Why not wake up to a little racial hatred?

Fox News is as fair and balanced as my left testicle. Ol' lefty just ain't fair or balanced at all.

The Dan Rather story amuses me slightly. "73 year old man makes journalistic error, nation shocked/outraged". Sure, he goofed up, and badly, but Jesus H. Christ... get some fucking perspective. Nobody died when Dan Rather lied. Plenty did when the west lied, obfuscated and distorted.

Okay, I'll agree, the news segments are less partisan than the op-ed shows. Still, compared to a genuinely "fair and balanced" news service (like the good 'ol BBC), it's a joke. Even without the political biases, what about the corporate ones? Murdoch and his empire are just spoonfeeding people what they want them to hear, think, buy.

quote:

---

It's more difficult for politicians to revise history and lie these days. I think that hurts Democrats more then Republicans.

---

Okay, let's go down this track. Explain why. You've made a claim, now back it up with evidence. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

Even in the case of opinions, you should at least be able to back up why you think that. You can, some cannot.

Things are changing. Once upon a time moderates, liberals, socialists, radicals, reformers, secularists were able to get a word in edgeways. I don't call it progress, I call it a shift towards a one-party, one ideology system. Which is seriously unhealthy, but you won't ever realise it as long as you keep hearing what you want to hear. The problem you face, and it's a common complaint, is that it's extremely difficult to look at politics objectively. It's difficult, it takes time and practise. So, if you only ever look for what you want to see, then of course you'll end up with resounding confirmations of your opinions time and again.

I want to study history. To do that, you have to, as much as you can, put your biases and preconceived ideas aside before studying the facts. I have to physically force myself to read some things, simply because I feel so strongly about something that I have less than no desire to read it. But it's part of a process of learning to analyse evidence then form opinions.

Moore, Coulter, Hannity et al, like Freud and Marx before them, form their opinions then look for evidence to justify it. This is not a good approach, for obvious reasons. It's like a murder detective arresting a random suspect then trying to find evidence to link him to the crime.

I can feel pretty sure that Coulter and Hannity rant about the evils of socialism without the faintest idea who Karl Liebknecht was. If they knew, they didn't read his essays. They talk about "liberalism" without much grounding in what they actually oppose. Moore looks at the Democrats, sees they nominally oppose the Republicans, and thinks they're actually better. Most democrats voted for war, for the Patriot Act, etc. Democrats aren't anti-war, nor are they any more representative of the common man's interests than the Republicans. Worse, he's become the worst kind of apologist for fascism in his defense of Saddam Hussein.

Drugs are legal in Holland, strictly government controlled (which means it's marginally safer), and they make a lot of tax revenue off it. Twice as many English (not British, English - for the UK, combined, the figure's even higher) teenagers smoke cannabis regularly as Dutch teenagers, and we have really quite repressive drug laws. I don't advocate drug use personally, any more than I advocate smoking, but why should I stop others from paying through the nose to enjoy the occasional joint once in a while, in controlled surroundings? They're supervised, the amount and quality is regulated, and the government takes a nice slice which it can spend on social welfare programmes. Throw a casual drug user in jail, does this solve the problem? No, of course not. It's like saying the threat of execution prevents murder. The way to deal with the problem is through sensible, well-thought out education about the dangers of drugs. People need to be shown why drugs are bad, not just told that "they are, and that's that".

Euthanasia and gay marriage is about human rights. It's a human right to be able to choose to end your own suffering, if you're not able to yourself, and someone is willing to assist, why not? Gay marriage, again, why not? The religious argument doesn't stand, because evolutionarily speaking, humans are naturally promiscuous. Not monogamous.

Unionised prostitutes? Protects the women instead of demonising them. There will always be prostitutes, no matter what forms of repression you bring in, so why not at least make sure that they get support to look after themselves and each other?

In cases of paedophilia, the child is damaged. With homosexuality, no-one is hurt. People who say homosexual marriage is thus immoral don't understand morality.

The argument that 'traditional values' need to be preserved is a complete joke. How about placing a value on love and compassion? Times change, cultures and individuals evolve. How exactly does a guy marrying a guy do anything tangible to you, aside from wounding your sensibilities?

WC, I think you're a bit clouded if you can't see that you, in fact, inferred (while not saying verbatim) that allowing homosexual marriage is tantamount to the possibility of opening the doors to allowing legal pedophelia. It's EXACTLY what you inferred. Look at what you wrote - boiled down, you hold homosexuality in the same regard as a sex offender. When I hear someone say "Gay marriage? What's next, people marrying their pets?" my blood boils. How are the two related? Two consenting adults who love each other doesn't equal a dude marrying his cute l'il Chihuahua. I'm afraid most people who don't have direct contact with / are friends with / have a family member who is gay have this sterotypical vision of gays as flamboyant queens acting like assholes and jamming out to bad disco. There are of course plenty of gay people that are completely shallow, horrendous people. Know any straight people that are the same way?

