Friday, April 13, 2007

Imus and the Perfect Storm

Things weren’t looking good for the hate-America-always crowd. The fake charges against three rich, white men – the three forces of evil according to the powers in the Democratic Party -- at Duke University were rapidly falling apart.

This was both devastating and confusing to the movement. What they’d hoped would be the perfect storm of American evil was exposing their efforts as the evil itself. Bigoted misogynists, rendered safe by both their wealth and location in the hateful South, brutally and cynically savaged an innocent, young black student who, for no other reason than the fact that she had the bad luck to be born black in America, had to dance for her white “owners.”

That was the story they hoped to sell and, given that, with their control of the media they’d been able to sell it – or something like it – repeatedly in the past, they had little reason to doubt their coming success.

All the pieces were rapidly put into place. No need for evidence or deliberation, the universities professors would – en masse – write a letter demanding the guilty men be punished immediately. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would pack up their carpetbags, hold their news conferences and, well, with just a little help from the press, Sharpton could parley this fake rape the way he parleyed another into personal riches and “honor” some twenty years ago.

Even the setting could not be more perfect as the fact that these horrors were committed in the South would render moot all that talk about progress in race relations. America was a bigoted, evil, horrible place where, as Joe Biden pronounced on the floor of the United States Senate “racism lurks in every dark shadow.”

The fact that the children came from successful families made it even that much more delicious for it “proved” another of the Democratic Party’s leader’s claims of “two Americas” where if one was rich one was free of concern, with the system working always on their behalf, but the poor, well, they had no options. John Edwards’ (yes, the multi-gazilionaire John Edwards’) campaign slogan of “two Americas” was proving true.

The South was perfect, in fact, for it provided the hate-America-always crowd with a win-win scenario where conviction proved that America is evil, hateful, racists, misogynist and all of the other claims of the special interest groups and the politicians they own in the Democratic Party while exoneration would even further prove it as, clearly, the “good ole boy” network still sees rich, white boys to go unpunished for their “crimes.”

Only this wasn’t the 1980’s. The leftists’ monopoly in the media had been shattered by Fox News, center-right talk radio and the blogesphere that allowed the people to get past the gatekeepers in their New York City studios. The “perfect storm” was turning into a perfect disaster.

The letters written by the college professors demanding the “lynching” of three innocent white men – a conceit they felt needed no fact or evidence behind it because, as “college professors” they were superior in all ways to the common folk – proved not only their lack of expertise (not to mention decency and honor) but worked to prove what others had long been saying about the true agenda of the leftists at America’s universities.

Meanwhile, other claims of the hate-America-always crowd began to unravel one-by-one as well. Far from being a poor victim of evil America where a black woman has no hope, the lying stripper was enrolled in a taxpayer-supported university where an education was in the offing, a position likely achieved through nothing other than an affirmative action program that saw some better qualified white student denied admission to make up for some supposed past sin.

And, while the woman on whom the hate-America-always crowd had gambled so much was wasting the opportunities provided to her by the America they sought to attack, the evil “rich, white boys” were not resting on their (or their parents’ laurels) but rather making the most of every opportunity their good fortune had afforded them.

Clearly outstanding students to be admitted to Duke University in the first place, in addition to maintaining their grades at such a competitive and once-great university, they pushed themselves physically to become amongst the world’s best athletes at a demanding and difficult sport.

It didn’t help the hate-America-always crowd that their spokesmen were the twin conmen Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, proving that the race card had been played so many times the hate-America-always folks were down to their last two jokers.

Even the win-win situation the leftists thought they’d created by holding this farce in the South proved to be disastrous for the hate-America-always folks. What the hate-America-always crowd thought for sure would “prove” that no progress had been made since the days of Jim Crowe only served to prove that justice was equally disserved by blatantly racist attacks against innocent whites and that clearly the leftists had taken their campaign against America too far.

If anymore proof were needed of the hate-America-always crowd’s real intentions, take note that at Rosie O’Donnell’s “The View,” they continue to attack the victims of the leftists’ efforts, by slandering the Duke players.

Enter Don Imus.

As I said, things weren’t looking good for the hate-America-always crowd. What they’d counted on to be the perfect storm to prove all of their allegation against America turned into a disaster. They needed some rich, white guy and quick!

And Imus is a dead man. Why? Not because of what he said – please, the hate-America-always crowd chose the vicious, vile, misogynistic “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp” as the best song of 2006. Besides, don’t the lefties always tell us that entertainers have no effect on the people and that’s why it’s okay to sell hateful and vulgar records to children?

