He can't answer that, he won't answer it.
Because there is no answer for it. It's a steaming pile of horseshit, shat out by some religion.
He can't answer that, he won't answer it.
SF is one of those that has no guilty pleasures, he is practically perfect, but will die anyway.
I don't understand the concept of boycotts. I do not agree with Steven Spielberg on a wide variety of issues, but I enjoy his movies. My disagreement with Spielberg has no impact on the likelihood that I will pay to watch his films. Why is it that people on both sides of the aisle feel compelled to stop purchasing a product that they enjoy because they have a political or religious disagreement with the maker of the product?
There are a few reasons:
1) In america, nothing is more important than your own opinion on something. And if you have an opinion, you need to make sure EVERYONE knows how strongly you feel. It's basically mandatory that if you feel a certain way about something, you MUST tell everyone how important your opinion is
2) Tying into #1, americans have a goliath size inflated self-importance. The proles are so fucking stupid, that not only is their opinion the most important thing in the world, but they believe they can truly bring about change by not eating a few chicken sandwiches. They see themselves as martyrs, on the front lines of a major battle. In the old days you would go toe to toe with police in riot gear, maybe get pounded by a firehouse. But now, we update facebook and send out some tweets, and not stuff our faces.
3) Americans have short attention spans. You know how you see a bird constantly moving it's head around, constantly checking it's surroundings and bobbing it's head? Imagine a chicken on cocaine. That's how the average prole american functions. Constantly looking for more stimulation before quickly looking away to find something else. This is simply the flavor of the week. Next week it will be something else. Do you honestly believe it's possible for a prole american to hear about a chicken sandwich injustice and not go "HOLY FUCK - IT'S PROTEST TIME!!!! OMG! I WILL FIGHT THIS! WE WILL STOP THEM! ASSHOLES! FUCK CHICK-FIL-A"
4) We are slactivists, and we are lazy, and stupid. We put the absolute minimum of work into something so we can pat ourselves on the back for being proactive without really doing anything or understanding a situation. Remember "kony2012?" How long did that last? Facebook hipster dipshits were preparing to go to war against african rebels, now they are refusing to eat a sandwich. When you step back and look at this from above you can't help but laugh.
We don't have the will power to stand up to chick-fil-a that long. Because in another week, something TMZ worthy is right around the corner, and our cocaine addled avian heads are quickly going to snap over and look in the other direction. That, and the bottom line is that when it comes to greasy fried food, americans in no way can hold out against stuffing their faces and drowning their sorrows in a nice milkshake over all the injustice in the world.
Well you sound more informed than Dixie or PiMP but you're only half right. Biological evolutionary theory is based on the premise that allele frequencies change within a population over time. A demonstrable fact. The primary mechanism for this change is random genetic mutation. Also a demonstrable fact. You have it backwards as to providing competative advantage. Their are all sorts of changes of allele frequencies that provide no advantage what so ever yet they are still propagated throughout the species over time whether they provide an survival or reproductive advantage or not (take blue eyes for example). If they do provide an advantage it increases the probability of that trait being passed on but it isn't a requirement. So lets see how you apply your notion being only half right.Not at all puddin. I have a complete understanding of evolution. You see, the entire theory rests on the premise that random mutations occur. If they provide a competitive advantage to the species, then they will be propagated forward in future generations. Now, lets apply that theory to queers shall we?
My claim? Please cite where ever I made such a claim? Be that as it may you're argument is not credible. There are other possibilities than "Choice" for homosexual behavior besides genetic determinizm. Though there may certainly be a genetic component of homosexual behavior one has never been conclusively identified. Hormonal and environmental factors probably contribute greatly to homosexual behavior. Those are neither genetic or a choice. Then there's the fact that most research has indicated that sexual behavior is learned behavior meaning that due to a confluence of environmental factors some people learn to be sexually attracted to those of the same gender. Now don't mistake that as a choice. Just because a behavior is learned doesn't neccessarily mean it can be unlearned. So for example, as a small child you learned to speak English. It wasn't a choice at all. Do you think you can unlearn English? It's certainly possible but very unlikely. The same would hold true if homosexuality were learned behavior. It's possible one could unlearn it but very unlikely.Your claim is that being queer is not a choice. If so, then it must be genetic. In order for it to be genetic, that must mean a gene exists carrying the trait to only want to have sex with the same sex. For that to happen, the gene must be carried on the X and Y chromosome. Now it could be a recessive gene that sits on one chromosome similar to color blindness and baldness, but then that would mean you would only see queers in one sex and not the other. So we can rule that out.
What a complete bunch of dribble. You're not only demonstrating ignorance on genetics and heredity and the mechanisms by which it work but you're showing a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific method works. First of all nothing in science is known with 100% certainty. All scientific knowledge is tentative. So you are making assumptions not supported by science. To add insult to injury you are not correctly applying the scientific method. You're making the common mistake of many lay people of drawing a conclusion and then cherry picking information or data which supports your point of view. In this case that homosexuality is a choice. If you truly believe homosexuality is a choice than you must construct a testable hypothesis that homosexuality, in all cases, is a personal choice. Not only must you do that but then you must have that testable hypothesis independently verified and it must be, in principle, falsifiable (i.e. null hypothesis). To which I say show me your testable hypothesis that homosexuality is, in all cases, a choice and good luck with doing that.So since it is difficult to argue that a heterosexual couple carry a queer gene to pass along (otherwise they wouldn't be heterosexual and normal) one can only conclude that the queer gene is a genetic mutation. So we agree that queers are mutations.
Now, how would these mutants pass along their DNA to propagate the species? Well, it is impossible unless they have some interaction with the opposite sex. Therefore, if it is genetic as you claim then being queer is a mutation. Or is it a choice?
