.


This goes to a comment I made further upthread, and the responses therein - you can teach raw data and professional thinking, but you can't teach basic sense. Hence, we have otherwise brilliant minds spewing the worst sort of bullsh*t once out of their trained comfort zone.

I'm nowhere near as academically and professionally accomplished as this man, yet when he approaches politics and social policy I still seem like the comparative genius. And that's just turrible.

/turrible
 
Displayed 50 of 613 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report