No, Imus is a dead man because truth plays no part in the agenda of the hate-America-always crowd – and the fact that Imus is one of them will not save him either. Having exposed themselves and their agenda so clearly and disastrously in the South, they are going to have to turn Imus’ stupid words into the new Holocaust just to try and regain some of the ground they lost.

598 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 598   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I had wonderful "humanities" teachers. Plato, Xenophon, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aritophanes, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Franklin, Emerson, Nietzsche, Dostoyevski, Freud, Marcuse, amongst others. Who were your teachers, again?

Anonymous said...

That's okay. Women have little training in the use of force or government as of yet. It's been a "male dominated" field ever since the Atheneans defeated the Amazon's in the battle for the Parthenon. You can't help it that you lack experience. I guess all you need is a coupla hundred years of military affirmative action to correct that deficiency, right? ;-)

Anonymous said...

btw - Do you have a "force policy"? Don't tell me... it's "no first use", right?

Anonymous said...

You are a lawyer, not a pirates. Pirates rob others by pointing guns through loopholes. Lawyers only point their pens...

Hesiod "Works and Days"

Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel

Anonymous said...

So you believe in equality, eh? So much for "scientific truth".

Nietzsche "Will to Power"

512 (1885)
Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.

Jane said...

Maybe if you've never discussed what you've read with anyone, that explains why you dont' seem to really understand a lot of it.

I don't understand what you mean by:
So please, continue to remove the bars repression and conscience from man's cage. It's been done before. Many times before. It may be many things... freedom, liberation, etc. But it is NOT progress.

As for math, i'm just so stoopid. 2+2=5?

Jane said...

So you believe in equality, eh? So much for "scientific truth".

Equal rights, yes. Equal opportunities, yes. Some people are prettier, smarter, stronger, etc. Obviously. But I don't think that Americans have any more right to life than Iraqis, for example. Many Americans seem to hold this view.

why do you keep quoting nietzsche? where did he go to medical school?

Anonymous said...

858 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.

Jane said...

858 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.


What are you blabbing about?

Anonymous said...

Oh, that's right. Everybodies equal. I forgot. That's your 1st Commandment, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

...and one armies just as good as another, too.

Jane said...

Oh, that's right. Everybodies equal. I forgot. That's your 1st Commandment, isn't it?

(1) Learn to spell.

(2) Are you disagreeing that everyone has a right to life, regardless of race, nationality, religion, age, gender, etc?

(3) I'm not sure what you mean by "good" in this sentence: "...and one armies just as good as another, too."

I want to tell you something really funny. I have a BA and an MA in 2 very math-intensive fields, as math intensive as engineering, if not more. HAHAHAHA...

Anonymous said...

Then why can't you seem to grasp simple statistics? Instead you embrace blanket statements like..."Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is..."

No scientist worth his salt would ever claim to speak for something as unquantifyable as "the mainstream".

And why are you being so inconsistent? You first state that "human beings are equal, have rights simply by being born." and then turn around and state "Some people are prettier, smarter, stronger, etc. Obviously.". Well which is it? Are they equal or not? Stop being so inconsistent!

Anonymous said...

1 army equals any other army. I mean, I'd hate to discriminate and try and claim than one might be more capable or deadly or anything...

And so killing a combattant soldier in a war is the same as killing a non-combattant... right?

Anonymous said...

Gee, building straw arguments is fun. I ought to do this more often.

Anonymous said...

War is peace. 1984, Orwell. I remember. Let me go get my newspeak dictionary.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should concede to religious people the right to have their own vision of what the "Good" is, and stop trying to say that "your" version of the "good" is in any way-shape-or form "scientific". Becuase in order for it to be "scientific" it would have to be in some way measurable... and you seem to prefer blanket empty statements to actual statistical measures.

Jane said...

Oh please don't lecture me about statistics. Here's an example of how your simplistic thinking has gotten you into trouble.

Do you know what JStor is? "The Scholarly Journal Archive." Has 61039 hits for « mainstream » .

Here's a synopsis of an article in the journal Adolesence, 1978:

Homosexual behavior and child molestation: a review of the evidence.

by Newton DE.

Male homosexuality and child molestation tend to be associated with each other in the minds of a large percentage of the general public. Designing a research study to test this hypothesis presents a number of methodological problems which are not easily resolved. Existing studies which contain data on this general question provide no reason to believe that anything other than a random connection exists between homosexual behavior and child molestation.

