MajKrAzAm

News at 10: California streets terrorized by American flag wearing gangs.

@pheo, ripple, color You are being pedantic in your argument. You and several others have conceded that wearing the American flag is provocative. This is bad enough, and would tell a normal person all they needed to know about the state of social cohesion in the US. There is no way this can be spun without being pedantic. Now, you will have to accept the disorder and disunity that results from this state of affairs.

It’s good to see some resistance to the on-going cultural displacement of the American founding stock. Coca-Cola has no loyalty to the United States, or any country. They don’t care about national identity, heritage, or cultural continuity. They are an amoral multi-national company that only cares about profits. What they are doing is appropriating a patriotic song for their own greedy motives. “Who cares if the United States turns into a modern day Babylon? At least we made some mega-bucks!” These same multi-national companies are the ones that support mass-immigration. They don’t care where you’re from, or what language you speak. They don’t distinguish between an American whose family settled the United States 400 years ago and built its national culture between someone who arrived yesterday. All they see are customers, and 'market potential'. Immigration policy is determined by big business, who do you think lobbies for H1Bs? It isn't Obama, its Apple, Microsoft, Google, Walmart et al

Haha, thanks for making me laugh. Sure. You've seen a 250lb man ragdolled by a girl... Did you see this in a cartoon? The only way a women could possibly compete with a man is if she were seriously juiced up, but then she would have the hormonal profile of man. Women are useless at hard physical labor. Modern people are so removed from the harsh physical reality of nature that they have no conception of how real gender differences are in these settings. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that egalitarian ideology can surpass nature.

The difference is Orthodox jews in america are not trying to push their religious belief in legislative policies.... Veering Off-topic, but this is just plain wrong. America houses half of the world’s Jewish population. If you think that they have had a negligible influence on American culture and politics in the 20th century, then I can only presume that you landed on Earth yesterday. Look up the battles over civil rights, foreign policy, and immigration in the 1960s, you will find that the involvement of Jews was largely motivated by hybrid religious-ethnic factors, with the remainder being resentment of the WASP upper classes. This isn't something that only some inbred Southerner kook has figured out, prominent Jewish figures have openly declared the very high priority they place on advancing Jewish interests, "what's good for the Jews", secular Zionism, etc. Yeah, umm, Let me rephrase this a little different... "currently" in the 21st century.... Orthodox jews in america are not trying to push their religious belief in legislative policies... :facepalm: Even if this isn't something that you say only some "inbred Southerner kook" has figured out, seem this person is living way too far in the past to think this makes any relevance to what is actually going on politically now... Greetings presumed carbon-based life-form. Welcome to Earth.

The difference is Orthodox jews in america are not trying to push their religious belief in legislative policies.... Veering Off-topic, but this is just plain wrong. America houses half of the world’s Jewish population. If you think that they have had a negligible influence on American culture and politics in the 20th century, then I can only presume that you landed on Earth yesterday. Look up the battles over civil rights, foreign policy, and immigration in the 1960s, you will find that the involvement of Jews was largely motivated by hybrid religious-ethnic factors, with the remainder being resentment of the WASP upper classes. This isn't something that only some inbred Southerner kook has figured out, prominent Jewish figures have openly declared the very high priority they place on advancing Jewish interests, "what's good for the Jews", secular Zionism, etc.

Yeah, umm, this isn't true. Women, who make the same career choices as men, earn...the same amount as men. The 75c figure compares overall workforce pay between men and women, who have the same credentials. It doesn't refer to men and women working in the same career paths, just overall workforce pay differences. Overall, women with similar credentials, make life choices that lead them to earn less e.g. Specialization, travel, danger, time, workload, plus other motivators that de prioritize financial concerns.

Women don't enter high-paying job fields by choice as much as men. They stick to healthcare, teaching, and services. Just look at a college engineering class, it's all dudes. Hard sciences, also all dudes. Law school is evenly split, but women tend to take hazy subjects like family law and human rights law (and then end up with 6 figure debts, working pro bono) Also, men are more likely to take up work positions in far away, undesirable, spartan environments. I'm a private contractor and my job has taken me to Afghanistan, Singapore, Alaska, North Dakota, UAE, Italy and London (which is the worst). Women just aren't prepared to move away from home and friends, for an extended period of time. Men work tougher shifts, and don't mind working weekends or holidays, a pre-requisite for any high paying career. Read/skim this department of labor study analysing the causes of wage differences: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." B-b-but the PATRIARCHY and bigoted RETHUGLICANS.

Aborting a child out of inconvenience.....shameful

My old man was tired of people with no license, insurance, or even registration from rear-ending him, so he attached a big-ass long-trailer hitch to his super duty. That last driver to hit him was driving a 10+ year old Honda; the truck remained undamaged. :cool:

Chris Christie, is a typical Northeastern Republican, the kind of pseudo-conservative that neocons love: He'll focus on taxes, unions and crime--i.e. everything that hits the elite in the pocketbook--and make some blustery noise on social issues. But when it comes down to it, he's got an insular immigrant mentality on morals: Just stay away from my family and my neighborhood. Anything outside his narrow confines might as well be happening on Mars.

