User Profile: HappyStretchedThin

HappyStretchedThin

Member Since: January 09, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [8] January 19, 2015 at 10:42pm

    Bigger headline: NOAA scientists so uncertain of own results that they poll themselves instead.
    Come on people! Do the data show a record-breaking year or not? (Hint: it did, but God’s green earth isn’t conforming to their hockey-stick model perfectly enough for the alarm bells to swing votes just yet, so the MSM needs to tout the result LOUD).
    In other news, NFL referees are almost certain (>99%) that the Pats won their game (not a fan, just need an example to illustrate the ridiculousness of polling people whose job it is to make a one-way-or-the-other call.)

  • January 16, 2015 at 11:00am

    @Realliib
    You understand neither anarchy nor Christianity if that’s your pick.
    Are you really so overcome by ideological tunnel-vision that you can’t distinguish between censorship and public decency standards? No one’s trying to tell you that you can’t be a porn-monger if you want. But you’re deluded if you think there’s no “basis” for a societal anti-PUBLIC porn standard except in “one old book”.
    The effects of porn on individuals and societies is well documented, and convincing for all who will be open enough to honestly look for the truth on the matter (yeah, that’s right, I just called your “libertarianism” out as being fundamentally CLOSED-minded).
    Start here, since I know you already read the Blaze: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/04/infographic-provides-stunning-look-at-pornographys-impact-and-what-happened-when-some-chose-to-give-smut-up/

  • [6] January 15, 2015 at 2:28pm

    Mr. MA in History who claims the vast majority of men had gay sex wants evidence from me that this is not so. I’ll begin by citing the current estimation of the population of planet earth at around 7B. Biology, which until recent decades has dictated hetero conception of new life, doesn’t seem to bear you out. Of course, you’ll argue that men can be hetero and STILL have **** sex, and you’d be right, but given that in the current gay positive cultural climate gay men stand at around 2% of the population, you could only argue that the majority of men have gay relations if you ALSO claim that before this gay-positive climate there was NOT widespread non-acceptance of gay sex choices. And that claim would get you in trouble with every other gay activist out there claiming victim status for their kind.
    Sorry bub. Evidence of widespread gay (and polygamous, btw) practice in EVERY culture has only ever been MARGINAL, despite how much exaggeration you want to make of its acceptance, centrality, and importance. Furthermore, Mr. MA in history, the times that it HAS become prevalent have been a few short generations from societal collapse, with Rome and Greece as my 2 showcase examples.
    The IDEA of marriage I defined started MUCH earlier than you claim, and citing “dark ages” reveals your “evidence” as remarkably Eurocentric. You’d get an F in the history courses I teach.
    As to current research: Start here:
    http://winst.org/wp-content/uploads/WI_Marriage_and_the_Public_Good.pdf

  • [8] January 15, 2015 at 12:49pm

    The MA in history claims that in ancient history: “the vast majority of men had sex with both genders”.
    I think he’s been reading the Symposium, and exaggerating it in his own mind, overapplying it to the rest of humanity. In other words, he can’t be trusted with ANY of his claims.
    But what can one expect from a coward hiding behind his own humor and attempting to skitter out from under its implications.
    You think we’re sexist bigot racists for opposing your political idea. Just be honest and come at us straight.
    When I expose your meaning, you deny. When I expose your logical fallacies, you double-down.
    I think the true enemy to science, historical truth, tolerance, and a happy society here is much more likely you than the defenders of marriage.
    But let’s try the experiment, then, Mr. MA in ancient history: When did the IDEA of marriage become exclusive, monogamous and heterosexual with a core objective in procreation? You claim it’s never really been that, so when did that start?
    (btw, there is ONE study that attempts to show, with SEVERELY limited longitudinal data, with CHERRY-PICKING advocates for the results as data providers that claims gay marriages are no worse than straight ones for kids. But the bulk of the evidence isn’t even close: having both a mother and a father VASTLY decreases risks to individuals and societies for the children involved. Be open to truth, not doctrinaire, otherwise I’ll expose you as projecting…)