If you would look at all these studies, you would see that things are much more complicated than the incredibly simplistic conclusions drawn by the link you sent. Here are some of the papers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=
Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=
pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=1768222

But, I know this is falling on deaf ears. No amount of evidence is going to change your antiquated and bigoted, frankly, beliefs about homosexuals.

Jane said...

1 army equals any other army. I mean, I'd hate to discriminate and try and claim than one might be more capable or deadly or anything...

LOL. Well, if you want to be stupid, be my guest.

And so killing a combattant soldier in a war is the same as killing a non-combattant... right?

If the soldier was drafted, then yes, it is quite similar. But who am I trying to talk to here?! You support war and all of its accoutrements.

Jane said...

Perhaps you should concede to religious people the right to have their own vision of what the "Good" is,

I never said they didn't. Of course you do. Please, live your life however you want to. My problem with religious people starts when they try to impose their religious beliefs on me. See, it's very simple. You can have your pro-abstinence parade one day, and i'll have my pro-promicuity parade the next. Everyone is happy. Except for some reason, many American rightwing Christian people simply can't let people live and let live. They have to muddle in their private lives, who they sleep with, how they raise their children, want their dogmas taught in public, secular schools. That's my problem.

and stop trying to say that "your" version of the "good" is in any way-shape-or form "scientific". Becuase in order for it to be "scientific" it would have to be in some way measurable... and you seem to prefer blanket empty statements to actual statistical measures.

Oh it is scientific. See my previous post. I'd rather rely on science in parenting questions than the Bible or any other religious book or doctrine, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

It is logically absurd to argue against imposing morality, considering the entire idea of morality is imposing a standard of behavior. Everytime someone makes a moral argument, one is arguing how one should act. Arguing against imposing morality is an empty and meaningless platitude. It in fact denies the very essense of morality.

Liberals love to argue that you cannot legislate morality while simultaneously doing exactly that. Every law is based on some kind of ethical code. Every time a liberal argues to increase taxes, they are making a moral claim. Every time liberals speak about racial diversity they are making a moral claim. Every time liberals ban smoking they are making a moral claim. Every time liberals pass discrimination laws, and hate crime laws, they are making a moral claim. Every time they regulate business they are making a moral claim. Every time they speak out against profits they are making a moral claim. It is absolutely nonsensical to say, “Do not impose your morality on me”. Anyone that utters such nonsense is simply confused. Then again, me does suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome; obviously not a whole lot of clear thinking going on to begin with.

Jane said...

Anonymous, I agree with you. What I am against is the Christian Right trying to impose their personal morality on everyone, intruding into people's private lives and choices. The morality that reigns in this country, please go read the constitution, is that it is a government for the people, by the people, that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that we are equal before the law. there is no reference to god, to crhistianity, we are just trying to form a more perfect union, with the separation of powers, and rights reserved to the states and to the people themselves.

The Christian Right wants to take away this individual autonomy that is the foundation of our country, and wants to impose its own, religiously-motivated moral code on everyone, regardless of their religion or personal beliefs. Liberals aren't saying, "everyone should have sex by the time they are 21," not at all. we are pro-choice: stay absitent if you want, have sex if you want. Get married or stay single. Gay or straight, misceginate or not, etc. It's the Right that wants to tell people how to live their private lives. I just don't know where they got this idea that they even can do that.

Anonymous said...

From your source: J Sex Marital Ther. 1992 Spring;18(1):34-43. (Freund & Watson)

This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

Jane said...

Oh FJ, how dishonest. What's the next sentence after that?

"This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic [gay] males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

Anonymous said...

me would rather rely on scientific info than the bible for child rearing? What scientists do she rely on? Why, only the ones that support her pre-drawn conclusions, of course! All she's got to do is "study shop"...like global warming, and find one that supports her position. She ignores all contrary data.

And me's complaint against "Christians" imposing their morality on her should be directed against the secular institution of DEMOCRACY, and not Christians. Christians don't impose anything. They merely vote. It's her SECULAR GOVERNMENT that does all the imposing.

Jane said...

What I hope you see from the papers and the vareity of opinions and findings on the topic is that, as i mentioned before, things are much more complicated than the simplistic "scientific study" you sent previously, and your own opinions.

