Jump to content

Spacko

UnityHQ Member
  • Posts

    941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Spacko

  1. would you likee an ignorant Republican or would you preffer some lady that will burst down in cry's when she had to choose what political decision she will make on issues as global terrorism. :cry2:

     

    I think I'd definitely prefer someone who shed a tear, but proceeded to make a rational decision, over someone ignorant.

     

    I'd hate to be Hillary Clinton, though. She's damned no matter what she does. Cry and you're a calculating shrew or a damsel in distress, but if you don't show emotions, you're an insensitive political machine. Stand by Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair and you're a door mat, leave him and you're a heartless, unforgiving witch. And then all these pundits and commentators chirping the 'unelectable' song... Well maybe she is, but I really can't see anyone else so far in this race who has the skills, the experience and the political clout that she has. How I wish we could cut the crap about Giuliani's marriages, Romney's mormonism, Hillary's laughter and tears, etc. etc. etc. and just get down to issues and politics.

  2. That's a plurality, not a majority.

     

    Indeed you're right! In my native language we don't use different words for the two. Glad to be learning though!

     

    If you'll permit me an observation, still, the point Trigger seemed to be making is/was actually irrespective of the distinction between majority and plurality. The point was that Al Gore actually got more votes in total (48.4 percent to Bush's 47.9, according to Wikipedia). I guess we can agree that there's a certain difference between not getting a plurality and failing to get a majority?

  3. Bill Clinton never got a majority of the vote either. 49% was his personal best.

     

    As far as I could read from Wikipedia, he had a pretty clear majority both times he won (5.5% in 1992, 8.5% in 1996). True that he never went above 50%, but since Ross Perot ran as a third candidate and drew quite a few votes, that wasn't necessary nor possible.

  4. Still about a year to go, but the first step is already done as Iowa chose Obama and Huckabee. All the world is affected by who is elected the new President of the United States, so naturally everyone is entitled to an opinion on the election. Besides, Nolfers should be a much more important demographic than Iowans.

     

    So who are you all hoping for? Who do you expect to represent the two major parties in the actual election? Does a woman or a black man even stand a chance at the big time? Is the electoral system basically unfair, since you can win without having the most votes in total? And who the heck is Mike Huckabee?

     

    All of this, and more. Discuss!

  5. And my favorite part: The last full year that this self infatuated retard will be in office.

     

    george_bush.jpg

     

    Uh oh. Godspeed, Trig. I hope they let you go quickly and painlessly. :P

     

    PS: Please put me down in the will for your computer.

  6. The Phat team is the oh so very cool team.

     

    But well, couldn't people who sign up just be honest about which team they belong in? If anyone's uncomfortable discussing their body size, I guess they'd have to skip this one match :whistle:

  7. Oh no, the British are coming!!

     

    It's a wonderful package, I'll take it. High marks for editing, music and artistic creativity. Minus for poorly written script and unrealistic dialogue. Great action scenes. All in all, 7/10 bananas.

  8. Uh Caip... what's with you? Since when do we tell people what they can and can't discuss?

     

    He never did that, though. He only said that there doesn't seem to be much of a point discussing it if's already clear that the answer isn't going to change anything. Which seems true to me, anyway. In any case, we're not 5 years old here, (even if lord knows you'd be forgiven to think that sometimes) and clearly anyone can continue a discussion even if someone else thinks it's a pointless one.

  9. Now Mari wrote...

    This has nothing to do with God (specifally). This has to do with promescuity. As I mentioned in a past post, women tend to be by nature more "nurturing/maternal" and no matter the orientation aspire to have the long monogamous relationship. Men on the other hand will screw anything with a pulse if you let them. Gay men as we have seen will go as far as to have unprotected sex as pro-tease inhibitors have given the gay male community the false impretion that even if someone gets HIV, its curable/treatable with this new medication. And to hell with wearing a hat on your jimmy when you can ride bare back and pop a pill later on!

     

    So if this has to do with promiscuity - and I can agree with that, as it makes perfect sense that having unprotected sex with very many partners puts one at a higher risk for STDs - I assume we can now agree that HIV/AIDS is not a «gay» disease. After all, promiscuity has been known to exist in straight people as well, eh? I can't imagine why anyone would act so recklessly as to sleep around unprotected, regardless of gender and orientation, but I'm aware that it is an even larger problem in some gay communities than average. That's not typically gay nor representative of homos everywhere, though. What it is is typically fantastically stupid and representative of morons everywhere.