  • [24] January 15, 2015 at 11:42am

    My PhD in a literary field trumps your MA in history (and by the way, you’re still logically wrong, no matter your credentials) when it comes to interpreting the messages in what you wrote.
    Sarcastically pointing out that SOME self-proclaimed Christian churches condemned interracial marriages as a way (a logically bankrupt way, btw) of claiming gay marriage opponents are animated by a parallel bias cannot avoid insinuating that you believe there is something inherently bigoted in opposition to gay marriage: you’re calling us racists.
    Sarcastically claiming that SOME traditions surrounding marriage treated pre-teen girls as sexual property to be exchanged cannot avoid insinuating that wanting the state to return to supporting only the traditional definition of marriage is akin to endorsing misogynist and pedophilic lusts: you’re calling us pedophiles.
    But few here are fooled by your logical sleight of hand. Blest correctly notes that you’ve set up a false-choice fallacy. Fortherecord correctly notes that you’re attacking real manifestations as if they were the ideal–which is the essence of the straw-man fallacy.
    Marriage as an idea promotes unity, harmony, stability, and has proven over and over in experience AND in the social sciences to be the BEST environment for the progress of the young.
    Despite your objections, you stand exposed as a dishonest, insulting hate-broker.
    Please continue posting–it adds to the clarity of your exposure.

  • [24] December 19, 2014 at 11:02pm

    The fact that you felt compelled to defend your own lifestyle tells me that you can barely contain your own self-denial. Despite your protests to the contrary, you’re NOT feeling fulfilled. Somewhere deep down, you know there are moral consequences to your choices and your lifestyle, that true fulfillment is eluding you, and that as wonderful as it may feel on the surface to have a willing partner in crime, your relationship is NOT, in fact, healthy.
    You’re drifting apart without wanting to open your eyes to it.
    You’re after selfish indulgences, not the kind of self-sacrificing service that true fulfillment requires.
    Should you be free to pursue whatever you call happiness? Not in dispute.
    But I’m also free to point out that based on your own description of your relationship, you’re mutually satisfying materialist hedonists after cheap self-absorbed thrills, not interdependent, mutually reinforcing, other-serving partners in the pursuit of a common purpose beyond themselves.
    You’re trading fun for joy, and fooling yourself into defensively claiming the fun IS joy.
    Oh, and no mention of children…I wonder why?…

  • [5] December 19, 2014 at 6:04pm

    No conservative is denying the impact free trade could/would have. But what YOU’RE not getting, is that you’d be a FOOL to attempt is with the Castro’s. They’ll let you in, let you spend, let you build, then confiscate it in the name of nationalization. Joke’s on you.
    Reason magazine sounds more like “blind faith” magazine if it thinks trade with Cuba will magically be “free and fair” without HUGE changes in the Castro position FIRST.

  • [9] December 19, 2014 at 5:59pm

    Rand, I love your spirit, bro. But don’t get sucked down the morally relativistic, doctrinaire rabbit-hole with your dad.
    1. The embargo IS hurting Cuba–the people mostly. But it’s not US responsible for that–it’s their RULERS who are withholding from them. If they dropped their bad-neighbor policies, we’d be happy to talk trade.
    2. It must be delicious for a Paul to accuse someone ELSE of isolationism, but they BOTH should know better. Rubio’s NOT calling for refusing to engage, he’s saying the best FORM of engagement is to be RESPONSIBLE, and hold them accountable to standards of fairness BEFORE offering to trade with them. Or maybe, I should reverse the tables and claim Paul’s an interventionist (because he clearly is, in the same way Rubio’s isolationist–not at all).
    3. The Why not Cuba question is the most insidious. They’re NOT morally equivalent! The Chinese and Vietnamese weren’t perfect, but HAVE loosened their command and control over their people, and ALLOWED free and fair markets to some degree. We engage with them TO that degree.
    4. Rand should know better than most that we operate on principles of rule of law FIRST, democracy SECOND because simple majorities aren’t always trustworthy on some things. Why all the moral relativism all of a sudden, Rand? Are we on an embargo because it’s POPULAR? Or because it’s RIGHT?
    5. Look, I like the idea of fresh approaches, even to dictatorial bullies…when the bully stops threatening.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 19, 2014 at 5:48pm