Lastly, if they ever find the queer gene, would you be OK with parents wanting to abort their children based on that reason alone? My guess is that you would become pro life in a new york minute
There are a few reasons:........
Boycotts are no more or less common in the US than other countries. Your silly theories about Amenricans are just that, silly theories.
One of the all time greats!I still teach this song to children...
Well you sound more informed than Dixie or PiMP but you're only half right. Biological evolutionary theory is based on the premise that allele frequencies change within a population over time. A demonstrable fact. The primary mechanism for this change is random genetic mutation. Also a demonstrable fact. You have it backwards as to providing competative advantage. Their are all sorts of changes of allele frequencies that provide no advantage what so ever yet they are still propagated throughout the species over time whether they provide an survival or reproductive advantage or not (take blue eyes for example). If they do provide an advantage it increases the probability of that trait being passed on but it isn't a requirement. So lets see how you apply your notion being only half right.
My claim? Please cite where ever I made such a claim? Be that as it may you're argument is not credible. There are other possibilities than "Choice" for homosexual behavior besides genetic determinizm. Though there may certainly be a genetic component of homosexual behavior one has never been conclusively identified. Hormonal and environmental factors probably contribute greatly to homosexual behavior. Those are neither genetic or a choice. Then there's the fact that most research has indicated that sexual behavior is learned behavior meaning that due to a confluence of environmental factors some people learn to be sexually attracted to those of the same gender. Now don't mistake that as a choice. Just because a behavior is learned doesn't neccessarily mean it can be unlearned. So for example, as a small child you learned to speak English. It wasn't a choice at all. Do you think you can unlearn English? It's certainly possible but very unlikely. The same would hold true if homosexuality were learned behavior. It's possible one could unlearn it but very unlikely.
What a complete bunch of dribble. You're not only demonstrating ignorance on genetics and heredity and the mechanisms by which it work but you're showing a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific method works. First of all nothing in science is known with 100% certainty. All scientific knowledge is tentative. So you are making assumptions not supported by science. To add insult to injury you are not correctly applying the scientific method. You're making the common mistake of many lay people of drawing a conclusion and then cherry picking information or data which supports your point of view. In this case that homosexuality is a choice. If you truly believe homosexuality is a choice than you must construct a testable hypothesis that homosexuality, in all cases, is a personal choice. Not only must you do that but then you must have that testable hypothesis independently verified and it must be, in principle, falsifiable (i.e. null hypothesis). To which I say show me your testable hypothesis that homosexuality is, in all cases, a choice and good luck with doing that.
can my pr people please handle my boiler plate response to dixon here? I don't have the time atm and need to be elsewhere
Thats because you devote too much time to writing the silly drivel above.
SF is one of those that has no guilty pleasures, he is practically perfect, but will die anyway.
Ah but hope springs eternal!and with this post, facts said to himself: "wow, I guess I was wrong on how homosexuality is equal to cancer. I now have a greater understanding of evolution. I am going to learn from this and not repeat the same misinformation i was spouting earlier at a later point in time. Perhaps I need to have a change in my opinion regarding this entire issue"
Well I can certainly tell you're male from this post. You didn't list chocolate.Crown
naked burrito from Qdoba/Chipotle/Illegal Petes
Crown
Beer
Crown
oh, and some Crown.
Well I can certainly tell you're male from this post. You didn't list chocolate.
There are a few reasons:
1) In america, nothing is more important than your own opinion on something. And if you have an opinion, you need to make sure EVERYONE knows how strongly you feel. It's basically mandatory that if you feel a certain way about something, you MUST tell everyone how important your opinion is
2) Tying into #1, americans have a goliath size inflated self-importance. The proles are so fucking stupid, that not only is their opinion the most important thing in the world, but they believe they can truly bring about change by not eating a few chicken sandwiches. They see themselves as martyrs, on the front lines of a major battle. In the old days you would go toe to toe with police in riot gear, maybe get pounded by a firehouse. But now, we update facebook and send out some tweets, and not stuff our faces.
3) Americans have short attention spans. You know how you see a bird constantly moving it's head around, constantly checking it's surroundings and bobbing it's head? Imagine a chicken on cocaine. That's how the average prole american functions. Constantly looking for more stimulation before quickly looking away to find something else. This is simply the flavor of the week. Next week it will be something else. Do you honestly believe it's possible for a prole american to hear about a chicken sandwich injustice and not go "HOLY FUCK - IT'S PROTEST TIME!!!! OMG! I WILL FIGHT THIS! WE WILL STOP THEM! ASSHOLES! FUCK CHICK-FIL-A"
4) We are slactivists, and we are lazy, and stupid. We put the absolute minimum of work into something so we can pat ourselves on the back for being proactive without really doing anything or understanding a situation. Remember "kony2012?" How long did that last? Facebook hipster dipshits were preparing to go to war against african rebels, now they are refusing to eat a sandwich. When you step back and look at this from above you can't help but laugh.
We don't have the will power to stand up to chick-fil-a that long. Because in another week, something TMZ worthy is right around the corner, and our cocaine addled avian heads are quickly going to snap over and look in the other direction. That, and the bottom line is that when it comes to greasy fried food, americans in no way can hold out against stuffing their faces and drowning their sorrows in a nice milkshake over all the injustice in the world.
and with this post, facts said to himself: "wow, I guess I was wrong on how homosexuality is equal to cancer. I now have a greater understanding of evolution. I am going to learn from this and not repeat the same misinformation i was spouting earlier at a later point in time. Perhaps I need to have a change in my opinion regarding this entire issue"
WHERE'S MY PR???