|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 24 2017 08:15 Slaughter wrote:
The fetish for need of those on the right for people to say radical islam is one of the stupidest and most puzzling things. Well Rightists can't come out and just say "we oppose pluralism". So they pick talismanic fights where liberals try to meekly stick up for pluralism. If the last 3 pages haven't demonstrated this clearly enough, there isn't an easy or consistent way to extricate the Muslim/Islam factor from Jihadist terror. This is a weak point for pluralism and the rightists know it. It got Trump elected without him having to come out and say "let's end pluralism". Of course he cucked out his followers for a gold chain, an all male sword dance, and getting to touch an orb. Everything Trump abandoned every single campaign promise to say non-pluralistic and mean things about Muslims during his trip to Saudi Arabia. It all ended up being agitprop. I'm surprised he didn't lose half of his base for not saying radical islamic terrorism. How they spin it to be him being tough on terror is beyond me.
Trump made getting vaguely tough on Muslims/Terrorists/RadicalIslam a daily campaign applause line. But ... he just bailed on it when it came to Saudi Arabia. Nothing.
And now the great Trump budget promises immense tax cuts on capital gains paired with ... medicaid and foodstamp cuts. I get that pluralism isn't popular outside of the cities ... but man these downmarket Trump voters got the bait and switch hard.
|
In other news, can you guys please not defund literally all your scientists? I really don't need the extra competition over here, for one thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-budget-seeks-huge-cuts-to-disease-prevention-and-medical-research-departments/?utm_term=.b0f4d5f06772
President Trump's 2018 budget request, delivered to Congress on Tuesday with the title “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” has roiled the medical and science community with a call for massive cuts in spending on scientific research, medical research, disease prevention programs and health insurance for children of the working poor.
The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion.
The National Science Foundation, which dispenses grants to a variety of scientific research endeavors, would be trimmed $776 million, an 11 percent cut. NSF had not been mentioned in the administration's earlier budget outline, the so-called “skinny budget,” which was released in March.
[...]
Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said a preliminary analysis indicates that the Trump budget would cut about 17 percent from the overall federal research effort. Holt, a physicist and former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, said cuts to research would have long-term economic implications.
Like, a 17% overall cut is a lot when your grant success rate is already less than 1 in 5 right now.
This is probably not how you stay the world leader in R&D. Also probably how you bring back a whole bunch of weird diseases that the CDC was keeping under control.
|
On May 24 2017 08:34 Belisarius wrote:In other news, can you guys please not defund literally all your scientists? I really don't need the extra competition over here, for one thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-budget-seeks-huge-cuts-to-disease-prevention-and-medical-research-departments/?utm_term=.b0f4d5f06772Show nested quote +
President Trump's 2018 budget request, delivered to Congress on Tuesday with the title “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” has roiled the medical and science community with a call for massive cuts in spending on scientific research, medical research, disease prevention programs and health insurance for children of the working poor.
The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion.
The National Science Foundation, which dispenses grants to a variety of scientific research endeavors, would be trimmed $776 million, an 11 percent cut. NSF had not been mentioned in the administration's earlier budget outline, the so-called “skinny budget,” which was released in March.
[...]
Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said a preliminary analysis indicates that the Trump budget would cut about 17 percent from the overall federal research effort. Holt, a physicist and former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, said cuts to research would have long-term economic implications.
Like, a 17% overall cut is a lot when your grant success rate is already less than 1 in 5 right now. This is probably not how you stay the world leader in R&D. Also probably how you bring back a whole bunch of weird diseases that the CDC was keeping under control.