I know, i know. Complexity, subtelty, admitting that things aren't "simply black or white," "you're with us or against us" -- not very popular on the right. What you guys love is 3-second soundbites, since statemetns of principle. And i can see why -- they are easy on the mind, easy to understand, simple to follow. But life is messy, and more complicated and tedious than you'd like it to be. That's not to say that conclusions and principles cannot be made simply because things are incredibly intertwined and complicated. Just that usually, the one-two punch of dogmatic, simplistic causality, ideas like "gays are destroying traditional marriage" and "no sex before marraige" are not good indicators of actual reality. We are adults, we can handle complexity, can't we?

Anonymous said...

Dishonest? The study wasn't structured to study the question. It was simply a test to see what gave homo's woodies.

Jane said...

Democracy is not only the institution of majority rule and representative democracy. Within it are embodied ideas like protection of individual rights, equal treatment, guaranteed personal freedoms. Take those things away, and it is no longer a democracy. I direct you to footnote 4 of Carolene Products regarding "discrete and insular minorities" who by their small numbers, are always outvoted, but whose rights should nevertheless be protected, and the imposition on their rights should be scrutinized "strictly."

The Christian Right seems completely oblivious to things like the 1st amendment, and repeatedly attempts to push its ideas into public schools, for example. But before a case about teaching creationism in a public school can be decided by the Supreme Court, it must go through years of litigation, during which there is usually on injunction, and therefore, their dogmas survive within public schools for years before they are struck down. It is this spirit of trying to do what is ON ITS FACE unconstitutional, over and over again, that I find so disturbing and anti-democratic. If you want prayer in school, intelligent design, a ban on abortion, and a ban on gay marriage, please, repeal the 1st amendment, or at least the establishment clause.

Otherwise, it is just insidious, disingenuous attempts at imposing their ideologies on others, because they know they are going in the face of the law and the constitution.

PS Yes it's disingenuous. You left out a key sentence that went exactly against your contention. You know, as in, not "the whole truth," alternatively, "act or omission." And please, for someone who has a master's degree, can you please learn how to use apostrophes correctly?

Anonymous said...

Funny thing...the reserachers and studies listed in the link you sent me are extensively quoted in the link I sent you. Yet all my data was "biased and laughable...

A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."

Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. "The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." See also, Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," "Approximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies," p. 107.

Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation. Michele Elliott, "Chld Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us," Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581.

The Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy published a study on the same topic, which discussed "the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia." 29 The study commented on a study that found that "the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8." Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, "this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners.

Anonymous said...

"I just don't know where they got this idea that they even can do that."

It is called a represenative democracy. You know, we vote on it. We do it from the bottom up, not the top down. This is not the Soviet Union. All it means is that you disagree with the "Christian Rights" perception of morality. Well, they disagree with yours as well. I guess you will see each other at the voting booth.

In fact, who is that wants to control everything? The left wants to over tax us, they want to regulate business, they want discrimination laws, hate crime laws, affirmitive action, SBA minority business loans, federal control of education. They want to ban "harmful" foods, which is why they attack and sue McDonalds. They want to shut down Walmart, they oppose free trade, and attack it with pejorative terms like "globalization". They want to impose minimum wage laws, rent control and gun control. They also want to ban smoking from all public places, as if a restaurant can't make that decision for itself. The list could go on and on, but it is not a coincidence that all totalitarian regimes stem from the Left. Egalitarianism is control.

Conservatives, on the other hand, want small and limited government. This is the reason Ronald Reagan ran on eliminating the federal department of education, and said "government is the problem". It is the not conservatives that want to increase the size and scope of the government. Government should provide for the national defense, not food stamps, welfare, public housing, and pork products.

You consider regulating abortion control, but I consider it freedom. It is the freedom of the individual unborn child that is at stake. Apparently you think all humans are equal, accept the ones inside a woman's uterus.

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to the free exercise clause if the 1st amendment? I guess that went the way of the 9th and 10th amendment to the SCOTUS' "dead letter office".

Talk about imposing you values on someone.

Anonymous said...

You selectively cut and paste biblical quotes from throughout the bible to prove how "inconsistent" it is, AND I'M BEING DISENGENUOUS?

You're a barrel of laughs. How does you're own medicine taste?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I have an image as an engineer to uphold. We are notoriously bad writers and strive to break all established grammatical rules. We find it liberating in the same way you enjoy flaunting societies established conventions and rules.

Anonymous said...

Are you aware that prayer in school was the norm in the U.S. up until the 1960's. Are you telling me that for over a hundred years the country was violating the First Amendment?

Anonymous said...

The study also didn't prove that apes swing from the highest trees. Which makes me wonder why the studies author felt compelled to make a statement about what his study didn't conclude. Could it be yet another piece of evidence demonstrating the politicization of science?