I'd like for you to be able to meet my oldest brother. He's a 40 year old guy with a PhD in astrophysics living in DC with his partner, who is a 40+ year old guy who is a professor at George Washington University. Neither of them would lead you to believe they were gay, based solely on stereotypes. They don't hold angry GLAAD rallies . They are two of the kindest, coolest, smartest guys and I'm sure you'd have alot to talk about. Then you could think about the fact that if one of them were to be hospitalized, the other couldn't be counted as a family member and would have their visits limited. That's only one aspect of their being denied marital rights that is absolutely abhorrent.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certain that you treat gay people decently and aren't a lout who shouts 'fag', etc at them. But, when you speak of holding onto 'traditional values', perhaps you could consider whether some traditions could stand to evolve a bit. It happens all the time, doesn't it? Times and cultures change. Instead of defending Elizabeth Taylor's right to get married for the eighth time (re: such a SACRED institution), perhaps letting a couple of decent guys enjoy the benefits of a legal marriage might not hurt that badly.

quote:

---

Should Man-boy sex be legal? Should child porn be legal? I mean we have to respect the sexual urges and feelings of the poor misunderstood demonized child molester right?

---

quote:

---

"The argument that gay marriage will lead to paedophilia becoming acceptable is absolutely preposterous."
I DID NOT SAY THAT!!

---

I'm sorry, can you explain this one to me? That's exactly what you said. You're saying "okay, if homosexual marriage is fine, then people will say why shouldn't paedophilia be okay".

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by warcorpse:

Here in America, some things are worth trying to preserve.

Merry Christmas.

---

Here here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thanos:
but I will fight to the death any Grinch who tries to steal Christmas, including the Democratic party.

---

Whaaaa?

--------------------

--------------------

Makes you wonder when the moral authority is
Jerry Falwell and were supposed to take him seriously, kind of makes you sick...

I'll take the worst bleeding heart liberal
over those TV preachers any day...

quote:

---

Originally posted by X-D:
Down with Christmas!!!

---

Right.
Bah humbug, m-fuckers.

--------------------

quote:

---

I only connecting the two via the word "progress". I said "When does progress cross a line into that of the immoral"?

---

You just can't see it, can you? I've answered this. Homosexual marriage hurts no-one. Paedophilia does. Paedophilia will never become accepted. It's got nothing to do with "progress", no-one will ever see paedophilia as right.

Homosexuality was only considered immoral because of an obscure and often ignored passage in Leviticus. Before Judeo-Christian religions permeated Europe, the great classical civilisations (Greece, Rome, etc) accepted and in some cases even encouraged homo-and-bisexuality. No harm is caused. Nothing in the Bible says kiddy-molesting is wrong, we as humans accept that it is, because of the immense damage done to the child.

You ARE connecting the two, choose to believe it or not.

Values, culture changes, yes, but not spontaneously. I can't imagine a huge wave of pro-paedophile sentiment forcing change, somehow. The urge to protect children is one of the strongest humans possess. You also forget that change only comes if there's no good reasoning or argument against it.

Didn't know about Canada, that's interesting. Japan only passed an age of consent law in 1999, it's currently set at age 13. As with most things of this nature, a line has to be made somewhere, and it's usually pretty arbitrary. At 16 over here, you can have sex and smoke, but not drink alcohol or drive. There's no perfect way of drawing a line. Everyone's different. But somewhere between 16-18 sounds fine to me, and most people I know.

On the King Diamond boards.

--------------------

Speaking personally, music has no effect on my political and philosophical opinions whatsoever. Oh, wait, I tell a lie, I once browsed a Nasum lyric booklet and chuckled.

quote:

---

You read my words, injected a premise on where they stem from, then associated it with me. We seem to be in disagreement as to what my thoughts were at the time. I'm stunned.

---

Word up. I'll concede that one.

That said, you seem to have some very confused (is there a negative version of "idealised"? Answers on a postcard) ideas about what people perceive as "progress". But that's just me nitpicking and trying to dig upwards.

You won't catch me ever listening to Van Halen, ( "Jay- meez cryin ")
or Twisted Sister for that reason.

Lyrics is all part of the art form.

"Evil Invaders" ??? Oh please.

But really, saying you don't get your
philosophy from music is fine, but bands should say something.

quote:

---

Is progress that turns into a mess still progress? What is that saying, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

---

Yes, it's progress, if you moved on from the original situation. What I labelled confusion is where you seem to take "progress" as a sort of "moving towards an ideal", where often it isn't - progress is not "moving forward" it's "moving on". Swapping one problem for another. That's the impression I got from your posts, anyway, excuse me if I'm wide of the mark.

I think it's unhelpful, if I'm honest, that left wing/liberal ideas are labelled as "progressive". Progress isn't a partisan thing, and it's wrong to label it as such. I've been guilty of that one a lot, but hey, I'm learning.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions? Ugh, I hate the church. As opposed to what? Bad intentions? Jesus H.

Actions with good intentions have had negative consequences. And vice versa, all throughout history. It's a saying, not a universal truth, Warcorpse.

Solving one problem often throws up new problems. The trick is to keep solving the problems, not to go backwards - unless the state in which you start is better than the one in which you are at presently. The problem with that is, that things almost always weren't "better in the old days".

I honestly don't know where I'm going with this anymore. As I say, I concede the point.

--------------------

Its the old "undercover spy poses as
counter-culture metal fan" trick, eh?

Get that one straight out of the Nixon
days eh?

Lure out the leftist intellectuals, build
them a website for their favorite band,
and then verbally smash them, is that it?