There's nothing to worry about. Iirc the last figures I saw put R&D spending over 90%+ private investments. You don't need Government for science and R&D.
|
On May 24 2017 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 08:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 24 2017 08:15 Slaughter wrote:
The fetish for need of those on the right for people to say radical islam is one of the stupidest and most puzzling things. Well Rightists can't come out and just say "we oppose pluralism". So they pick talismanic fights where liberals try to meekly stick up for pluralism. If the last 3 pages haven't demonstrated this clearly enough, there isn't an easy or consistent way to extricate the Muslim/Islam factor from Jihadist terror. This is a weak point for pluralism and the rightists know it. It got Trump elected without him having to come out and say "let's end pluralism". Of course he cucked out his followers for a gold chain, an all male sword dance, and getting to touch an orb. Everything Trump abandoned every single campaign promise to say non-pluralistic and mean things about Muslims during his trip to Saudi Arabia. It all ended up being agitprop. I'm surprised he didn't lose half of his base for not saying radical islamic terrorism. How they spin it to be him being tough on terror is beyond me. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
He and his family got favors from Saudi Arabia. He's a conman, and his voters got duped to the moon and back.
|
On May 24 2017 08:34 Belisarius wrote:In other news, can you guys please not defund literally all your scientists? I really don't need the extra competition over here, for one thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-budget-seeks-huge-cuts-to-disease-prevention-and-medical-research-departments/?utm_term=.b0f4d5f06772Show nested quote +
President Trump's 2018 budget request, delivered to Congress on Tuesday with the title “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” has roiled the medical and science community with a call for massive cuts in spending on scientific research, medical research, disease prevention programs and health insurance for children of the working poor.
The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion.
The National Science Foundation, which dispenses grants to a variety of scientific research endeavors, would be trimmed $776 million, an 11 percent cut. NSF had not been mentioned in the administration's earlier budget outline, the so-called “skinny budget,” which was released in March.
[...]
Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said a preliminary analysis indicates that the Trump budget would cut about 17 percent from the overall federal research effort. Holt, a physicist and former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, said cuts to research would have long-term economic implications.
Like, a 17% overall cut is a lot when your grant success rate is already less than 1 in 5 right now. This is probably not how you stay the world leader in R&D. Also probably how you bring back a whole bunch of weird diseases that the CDC was keeping under control.
The president's budget might as well be written in hot pink highlighter with doodles sparkly unicorns in the margins. That's about the relevance it has to the actual budget. Same went for Obama too, it's a nice work of fiction. When we get a real budget document, we can talk about deficits and funding.
|
On May 24 2017 08:26 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +
We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.
The writers are the parents of Seth Rich, who was killed in the District in 2016.
Imagine living in a nightmare that you can never wake up from. Imagine having to face every single day knowing that your son was murdered. Imagine you had no answers — that no one has been brought to justice and there were few clues leading to the killer or killers. Imagine that every single day, with every phone call you hope that it’s the police, calling to tell you that there has been a break in the case.
Imagine that instead, every call that comes in is a reporter asking what you think of a series of lies or conspiracies about the death. That nightmare is what our family goes through every day.
Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean. He wondered how he would pick up and move to New York City for four months, the strain that might put on his relationships, and how it would all affect the life he had built for himself in Washington.
The circumstances of what happened next are still unclear. We know that Seth was abruptly confronted on the street, that he had been on the phone and quickly ended the call. We also know that there were signs of a struggle, including a watchband torn when the assailants attempted to rip it off his wrist. Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.
Still, conservative news outlets and commentators continue, day after painful day, to peddle discredited conspiracy theories that Seth was killed after having provided WikiLeaks with emails from the DNC. Those theories, which some reporters have since retracted, are baseless, and they are unspeakably cruel.
We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.
Despite these facts, our family’s nightmare persists. Seth’s death has been turned into a political football. Every day we wake up to new headlines, new lies, new factual errors, new people approaching us to take advantage of us and Seth’s legacy. It just won’t stop. The amount of pain and anguish this has caused us is unbearable. With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.
To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you. We don’t think you are monsters, and we don’t think you are terrible people. We know that so many people out there really do care, don’t know what to think and are angry at the lack of answers.
We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth’s memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare. We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.
Fox news is going to get sued if they let him keep doing this. There is news worthy and then there is just making shit up to ruin peoples lives. This is the latter. Can't say I am sorry to see him go. Though it is troubling how long he was on the air and how far down the rabbit hole he went.
John Steward needs to come back for a special episode of the daily show remembering the turd waffle that is Hannity.
|
On May 24 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:26 Nevuk wrote:
We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.
The writers are the parents of Seth Rich, who was killed in the District in 2016.