"This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic [gay] males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

But it does conclude that when homosexual's see little naked boys, many more catch wood at the sight...

Anonymous said...

"It is this spirit of trying to do what is ON ITS FACE unconstitutional, over and over again, that I find so disturbing and anti-democratic."

It is amazing how you have it so backwards. How is it anti-democratic for the school board to teach what they want to teach? What is anti-democratic is when a few judges tell everyone else what they can and cannot teach in school. I think P.E. is unconstitional. You know, I do not like African studies all that much, I think that is unconstitional as well. Yeah, that sounds good.

The courts, by definition, are the least democratic of all the branches.

Jane said...

Anonymous, you seem to believe in unfettered majority rule over the minority. Like every rightwinger, you hate the courts (except when they rule in your favor, of course). I guess it depends on your definition of democracy. Like I said, for me, democracy is more than just electing representatives and voting on ballot issues. There's a reason the founders set up the 3rd branch, the judicial branch. It is just as much about equal rights, equal protection under the law.

The left wants to over tax us, they want to regulate business, they want discrimination laws, hate crime laws, affirmitive action, SBA minority business loans, federal control of education.

As if the right doesn't want to tax you? You don't believe in anti-discrimination laws? The left doesn't tell you who you can and cannot marry, unlike the right. It does not want to run your private life. The anti-discrimination laws apply to commerce, employment and education, not your private life.

They want to ban "harmful" foods, which is why they attack and sue McDonalds.

LOL. You're right, let's do away with the FDA completely. Let's not have the government regulate food. Then, don't come crying to me when your kid's full of mercury, because some company decided it didn't care about the mercury content of what your kid's mom and the kid eat.

They want to shut down Walmart, they oppose free trade, and attack it with pejorative terms like "globalization". They want to impose minimum wage laws, rent control and gun control. They also want to ban smoking from all public places, as if a restaurant can't make that decision for itself. The list could go on and on, but it is not a coincidence that all totalitarian regimes stem from the Left.

I don't oppose free trade, and globalization is not a pejorative term. I'm also against rent control, and smoking bans.

As for "all totalitarian regimes stem from the Left" ... wow, you're really deluded. Fascists and Nazis, no matter what they're called, are not left-wing. Neither was Pinchet's Chile or the various right-wing regimes in Argentina. Francisco Franco's regime was on the right as well, and I think both Portugal's and Greece's dictatorial rulers were right-wing. You think Musharaff's current dictatorship in Pakistan is left-leaning? LOL.

Jane said...

The studies your "scientific article" cited, why didn't they make those facially obvious conclusions? You know the answer, you're not stupid.

As for free exercise, i'm all for free exercise, as long as it doesn't use government moeny, and is not imposed on other people involuntarily. For example, atheists, hindus, jews, muslims, bahais, sikhs, buddhists, shintoists, etc. don't really appreciate if Christian prayer is mandatory at their high school graduation.

And yes, school prayer was in violation of the 1st amendment until it was struck down. Segregation was also unconstitutional for 80 years!

Anonymous, you also write:

Conservatives, on the other hand, want small and limited government. This is the reason Ronald Reagan ran on eliminating the federal department of education, and said "government is the problem". It is the not conservatives that want to increase the size and scope of the government. Government should provide for the national defense, not food stamps, welfare, public housing, and pork products.

Are you serious? Look at what happened when republicans were given free reign for 6 years. The deficit is growing, pork is everywhere, the size of the government has not decreased at all. I know you guys love to worship reagan, but i've got a secret for you: Reagan was a populist, cynical mediocre man.

Anonymous said...

Why did the FRC draw the conclusions they did? Why because no study could ever draw the 100% scientifically imaculate conclusion which proved beyond all doubt that homosexual paedophiles were more likely to become recidivists, which demonstrates the limitations of science. And even if they could, no politician would ever fund the study, and all results would be immediately discredited and contested by actvists within the homosexual community.

That's why we have the humanities and religion... to handle those cases which science is ill equipped to determine. Science will never be able to predict future human behavior w/ a 100% certainty.

And so in the humanities (aka - social sciences), you draw facile conclusions based upon available data, reason, and history. It's not 100% objective or certain.