    This column is totally mislabeled. It’s not a CONSERVATIVE case being made, but a LIBERTARIAN one. And that’s before I get into all the straw men…
    Look, no one disputes that trade links people, and that the links will bring prosperity and that prosperity tends to make people resist authoritarianism, because the more independent you are, the less you need government. But that ALL assumes a baseline of free and fair trade.
    China, Vietnam, Russia, all of them NEEDED something we had, and were WILLING (by treaty, and by baby-steps-established practice) to trade more or less fairly for it, and so both parties grew in wealth in a simple Adam Smith sort of way.
    Castro’s game is NOT fair trade. It’s a fake at fair trade long enough for us to build his Digital Age infrastructure FOR him so he can nationalize and claim another victory over the useful capitalist idiots (read progressives).
    No one is arguing that we only should trade with lily-white-innocent leaders, as Tom Nichols implies by comparing Chine to Cuba. It’s not about morality. It’s about security of investment and reasonable assumptions of rationality–and I’m sorry, but China’s a yes, and Cuba’s a firm no.

  • [10] December 19, 2014 at 5:37pm

    Mojo-thanks for this thoughtful comment, and for your reply to biggle.
    Can I spell out what will happen? And offer a different way to frame what the purpose of the embargo is?
    1. NPR just did a story this morn (here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/12/19/371779358/for-an-island-trapped-in-the-50s-an-instant-digital-revolution) about how something like 5% of Cubans have internet access. The Castros know their web-era infrastructure needs MAJOR investment. What a wonderful useful idiot we must have in the White House to offer normalization, leading to “trade”. The Castros’ plan is obviously to let us build it, then confiscate and nationalize. With ALL the other Communists with which we trade, we have SOME measure of assurance that they’d lose theirs if we lost ours, so we both trade fairly. We’ve built up confidence in baby steps over the years. Does anyone believe the Castro’s are actually interested in permanently liberalizing their markets? At all?
    2. The purpose of an embargo is NOT to harm the people, but to SHOW them that their LEADERS are unreasonably withholding NORMAL benefits from them. It exposes dictators for the heartless, thugs they are. We’re not withholding anything from the Cuban people–their stubborn, oppressive rulers are.

  • [3] December 16, 2014 at 9:27am

    Full ironic circle.
    Apple made their marketing bones with an anti-commie commercial using George Orwell’s 1984 imagery to smash the surveillance state, stand out from the crowd, and go your own direction. Standing against the evil totalitarian empire was the ultimate act of individualism, and Apple wanted to be associated with that individualism.
    Now they’re citing lyrics from a band named the Orwells to ask you to join the growing throng rejecting individual liberties by undermining their foundations and by reducing the concept of liberty itself into one limited to the pursuit of happiness, pledging allegiance only to oneself.
    Apple wants to be associated with the FEELING of revolution, not to any CONTENT of revolution that might be morally right, honorable, or praiseworthy. Just destruction of whatever status quo there is.
    Good thing a free capitalistic society has created the purchasing power for even clueless parents to put their disposable income where they choose. Maybe Smokey’s right that the spoiled brat 12-25 yo target audience will just get new toys. God bless America, and maybe they’ll use their new Mac Air to read stories on the Blaze…