Imagine living in a nightmare that you can never wake up from. Imagine having to face every single day knowing that your son was murdered. Imagine you had no answers — that no one has been brought to justice and there were few clues leading to the killer or killers. Imagine that every single day, with every phone call you hope that it’s the police, calling to tell you that there has been a break in the case.
Imagine that instead, every call that comes in is a reporter asking what you think of a series of lies or conspiracies about the death. That nightmare is what our family goes through every day.
Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean. He wondered how he would pick up and move to New York City for four months, the strain that might put on his relationships, and how it would all affect the life he had built for himself in Washington.
The circumstances of what happened next are still unclear. We know that Seth was abruptly confronted on the street, that he had been on the phone and quickly ended the call. We also know that there were signs of a struggle, including a watchband torn when the assailants attempted to rip it off his wrist. Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.
Still, conservative news outlets and commentators continue, day after painful day, to peddle discredited conspiracy theories that Seth was killed after having provided WikiLeaks with emails from the DNC. Those theories, which some reporters have since retracted, are baseless, and they are unspeakably cruel.
We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.
Despite these facts, our family’s nightmare persists. Seth’s death has been turned into a political football. Every day we wake up to new headlines, new lies, new factual errors, new people approaching us to take advantage of us and Seth’s legacy. It just won’t stop. The amount of pain and anguish this has caused us is unbearable. With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.
To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you. We don’t think you are monsters, and we don’t think you are terrible people. We know that so many people out there really do care, don’t know what to think and are angry at the lack of answers.
We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth’s memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare. We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.
Fox news is going to get sued if they let him keep doing this. There is news worthy and then there is just making shit up to ruin peoples lives. This is the latter. Can't say I am sorry to see him go. Though it is troubling how long he was on the air and how far down the rabbit hole he went. John Steward needs to come back for a special episode of the daily show remembering the turd waffle that is Hannity.
As we saw with O'Reilly, its just a matter of him becoming unprofitable. As soon as it is a good idea to get rid of him, they will. If that never happens, they won't. Fox was willing to settle all sorts of stuff for Bill O, so even getting sued might not be enough.
|
|
|
I think Hannity may be making a good move with regards to his pursuing this Seth Rich issue. This topic is really big on t_d and part of me was wondering if this is some kinda awful attempt at reaching young, non-religious conservatives? Because t_d is super pro gay rights and marijuana rights, there haven't been many Fox contributors that t_d likes other than Tucker Carlson. Similarly, I see very little support for sessions on t_d. Sessions is exactly the old crusty kind of conservative turning young would-be republicans off from the party. Fortunately for republicans, Clinton is exactly the kind of thing turning young would-be democrats off from the party. Hannity is getting huge praise from t_d and I wonder if he is aiming to be a Milo of sorts, tapping into the t_d, infowars, bannon sympathetic portion of the republican wing? Milo stumbled into what turned out to be an enormous demographic goldmine. Interestingly, I see Milo appeal to people who are otherwise very civil and Milo was not just reaching t_d. I think Hannity is looking to tap into this.
|
On May 24 2017 10:05 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Hannity may be making a good move with regards to his pursuing this Seth Rich issue. This topic is really big on t_d and part of me was wondering if this is some kinda awful attempt at reaching young, non-religious conservatives? Because t_d is super pro gay rights and marijuana rights, there haven't been many Fox contributors that t_d likes other than Tucker Carlson. Similarly, I see very little support for sessions on t_d. Sessions is exactly the old crusty kind of conservative turning young would-be republicans off from the party. Fortunately for republicans, Clinton is exactly the kind of thing turning young would-be democrats off from the party. Hannity is getting huge praise from t_d and I wonder if he is aiming to be a Milo of sorts, tapping into the t_d, infowars, bannon sympathetic portion of the republican wing? Milo stumbled into what turned out to be an enormous demographic goldmine. Interestingly, I see Milo appeal to people who are otherwise very civil and Milo was not just reaching t_d. I think Hannity is looking to tap into this.