And so to resolve the issue, we generally have to vote. And as much as you'd like to let homosexual predators and paedophiles be able to sexually enjoy themselves and prey on kids, parents will oppose your facile dream that "everyone really was equal" legal theory extended to actual people and groups. And so will they will treat homosexuals as potential peadophiles, because let's face it... the sight of little children turns them on (as was proven by the study), the bible warns against homosexuality, and Freudian psychology explains the reasons why. And when 30-40% of the victims of paedophiles are male... and only 3-5% of the general population are male homosexuals... "common sense" would say there's a correlation, and Freudian psychology explains it. Heck, the Boy Scouts of America even go out of there way to deny homosexuals access to children under their charge.

And school prayer has never been unconstitutional. Neither was segregation. As these examples show, these so-called constitutional rights of which you speak are not "unalienable". They are very "alienable". And tomorrow, the SCOTUS may simply "alienate" them away from the progressive liberal agenda, as heppened yesterday with partial birth abortion.

So as they say... suck it up, me. You're "equality" fantasy is just that... a fantasy.

If our kids have to sit through condom demonstrations and nudie shows, then yours can sit through a couple of prayers. Oh, that's right, you aren't going to have any kids. So what are you complaining about?

Jane said...

Here's the very telling thing, FJ, why is it that rightwingers who are anti-gay only care about male homosexuals? What about those equally offensive female homosexuals? Let's assume your BS about homosexuals and child molestation is true -- it only applies to males, right? So can we completely legitimize female homosexuals and allow them to marry?

I look forward to your reponse.

Luckily, most people realize that it's just as ridiculoust to assume that all male homosexuals are paedophiles as it is to assume that all male heterosexuals are rapists of women. The overwhelming majority of men are not rapists of women, and the overhwhelming majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

Here are some other fun logic games for you (it's obvious that you wouldn't do very well on the LSAT, i think). The overwhelming majority of people prosecuted for securities fraud are white men, over the age of 30. But as you know, the overwhelming majority of white men over the age of the 30 are not guilty or accused o securities fraud.

The way you talk about male homosexuals, the conlusions you defend to the death, shows that your ideas are not based in any scientific data or impartial analysis; that is just an afterthought. Your ideas are your own deeply held prejudices that you simply can't give up.

Luckily, most people are not like you. New Hampshire's governor just signed a bill legalizing same-sex unions. CA, CT, HI, ME, NJ, VT, WA already have that or marriage. NY is probably next.

Around the world, countries that recognize civil unions:
Denmark (1989) | Norway (1993)
Israel1 (1994) | Sweden (1995)
Greenland (1996) | Hungary1 (1996)
Iceland (1996) | France (1999)
Germany (2001) | Portugal (2001)
Finland (2002) | Croatia1 (2003)
Austria1 (2003) | Luxembourg (2004)
New Zealand (2005) | United Kingdom (2005)
Andorra (2005) | Czech Republic (2006)
Slovenia (2006) | Switzerland (2007)
Colombia (2007)

Also recognized non-nationally in:

Argentina (Buenos Aires, Rio Negro) (2003)

Australia (Tasmania) (2004)

Italy (Some municipallies) (2004)

Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul) (2004)

Mexico (Mexico City and Coahuila) (2007)


And same-sex marriage:

Netherlands
Spain
South Africa
Belgium
Canada

You're being left behind...

Anonymous said...

It may be "unjust" to discriminate against all homosexuals, but it is not, "unwise."

Jane said...

It may be "unjust" to discriminate against all homosexuals, but it is not, "unwise."

Yours is the kind of argument that was made about africa-americans. "Scientific" studies about how black men simply can't help themselves but rape white women, phrenology, studies about how black people are simply more predisposed to criminality and fornication. It was all there, seemingly intelligent people made arguments against desegregation very much like the one you are making now about homosexuals, about how it's "unwise" for the races to mix, and unsafe for sweet little white women and children (in your case, mostly children who will no doubt be victimized by every homosexual man given the chance).

I'm still wondering what you think about homosexual women, since they don't pose the pedophilic threat and are not really involved with AIDS. Can we allow them to marry and do whatever they want regardless of their sexual orientation?

Jane said...

If our kids have to sit through condom demonstrations and nudie shows, then yours can sit through a couple of prayers. Oh, that's right, you aren't going to have any kids. So what are you complaining about?

Oh I just love this idiotic logic. You know the etymology of "idiotic"? It means, "private," as in, only caring about oneself.