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; but they don't oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet groups like GLAAD seem to oppose the right of Christians even to argue their position. One of the big mistakes conservatives have made is casting this conflict as one over free speech. The conflict is really over cultural values: the nihilism, atomization, and individualism of progressives vs. tradition, cohesion, and group allegiance. The former values derive from harm-based morality and the latter from balanced morality. I think that is really the only way to frame this issue.

Boy I sure love this tv show about swamp billies and hunting, I love how they are simple folk who like to hunt and pray and OH MY GOD WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN REDNECK COULD DISLIKE HOMOS.

What makes this all the more hilarious is that Britain has plenty of real crime to investigate instead. Imagine bobbies taking a discrete detour around a chav or Muslim immigrant robbing a pensioner so that they can break down the door of someone who was improperly courteous about Nelson Mandela's greatness on Twitter.

The trolley moral question is just circlejerk philosophical masturbation. The question is intended to force you to decide between thinking autistically, in which case the logic of sacrificing one individual for five people makes perfect sense, and thinking humanely, in which sacrificing an innocent person for the greater good of five seems too disturbing. Usually the autistic response is framed as "rational", although the most rational response would – as Vagrant mentioned - be that pondering the choice is a complete waste of time. The real issue here is that the only people who would expect to kill an innocent person (even a fat one) to save five other strangers have worryingly damaged brains which causes them difficulty with thinking about problems in a human way. People who don't push the fatty have brain activity in the emotional-reasoning parts of the brain - this is a sign they are normal, because it is actually normal to think through problems using emotions. It is only a weirdo who earnestly applies a "logical" cost-benefit ratio to the expenditure of human life. Aside from using it as a test of psychological deformity, the trolley-morality problem question is worthlessly stupid.

Where do moral truths fit into your definition?

The sedition charge makes me laugh, it seems as though everyone became an internet lawyer after the Zimmerman trial. I can’t think of any American politician, within the past 150 years, that has been successfully charged with sedition. Sedition requires that force be used to prevent the execution of a law. I don't see how force was used in the shutdown. Congressional immunity will protect them from being prosecuted in this scenario. Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution gives Congress wide discretion to challenge any law by any means. It’s completely tautologous to claim that congressmen -- members of the government -- can be tried with attempting to overthrow that very same government. Boehner et al’s action is within the democratic process, what the House did qualifies as the operation of the government. To seriously consider that the major opposition party be charged with sedition for exercising their legal powers, is itself probably more insurrectionary than anything the GOP did.

Have these bloggers not heard of congressional immunity? The speech and debate clause will protect these congressman from prosecution. I love how the huffpo blogger tries to bypass congressional immunity by framing the government shutdown as extortion, only to realize that the definition of extortion he cites can't apply in this scenario.

There are zero citations in his posts. Zero. I have never claimed it to be unnatural. There is a big difference between labelling something as "unnatural" and "pathological" or even "deviant". So what "new and accurate" information was there in 1973 that determined homosexuality was no longer pathological, justifying it's exclusion from the DSM? If you read through the APA's writings on homosexuality, the presuppositional bias going into psychological research on homosexuality is obvious. There's a mistaken assumption here that declaring something a pathology is some sort of objective, non-political scientific process, instead of being based on morally-normative assumptions about correct or proper functioning or behaviour. For example, there used to be a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder in the DSM-3, but it was removed from the DSM-4 because women’s groups felt it unfairly pathologized women. This doesn’t mean that these behaviors ceased to exist; it’s just that the APA terminated a specific cognitive-behavioral phenomenon and hid it in Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified due to political pressure. Another example is the APA’s failure to officially acknowledge Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP). These behaviors have been documented. Individuals who have been the target of these pathological and malicious behaviors know full well how real they are. Yet, the APA wouldn’t touch it, because it would assign pathology to a sizable minority of women. B-b-but there's lots of research indicating homosexuality to perfectly normal, so why don't you cite your sources you VAPID XTIAN BIGOT!!!

Whereabouts are you on the autism spectrum? This is a forum dedicated to Morrowind mods and you expect me to cite scholarly articles, when you have not done so yourself. You have not engaged any of my arguments (you attempted one but you so misconstrued my argument that I had no choice but to politely ignore it). In 3 separate posts you’ve whined at length about citing sources. I ignored this hoping that you would realise how unreasonable you sound. You have not supported any of your arguments except for some vague reference to a community college class. Your point has pretty much been: it's not in the DSM ergo so it's not a mental illness! You are unaware that the whole concept of deviant behaviour was defined out of existence by activists. Scientific research played no role. There was never a eureka moment where medical research firmly established homosexuality as a normal human behaviour. This has led to the situation that we are in today, where the remarkable growth of an identify group as a political force stopped any serious research into homosexuality. The activists aren't interested in gathering additional knowledge, theirs is a purely ideological quest to purge discussions and make themselves feel good. It's totally anti-intellectual, anti-science. @kvnchrist: Hate plays no role in my argument . I have no hate for homosexuals. It is the dishonest anti-scientific taxanomic re-branding of homosexuality as a behavior that is within the normal human spectrum, when it so clearly is not, (it's plainly a dysfunctional transference of erotic interest to the wrong sex, among other things) which is what I disagree with.