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 10:45am

    @JGraham
    I think it’s a worthwhile speculation, but that there is insufficient evidence to support the assumption. Frankly, if you’re reading the story very closely it’s actually very hard to tell whether the scattering came first and the language drift was a natural consequence of isolation (which I’ve heard one respected linguist explain), or whether the languages were miraculously broken up and the scattering happened later. In any case, there was a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth still in effect after the flood that wasn’t being heeded, so if the Shemites were faithful in other ways, their presence all in one place with the others would have put them on the wrong side of God’s laws in at least that one respect.
    As a final note, Genesis is NOT the only text one can consult on Babel era peoples. There is an account in the Book of Mormon which elucidates the question greatly. I would advice you to inquire, and to read the 14 quick chapters of the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.
    As to the presence of Hebrew elements in many scripts, it wouldn’t take much cultural contact from a traveling people over the last 3 millenia for a word or two, or even a structure or two to rub off. Especially since biblical language (which has made world travels with politically powerful folk) is heavily influenced by Hebrew.

  • [22] December 15, 2014 at 8:39am

    Dude. Do you even know how to read?
    I called God a TRUTH teller, and promised you the scientists will find that the truth matches up to His Word.
    Makes me wonder if you’ve understood ANYTHING you’ve read, EVEN in the Bible!
    Click the link and read it. It CONFIRMS the bible THROUGH independent, linguistic analysis.
    Stop attacking your allies!

  • [48] December 15, 2014 at 8:24am

    Oh Cons,
    Don’t get your hackles up over a scientist’s work. Scientists pursue truth through the means God has given them. And your insistence on dogma rather than inquiry demonstrates a shaky faith indeed. If you truly did believe God’s Word, you would sit back confident that eventually ALL science will square with what the Bible has already told us. There may be some wrinkles in our interpretation of it that we didn’t think of, but there’s NOTHING wrong, and in fact everything right with CONFIRMING God’s Word through science. And, frankly, falsely opposing the two like you seem to be doing is MORE dangerous than purely atheistic scientism.
    As a linguist myself, I can tell you that the bedrock story of this guy’s research is NOT wrong (although his timeline is off because it assumes a fairly constant evolution rate for the language features, which is VERY unlikely to be sustained, I hate to tell him). But don’t take my word for it, try a creationist: http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics

    Responses (7) +
  • [3] December 4, 2014 at 7:50am

    Hi Monk,
    Good to be back for a time!
    DZ: I did notice that, but I actually know what he’s talking about, and it’s NOT a race war. He’s big on the “browning of America”. See, he’s black when it suits his ratings, but he claims solidarity with all visible minorities (as if they’re all one homogeneous bloc in opposition to the equally mythically monolithic whites). Every demographic gain in any color counts as a victory for his “side” in his own mind.
    As for the statistics comments, you’re all quite right. I was just proposing a FEW of the important basic questions that would bias statistics less. I’m not sure we can assume ALL victims of police violence are criminal a priori, but my guess is that the VAST majority of cases roll your way, Advection.
    p.s. Monk: Ghostery! Why didn’t I think of that!
    On racialized media, also this: http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90052&siteSection=townhall_nws_non_sty_dynamic&videoId=25066646

  • [420] December 3, 2014 at 11:49pm

    They’re both futzing around with statistics. Smiley’s still right, even with O’Reilly’s numbers, that blacks are killed at twice the rate as whites (123 deaths into 39M blacks is about 1 per 300k, 326 deaths into 224M whites is about 1 per 600k).
    But none of that even attempts a fair-minded measurement.
    You need fair questions before statistics can answer you fairly.
    Try asking: How many of those total 449 deaths happened to non criminals? How many happened in the course of criminal activity?
    How many of those 123 got how much media coverage? Is it proportional to the media coverage of the 326?
    How many of the total 449 were ruled clean shoots by a grand jury? Were the officers involved held to any standard of accountability? How many met the standard?
    Smiley’s big problem here is that he doesn’t see how mob-like his mentality is. He doesn’t NEED evidence, he just sees one piece of it (the video), applies his own personal standard of accountability (if he’s not indicted, the GJ was a fraud), claims that’s all he needs, and calls for a media “lynching” of all officers, especially the one in question.
    Look, if it’s black lives that should matter, then why focus on the end-point of these lives? Truly caring about the lives would mean giving these lives loving families, nurturing them and teaching them right from wrong, etc. all their life long. Far fewer run-ins with police that way too. No matter your race.