But this same logic, i shoudln't care about racism because i'm white, or the rights of homosexuals because i'm not gay. or the rights of Iraqis because i'm not Iraqi, etc.

plus, I have to add, not too long ago, I was attending middle school in a very conservative part of the country. In our public school, in 7th grade, we all had to sign abstinence pledges (no sex until marriage). And we all know how well those work. We also took a field trip to a rodeo, where everyone had to stand up and pray. I didn't, and was ostracized by my classmates. The administration didn't really care, they were nice Christian ladies and gentlement, full of Christian virtue -- meaning, turning a blind eye to the constant harrassment their few non-Christian students received (there were 3 other Jewish chidlren, they were also harrassed). The parents of these sweet Christian children really did a good job, instilling good morals into their children, right?

LOL

You might accuse me of just not having "gotten over" childhood teasing. I have gotten over it -- I'm now looking back on it with an adult's eyes, and seeing the double standard that was not apparent to me at the time, seeing the incredible encroachment on the separation of church and state, and the seeming hypocrisy of Christian-majority values. The children teasing someone different from them? Completely understandable; middle school is rough for everyone. But the adults not caring? They're adults, they should ahve known better, as educators, as employees of the government. They were all compassionate conservatives in 2000, i'm sure.

Anonymous said...

Female homosexuals are not usually paedophiles (very few cases).

As for Lesbian marriages, they are not conducive to proper child behavioral "imprinting". Boys will not properly resolve their Oedipal, nor girls their Electra complexes.

And so, no, I don't believe that lesbians offer children an environment conducive to proper (aka normal) socialization. This would particularly apply to xYY males. Therefore I would avoid placing a child in the situation, whenever possible.

And I never said "all" male homosexuals were paedophiles. I simply believe that heterosexuals are more likely to have imprinted sexual tabboo's against paedophilia and repress such thoughts than homosexuals... whose sexual identities are determined at an earlier age, and therefore would be more likely to be undeterred.

As for your list, fools rush in where brave men fear to tread. Let's watch and see what heppens to these countries. Of course in Denmark, activists are now pressing for "child sexual rights". Evidently the Paedophiles are pushing pretty hard yo legalize sex w/children now. Abstract of study from your "unbiased" link...

J. Homosex. 1990; 20(1-2):199-229. Schuijer J. "Tolerance at arm's length: the Dutch experience. "With respect to pedophilia and the age of consent, the Netherlands warrants special attention. Although pedophilia is not as widely accepted in the Netherlands as sometimes is supposed, developments in the judicial practice showed a growing reservedness. These developments are a spin-off of related developments in Dutch society. The tolerance in the Dutch society has roots that go far back in history and is also a consequence of the way this society is structured. The social changes of the sixties and seventies resulted in a "tolerance at arm's length" for pedophiles, which proved to be deceptive when the Dutch government proposed to lower the age of consent in 1985. It resulted in a vehement public outcry. The prevailing sex laws have been the prime target of protagonists of pedophile emancipation. Around 1960, organized as a group, they started to undertake several activities. In the course of their existence, they came to redefine the issue of pedophilia as one of youth emancipation.

Anonymous said...

That's the best you can do, resort to ad hominems? LOL!

And blacks commit violent crimes in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the general population as well. Again, it's nothing a good Christian upbringing wouldn't cure...

But place 70% of black children in homes being raised by single mom's, and the next thing you know the crime rate jumps through the roof...

Anonymous said...

If sexual freedom meant that everyone in society felt perfectly free to violate all the laws, standards, and norms... perhaps it might not be as "great a place" to live. But such is the Marcusian dream... eliminate all forms of psychological "repression"...

Anonymous said...

Nietzsche, "Gay Science" 110

What is homosexuality's "utility for life"?

The subtler sincerity and skepticism arose wherever two antithetical maxims appeared to be applicable to life, because both of them were compatible with the fundamental errors; where, therefore, there could be contention concerning a higher or lower degree of utility for life; and likewise where new maxims proved to be, not necessarily useful, but at least not injurious, as expressions of an intellectual impulse to play a game that was like all games innocent and happy The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power. Not only utility and delight, but every kind of impulse took part in the struggle for "truths"; the intellectual struggle became a business, an attraction, a calling, a duty, an honor; cognizing and striving for the true finally arranged themselves as needs among other needs. From that moment not only belief and conviction, but also examination, denial, distrust and contradiction became forces; all "evil "instincts were subordinated to knowledge, were placed in its service, and acquired the prestige of the permitted, the honored, the useful, and finally the appearance and innocence of the good. Knowledge thus became a portion of life itself, and as life it became a continually growing power; until finally the cognitions and those primeval, fundamental errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same man. The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment - that is the question, that is the experiment.

Jane said...

