Free Republic

WHO CARES ! ! ! ! !

{ they forgot to mention that he also like to smoke bone }

You forgot to mention that he was murdered, which is the only really relevant thing here. Hate crime, whatever, it may well have been motivated by hate, but that's no reason to treat this crime differently than any other murder. With a trial, followed by an extremely long stay in prison, or possibly execution.

I apologize for my ignorance, but what does the NYC alleged human-rights law entail?

However, I consider engineering and business schools to be glorified "trade schools." Nothing wrong with that, but these schools do not provide a true classical education, which is hard to come by these days.

Ah, that's true. A classical education is difficult to find these days, unfortunately for those who want one (and you are not the only one). I think the closest you might get to a true classical education is in one of the theoretical sciences, and even then, it's not the same thing.

Posted by The Ghost of Richard Nixon to delphine On News/Activism Apr 26 10:23 AM #211 of 433 So if gay priests are candid about cruising for teenage boys ... this makes it okay? The whole "lifestyle" from beginning to end stinks. G-d meant his children to seek contentment in a heterosexual marriage and have children -- if the couple is capable. This is not my opinion -- this is G-d's immutable Law. Flout G-d's way and you head down the road of disease, heartbreak and death.

If you honestly can't see that the molesting priest bears the same relationship to homosexuality as the rapist of teenage girls bears to heterosexuality, I can't help you. And yes, it is your opinion. It is your opinion that this is God's immutable law. You presume to speak for God, now?

Why why why are American Jews usually liberal???

They're becoming less so. The idiocy of the Muslim world is apparent to more and more people.

I'm sure it goes without saying, but avoid the San Francisco Bay Area at all costs. Housing is ridiculuously expensive, work's hard to get, socialists running the place. I'm leaving myself next month. Woo-hoo!

Gays who lie about it, to the point of engaging in false marriages, sure, they're selfish. Some are more forthright than that.

I don't object to homosexuality or to homosexuals. I do object to dishonesty. This guy is slime.

I was half-joking (though the conclusion does follow rather directly from the researchers' comments).

Oh, yes, but that sounded moe like ideology and less like science to me.

A more reasonable conclusion would be that people who hold and express the attitude that there is something wrong with people who choose unexpected roles, are responsible for the premature death pattern which the study found (and ought to change their attitudes).

I absolutely agree with you that the first conclusion, that non-traditional roles are unhealthy, is completely unwarranted. However, so is the conclusion that traditionalists are to blame for the higher death rates of non-traditionalists. There have been a number of possible explanations posited here (eg. sickly men become housedads disproportionately, type-A women become career women disproportionately) which don't involve either.

Remember, children with larger feet have a better understanding of the English language. Stretch your kids' feet today!

Oh, wait a second. It's because they're older. Silly me.

If solar cells cost 1 cent per square centimeter, the installation (to meet the power needs of all of California) would cost $38,850,000,000.

Thirty-eight billion dollars isn't all that much for an infrastructure capable of supplying all of California, actually. Of course, spending it all at once (as the greens would like) would be dumb, but phasing it in may well not be. The technology to make this cost-effective isn't there yet, but it's rather pessimistic (and unwarranted) to assume it will never be.

Your examples are all about changes in TECHNOLOGY, not examples of changing the social structure of society

Representative democracy.

Abolition of slavery.

Capitalism.

Freedom of religion.

Right to bear arms.

Universal adult sufferage.

Professional military.

They all sound pretty good to me, and they all represent a major shift in social structure. For that matter, one of them very much did redefine the role of wife/mother/woman. Not all social change is good, but neither is it all bad. How's about letting men and women both decide what roles they'd individually like to fill? (n.b. feminism, in its modern sense, does not represent this, I am fully aware. It coerces non-traditional roles, even when unwanted.)

Feminism is already over, they just don't know their dead yet. Traditional women home school their children and outbreed the Feminazi's at about 4 to 1. Aborting the future is NOT a good way to keep a social movement relevant.

Assuming, of course, that there is 100% fidelity between parents' beliefs and those of their children. The correlation's much higher than chance, but far, far, from perfect. How many Christian families are aghast as the behavior of their offspring? For that matter, liberal families sometimes give rise to conservative offspring. You'll see a pool of feminazism for quite some time to come.

As to abortion, I feel that the effects is has on political movements is irrelevent to its moral status.

College is the second greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people, following just behind public "education."

Not true. There are two types of majors that are (still) worthwhile, that I know of. The first is buiness-style majors, where you learn a specific skill set for the job market. Not exactly a liberal education, but useful. American universities still do a good job of teaching the sciences, to the science students. It's not a requirement anymore, but a student who really wants to learn about one of the hard sciences can get a very good education at an American university. Now, the liberal arts and humanities...well, they're been taken over by the pod people.

Amen! In this entire list, at least the feminazis were right once.

Hmm...and I suppose that an acre of land can produce enough food for four people? People need vastly more space to survive than just what they live in. That being said, smaller government is a good idea, too.

Of course, football, sports cars, and 72" televisions are completely rational economic products and activities ;) Men and women are both pretty irrational, just in different ways. Enjoy it.

Of course it appeared in more than one culture. It just wasn't universal.

Personally, I love the "Druids" and other assorted heathen who practice a made-up and sanitized versions of their "religions". You wouldn't see very many modern people attend druidic ceremonies if the priest was going to choose one of the congregation of a human sacrifice. And how many tree-huggers who love the American Indians and their "nature religions" even want to think about how these savages ensured that the sun would return in the winter?

Be fair to the Indians. The pre-Columbian Americas consisted of two empires, a larger number of chiefdoms, and numerous independent villages and hunter-gatherer bands. Fixing the blame for the sins of the Aztecs (who praticed ritual human sacrifice, what I believe you are referring to) onto all Indians makes about as much sense as blaming the medieval Scots for the sins of the Byzantine Empire (same continent, different people). Naturally, liberals often make the same generalization, but in reverse (the Yahi were nature-oriented and environmentally conscious, therefore all Indians were *puke*). You are right that some Indian tribes and/or empires certainly were extremely brutal.

It's a shock to the crystal-gripping New-Agey Earth-Mother types, who are just convinced that back then everyone lived in peace...

You probably think I'm exaggerating, don't you? ;)

Unfortunately, no, I think that's a perfect description of the mindset of the mystically-oriented left. Selective perception is a bugger.

I also find it interesting that their prescription to return to a (fictional) idealized, anarchic past, marked by small groups and descision by consensus is to implement a vast, all-powerful, autocratic state. Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.