    Responses (12) +
  • [16] December 3, 2014 at 11:15pm

    I’m just wondering if my superego gets a veto on what my subconscious orders…

    Responses (10) +
  • [3] November 19, 2014 at 7:57pm

    “gay people do have families and do want to get married for the purpose of starting a family”
    No one said they didn’t. But that’s NOT what you & I are arguing about. Stop trying to twist this and answer squarely: the principle that enables SSM to be included in a definition of marriage is that consenting adults of ANY gender should have state-supported relationships. Yes or no?
    Look, I have NOT appealed to a religious argument at all here, because I don’t need it.
    But you’ve got to give up this insane notion that the two are morally equivalent.
    For the kids involved, for the adults involved, for the societies involved, traditional marriage has intuitive and scientifically proven benefits that make it worthy of state support. Even you haven’t contested that point. Individual SS marriages MAY go beyond the definition of their mutually consenting emotional-fulfillment focus, and produce the same benefits. I haven’t contested that point either.
    But codifying SSM into law DOES change the principle of what’s treated as equal under the law to something unquestionably new: it extends civil rights people based on behaviors and preferences, not on personhood. The principle of mutual consent is amoral and is extensible in ways that the conjugal principle isn’t. Law can’t open itself up to the principle without also allowing ANY configuration of consenting adults. Kids don’t do as well in any other configuration, so it’s not morally neutral.

  • [2] November 19, 2014 at 7:37pm

    “Allowing people the freedom to marry imposes nothing on you, and does no harm to you or anyone else”
    It imposes on many expressions of religious freedom for one.
    And you’re plugging your ears and screaming “lalala I can’t hear you” on the harm question, so I won’t belabor the point. It harms the idea of marriage, it harms the children in a marriage, and it harms the societies whose rates of children with fathers and mothers decline.
    “it’s just different, who cares?”
    I’ve demonstrated that this difference is NOT merely a morally relative neutral one. Children do best with a father and mother. Says science. Repeatedly. (And God, by the way)
    “because you think science is biases against you”
    It’s not me, it’s the scientists who criticize the studies. It’s not me “thinking”, it’s actual design flaws in the information gathering mechanisms of the studies. The truth can’t be derived from them, your objections notwithstanding.
    “Whether or not a marriage is child-focused depends on the presence of children, not the sex of the spouses”
    Again with the goal-post moving. I said marriage AS AN IDEA has a child-rearing focus at its core definition, NOT “a” marriage (as in any given one). You attack me on things you and I agree upon as if I’m being unreasonable. Be honest.
    It’s the horizon of possibilities that changes when the definition changes, not the results in individual cases.

  • [2] November 19, 2014 at 7:20pm

    “People are for it because of the effect being married has on their life (legal benefits)”
    Some are, yes. But many others openly want to destroy the idea of monogamy, of gender, of religious morality. Plus, much of the “legal benefits” argument is put to the lie quite easily: when offered civil unions with identical rights, some gays STILL refuse. It’s the NAME marriage they want to claim victory over.
    “the vast majority of people against it are really worried about God’s opinion”
    This appears to be the heart of your motives. It scares you to think that people worry about what God thinks. And in this statement your profoundly intolerant core stands revealed. There’s NOTHING wrong with people worrying about what God thinks, especially not in a free society with a First Amendment. But let’s overlook your condescending and insulting view of religious believers as somehow also automatically uninformed, bigoted homophobes, and get to the actual facts: Kurtz shows quite conclusively that the rates of children raised outside of a marital relationship are expanding everywhere SSM has been introduced. How is that “failing to show real harm” to either the children or the culture of marriage.
    On freedom: you neither understand the principle, nor the Constitution designed to uphold its exercise in our free land.
    All individuals are free to contract a marriage. What SSM advocates are seeking out, isn’t marriage. It imposes NO restrictions on anyone’s sexual behavior to defend marriage.

123 To page: Go