It's more like he's trying to siphon listeners off of Alex Jones
|
On May 24 2017 10:17 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 10:05 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Hannity may be making a good move with regards to his pursuing this Seth Rich issue. This topic is really big on t_d and part of me was wondering if this is some kinda awful attempt at reaching young, non-religious conservatives? Because t_d is super pro gay rights and marijuana rights, there haven't been many Fox contributors that t_d likes other than Tucker Carlson. Similarly, I see very little support for sessions on t_d. Sessions is exactly the old crusty kind of conservative turning young would-be republicans off from the party. Fortunately for republicans, Clinton is exactly the kind of thing turning young would-be democrats off from the party. Hannity is getting huge praise from t_d and I wonder if he is aiming to be a Milo of sorts, tapping into the t_d, infowars, bannon sympathetic portion of the republican wing? Milo stumbled into what turned out to be an enormous demographic goldmine. Interestingly, I see Milo appeal to people who are otherwise very civil and Milo was not just reaching t_d. I think Hannity is looking to tap into this. It's more like he's trying to siphon listeners off of Alex Jones
That seems like a distinction without a difference
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Not sure it's really good news that their "first pickup" comes so late. Or is that just statehouse seats?
|
On May 24 2017 11:00 LegalLord wrote:
Not sure it's really good news that their "first pickup" comes so late. Or is that just statehouse seats?
were there really any other options? plus a bunch of special elections were in places already dem controlled which went even heavier democratic (Ill for example and I want to say Delaware). Other than the Kansas race(which most people think was unwinnable.) not sure what opportunities they had to actually pick anything up (GA 6th is still up for grabs at this point).
some context
|
found this amusing. (Krugman talked about how bad medicaid and SSD cuts would effect WV earlier)
|
On May 24 2017 11:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 11:00 LegalLord wrote:
Not sure it's really good news that their "first pickup" comes so late. Or is that just statehouse seats? were there really any other options? plus a bunch of special elections were in places already dem controlled which went even heavier democratic (Ill for example and I want to say Delaware). Other than the Kansas race(which most people think was unwinnable.) not sure what opportunities they had to actually pick anything up (GA 6th is still up for grabs at this point). some context https://twitter.com/NHDems/status/867194549298282496
a poll from a couple days ago puts ossoff at 51 and handel at 44, which is tbh pretty surprising. handel is a not great candidate who has embraced trump and ossoff is one of those horrible centrist neoliberals which makes him palatable to the republicans who don't like trump. could shift though, about a month until the election.
but still, this is the seat held by price, isakson (current senator) and gingrich.
|
yeah I saw that. consensus seems to be that that poll is an abberation but we'll see. Montana will be interesting. CBO score tomorrow, that should be fun
|
Look like another Bernie supporter/delegate got elected in some election for the 9th District Assembly seat (in Albany, New York?). Democrat Christine Pellegrino flipped the seat from red to blue for the first time. Trump apparently had 60% of the vote in the district for the general election.
|
On May 24 2017 12:17 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 11:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On May 24 2017 11:00 LegalLord wrote:
Not sure it's really good news that their "first pickup" comes so late. Or is that just statehouse seats? were there really any other options? plus a bunch of special elections were in places already dem controlled which went even heavier democratic (Ill for example and I want to say Delaware). Other than the Kansas race(which most people think was unwinnable.) not sure what opportunities they had to actually pick anything up (GA 6th is still up for grabs at this point). some context https://twitter.com/NHDems/status/867194549298282496 a poll from a couple days ago puts ossoff at 51 and handel at 44, which is tbh pretty surprising. handel is a not great candidate who has embraced trump and ossoff is one of those horrible centrist neoliberals which makes him palatable to the republicans who don't like trump. could shift though, about a month until the election. but still, this is the seat held by price, isakson (current senator) and gingrich.
Ossof's not all that horrible in that he hits the social issues well and is in favor of infrastructure, government healthcare, and similar programs. His pants on head stupid attitude towards taxes is disheartening, but should he actually get to wrestle with budgetary issues in action, I expect that this attitude will shift. In any case, I'm way more liberal than Ossof but am still optimistic that folks like him are starting to compete with all these "my only qualification is I supported Trump" garbage people.
|
On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family.
The Bible is either a collection of good ideas for a working society or the word of god. Christians need to become consistant with what they want it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
