Search results

I'm saying American public education is the pits. And the rot has only set in over the last few decades (so let's put aside its illustrious two century history). What you were saying is that because it's good for your kids, hey, there's no problem with it. That was the part I was responding...

So you're saying there should be a solution. Wonderful. What is it?

Who could argue with that, eh? ddoo's kids, man, ddoo's kids! You think those "100 statisticians" from a few days ago are with you on this one, too?

No, it's not personal experience. I don't see why that should mean I shouldn't look upon what I can learn about the era approvingly. Liberals don't live in a liberal utopia either, yet are sustained by a vision of what they consider proper. As for the paranoia etc, sure, you'll find people...

Could you explain to me what living their lives in dignity would look like? For example, back in my office-work days, I had a boss who was gay. Incredibly smart and well spoken and, as far as the job went, I looked up to him. But during coffee breaks he'd often talk in such a way as to draw...

Well, well. A lot of hard talk. But is it just talk? Will you supposed "hardliners" actually do anything about Islam? Like ending all immigration from Muslim countries? Taking steps to repatriate Muslims to their countries of origin? Banning the practise of Islam? Of course not...

In the morning, Joe watches his kids leave for school. Joe never attempted to make much of himself, believing that it was the government's responsibility to look after him, so he can't afford private schooling for them. So the state carts them half way across town because some fancy pants...

To me, that implies that they are sick and need help.

So what if they are born that way? To me, all that means is they are born with a debilitating medical condition. That alone hardly justifies celebrating their repulsive behaviour. Most criminals are "born that way", too, in the sense of possessing a proclivity for crime greater than the...

But must it? Necessarily? If you think so, you must believe that mere tolerance is impossible. That's impossible to tolerate, in the true sense of the word, those you disapprove of. The liberal version of tolerance says you have to celebrate those traditionally disapproved of, which...

Wow, you are so funny, man. How about this: The government funded ABC in Australia begins its programs with: "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island viewers are advised that the following program may contain images of deceased people." Oh, like, WOW. Images of deceased people on TV. Who...

Oh, I don't deny that I discriminate. It's that I don't think discrimination is wrong. Sure, some groups are going to feel agrieved by such discrimination, but I don't see that as any cause for concern. And let's be specific, I'm not even minimally concerned that homosexuals might feel...

Even if you have no desire to discourage him, do you consider it wise to encourage him? Celebrate him? Promote him to equal - or better - standing as normal people? If so, from your point of view, why?

You are speaking theoretically. I am speaking factually. There is absolutely no requirement for homosexuals to exist in the world in order for heterosexuals to likewise exist. One could simply conceive of (in the mind) a people who favor sex within gender and call them homosexuals without one...

Well, well. Zzz's been doing some "research". Perhaps he is interested in debating facts afterall? Of course, it's always difficult debating facts with people who hear race and think genocide, hear white and think Klan, hear heredity and think "pseudoscience". So we won't hold our breath...

You'd think it would be more important to show that I am wrong than that I am a bigot. Not according to ZZzz, though. (He's not even interested in what I might be wrong or right about. That's zeal right there.)

That's what liberal thinking does to the human mind. Nothing is ever won or lost on merit in the liberals' world. It's only victim this, discrimination that, xyz-phobe the other thing. The winner is the one that can muster the greatest amount of "compassion". Thus, to liberals, racism "beat...

What does that mean? You don't think I can hold off demolishing your last piece of illogic? Or you don't think I can demolish it? Nevermind, I'm perfectly capable of doing both.

Oh lord, I could have a field day with this minefield of illogic. Hahahaha. I'll save it for another day, though.

Lmao. I contend the complete opposite: that, however immoral it might be, it's perfectly logical to be a racist, a sexist, xenophobe etc. Philosophers even have a name for your brand of delusion: moralistic fallacy. The fallacy of believing that because something is good it must be true...