There is plenty to suggest so. You are being dishonest if you claim that homosexuals are just the same as heterosexuals. It is well established that homosexuality brings with it undeniable secondary comorbidities ranging from schizophrenia, depression and anxiety disorders, narcissism and personality disorders, low impulse control, substance abuse etc. That homosexuality tends to be attached to other pathologies makes me suspect that it acts as a kind of "marker" disorder, the surface sign of deeper problems, like a neurotic tic or severe phobia. Further as I said above, when we look at homosexuality in animals we see that it also tends to be an expression of pathology or extreme environmental turmoil. I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development--gay face, finger length, brain morphology--is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it. I am content calling homosexuality a mental disorder in the general sense--human beings like most animals are designed for heterosexuality, mentally and physically, so homosexuality is not just abnormal (it affects a very small subset of people) but it pushes homosexuals away from the fulfilment of functions normal to both individuals and society as a whole.

The trouble with using harm as a basis for defining mental disorder is that it is symptom based and is not tied to any idea of normal development or function. Unlike physical deviance, such as albinism, mental deviance and its deleterious effects can be disguised. If you took the concept to its natural extension, sociopathy could not be defined as a mental disorder because the sociopath doesn't mind it and in most of his interactions there isn't obvious harm to others. You have the same problems with narcissism or sociopathy. Yet we know, despite the absence of outward harm, that these are mental illnesses, because we can observe the personality deficits, the retarded emotional life, etc. Naturally you can argue that eventually these lead to harm, but then you have a problem with homosexuality, particularly in the context of mass urban society where homosexual male behavior is responsible for so much venereal disease spreading. Here we have a very clear case of harm exacerbated by sexual deviance, but I guess that's not good enough.

Animal homosexuality is always a sign of something going wrong. It tends to be an expression of pathology or extreme environmental disruption. Humans have evolved like most of the animal kingdom into two complementary sexes, and so have our emotional lives. That means that healthy romantic relationships depend on that complementary balance. Homophilia therefore proceeds from the starting point of ignorance of this basic fact of life, it fails to comprehend the significance of social norms and tradition that marginalize homosexuality to protect communal cohesion. Modern people fail to grasp the damage that one homosexual could inflict upon a tribe of hunter-gatherers. Historically, the optimal strategy for humans has been to stigmatize abberant social behavior that works against community stability (gay men, in addition to having predatory sexual habits, are famously hedonistic, historic carriers of venereal disease. That is probably why homosexuals have been viewed with disgust for thousands of years, with the notable exception of civilizations approaching collapse.

The decision by the APA to remove homosexuality as a personality disorder was motivated by political factors. Medical research had no impact on it's decision. From our distance we know it was part of an ongoing pressure campaign and resistance eventually failed. You see this sort of change with generational turnover: people don't change their minds so much as they die and are replaced with people who do not share their views. It hit psychology fairly early, despite the abundance of evidence that most homosexuals have serious personality disorders. There are secondary pathologies that tend to accompany male homosexual behavior, including hedonism, narcissism, sociopathy, warped views of women, drug use, mental illness, carriers of venereal disease, and a subversive antipathy toward normally socialized people and institutions. Gay marriage, contrary to many claims, is more about prohibiting anti-homosexuality in the public sphere than it is about helping gays form stable families. They attach erotic feelings to the wrong sex. It's an indication of seriously defective wiring, the same as with transsexuals, fetishists, or narcissists. It doesn't matter whether you think it impedes your quality of life (which seems to be meaningless in today's day). The reason mental illness is shamed despite our awareness of clinical approaches to it, is that deviant behavior--having erotic feelings for the same sex, wanting to chop your penis off, being self-obsessed--is recognized as symptomatic of more serious problems that get in the way of an orderly, stable society (we really don't know exactly what causes homosexuality, but we do know it correlates with other problems such as hedonism, self-absorption, compulsion toward deviant paraphilia, and so on). This is why it is important to research homosexuality and re-evaluate it as a disorder. (Note: I don't attach any stigma to mental disorders so I don't see homosexuality as necessarily bad in itself).

This Gallup report found about 3.4% of Americans identify as homosexual or "transgender". Gallup found a pronounced difference in identification based on age, with indentification starting at 6.4% and declining through adulthood. Gallup's commentary on the results are the usual timid mainstream cliches--for example, they suggest that older Americans are reluctant to identify as homosexuals due to oppression (lol). More interesting possibilities are that older homosexuals don't identify with prevailing homosexual group identities, higher sexual activity of youth leads to greater experimentation, and that social changes are leading to increased rates of homosexual behavior and an ideological preference for sexual "normlessness". Although I would argue that increases in population density will produce increases in homosexual behavior, it's likely that age plays a significant role. Important parts of the brain are still developing through adolescence and early adulthood, there is a greater influence exerted by (sexualized) mass culture on this age group, and an attenuation of homosexual behavior in later adulthood fits a pattern of reversion to hereditary/biological influences. The question may be when someone is homosexual just as much as if.