  10. Right, with regards to the HIV/AIDS argument:

     

    While gay men are overrepresented among HIV infected, woman-to-woman transferrence of HIV is very rare. Lesbian women is generally a group with a very low ratio of HIV and AIDS.

     

    If this is somehow god's or nature's punishment/regulating mechanism, you'd think it would weed out both genders of gays, wouldn't you?

  11. Knixy: You're certainly right that this is a long way ahead of us, in any case. And as long as we agree that it most certainly is a big deal when and if we get there, I'm not gonna be concerned about whether or not it's as big a deal as sexual reassignment/realignment. Still, I wish they would put more research into it.

     

    And Indy: Thanks! I have to admit I haven't had much grief and problems with being gay, but nevertheless I appreciate your sympathy. I like you too - even if you are straight :P

  12. Without further study and research, we can't, thus my earlier proposal of research.

     

    If causation can eventually be determined, and treatment (whether medicinal, or w/e) can be offered as an alternative to prospective parents, or the individual themselves, then imo it would be benefit everyone. I say offered not forced upon.

     

    Oh I deffo agree that there should be more research. Knowledge is always our friend.

     

    If there is some sort of treatment for it, well. If the treatment can be performed throughout a person's life and thus when they are capable of requesting or rejecting the treatment themselves, it would fundamentally be okay. However, bear in mind that even for those old enough to make that call, it's still a huge problem that many would likely find themselves pressured into it by parents, friends and so on.

     

    Then there's the fact that the mere idea of "curing" homosexuality conditions that it's a disease or negative condition, and I guess I just don't see it as one. Unnatural, yeah, but a small percentage of us being gay is not harmful to society nor a fatal flaw in the individual. In my opinion, if something like a "cure" is possible, then it should be considered as radical as a sex change. Not something you can do on a whim, not something parents can order for their child, but a radical alteration of a human being that only that person can decide and only that person will have to live with.

  13. Well I've never heard of any research on the sexuality of children of gay people, but if there is any that takes into account both nature (the sexuality of the parents/sperm/egg donor) and nurture that would certainly offer interesting insight. If anyone know of such studies, feel free to bring them forth. I'm not 100% sure what your point was Susie, but if you'd care to clarify and substantiate it, I'd be interested to hear it!

     

    Still as long as there is no definitive research on this stuff, doesn't it make sense to believe that gay people know whether they have been gay from birth or only developed those feelings later? If someone's broken a leg, surely they know best how they broke it. If you're happy, you'll usually know why. All gay people I know are as intelligent and self-insightful as anyone else, and are surely very competent judges of their own psyche and condition.

     

    Of course, as far as I'm concerned, nature vs nurture is a purely philsophical discussion, and whether it's genetic, environmental, chosen for kicks or some combination of these, the discussion should not affect or overshadow homosexuals' civil and legal rights or value and qualities as human beings. But if we need the discussion, it's rather absurd to not consider gay people the best source of insight into the gay mind.

  14. Oh for heaven's sake are you two STILL on this? Could we possibly return to the topic at hand?

     

    Now I don't know where the discussion has gotten stalled, but I can't imagine why some of you believe you know better than gay people why they turned out gay. And re something someone said many many pages of discussion ago: My childhood was happy and completely abuse-free, so I don't give much for the "gayness stems from abuse" theory.

     

    - Synti

  15. Just for the record... Don't hold back any opinions on gayness on my account, you guys. I find it a little refreshing to hear some non-politically correct opinions on the topic.

     

    Also, it is my belief that just as I'm sure you straight people will claim to have been born straight, I was born gay. Course, if we all had to choose or somehow adopt sexual orientations later on, I'd be fine with that as well, and perhaps it is like that for some people. What do I know.

     

    As I've said before: I believe it must be up to each religion to choose whether they want to permit gay marriages or clergy. But if consenting adults of the same gender want to commit to each other in an equivalent to marriage, the state should provide them with that, so that their legal and economical rights are equal to straight couples'. Gay people who want kids and are able to raise them should certainly be allowed to do so, and in time that will become a non-issue.

     

    Finally, the goatrapers and pedophiles argument is complete slippery slope. Consent is the key here... Which children and goats cannot give.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines Privacy Policy.