I simply believe that heterosexuals are more likely to have imprinted sexual tabboo's against paedophilia and repress such thoughts than homosexuals... whose sexual identities are determined at an earlier age, and therefore would be more likely to be undeterred.

(1) Oh you simply believe it, so it must be true.
(2) You don't explain why, if homosexuals' sexual idenitites are determined at an earlier age (where you got this idea, i don't know), the imprinting of taboos against pedophilia would not be as strong. Logic problems galore.
(3) are there taboos against pedophilia? yes. pederasty and sex with teenagers? Not so much. plus, if someone is 18+, it's totally legal, so i don't know what you're complaining about.

Your views on homosexual women -- again, since marriage is no longer just for childrearing, i don't see why it matters. Plus, if female homosexuals are not usually pedophiles, why is that? I thought according to you, homosexuality causes pedophilia or something like that, so why are female homosexuals "immune"?

And blacks commit violent crimes in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the general population as well.

According to your logic on gays and pedophilia, we should have laws restricting what black people can do, since they are, in your interpretation, more predisposed to crime.

But place 70% of black children in homes being raised by single mom's, and the next thing you know the crime rate jumps through the roof...

Oh, it's the single moms that are to blame, and only them! Of course! It has nothing to do with anything else! LOL

What is homosexuality's "utility for life"?

what is your utility in life?


PS there's nothing "ad hominem" in explaining the etymoplogy of the word "idiot."

Anonymous said...

...and I'm sure you'll be disappointed to hear that I favor racial intermarriage. It's the best thing that could happen to both cultures and our society.

Plato, "Statesman"

STRANGER: Where this divine bond exists there is no difficulty in imagining, or when you have imagined, in creating the other bonds, which are human only.

YOUNG SOCRATES: How is that, and what bonds do you mean?

STRANGER: Rights of intermarriage, and ties which are formed between States by giving and taking children in marriage, or between individuals by private betrothals and espousals. For most persons form marriage connexions without due regard to what is best for the procreation of children.

YOUNG SOCRATES: In what way?

STRANGER: They seek after wealth and power, which in matrimony are objects not worthy even of a serious censure.

YOUNG SOCRATES: There is no need to consider them at all.

STRANGER: More reason is there to consider the practice of those who make family their chief aim, and to indicate their error.

YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.

STRANGER: They act on no true principle at all; they seek their ease and receive with open arms those who are like themselves, and hate those who are unlike them, being too much influenced by feelings of dislike.

YOUNG SOCRATES: How so?

STRANGER: The quiet orderly class seek for natures like their own, and as far as they can they marry and give in marriage exclusively in this class, and the courageous do the same; they seek natures like their own, whereas they should both do precisely the opposite.

YOUNG SOCRATES: How and why is that?

STRANGER: Because courage, when untempered by the gentler nature during many generations, may at first bloom and strengthen, but at last bursts forth into downright madness.

YOUNG SOCRATES: Like enough.

STRANGER: And then, again, the soul which is over-full of modesty and has no element of courage in many successive generations, is apt to grow too indolent, and at last to become utterly paralyzed and useless.

YOUNG SOCRATES: That, again, is quite likely.

STRANGER: It was of these bonds I said that there would be no difficulty in creating them, if only both classes originally held the same opinion about the honourable and good;--indeed, in this single work, the whole process of royal weaving is comprised--never to allow temperate natures to be separated from the brave, but to weave them together, like the warp and the woof, by common sentiments and honours and reputation, and by the giving of pledges to one another; and out of them forming one smooth and even web, to entrust to them the offices of State.

Jane said...

I just love how you rarely answer my questions. It's simply amazing how you just ignore the points where you've been cornered and try to change the subject with your incessant longish quotes from ancient texts. What a high opinion of yourself you must have that you think I will read every word you post.

Geez.

Good for you that you favor interracial marriage, though it really doesn't make any sense. You have yet to responsd to why, if you favor laws discriminating against homosexuals because of their alleged proclivity to pedophilia, you (1) also favor these laws for female homosexuals, even though they are not pedophiles, and (2) don't favor similar laws based on race, gender, national origin, religion, etc.?

Methinks you've got some very special issues regarding homosexuality. Evidence: you only care about male homosexuality, you talk about it in a very strange way, you try to cite discredited and creditless scientific studies to back up your points, you ignore evidence that contradicts your points, you have a very strange conception of sexuality in general, etc.

Anonymous said...

1) There's no way of "knowing" is there?

2) Freud.

3) If my daughter gets pregnant or my sons inpregnate anyone, it becomes very much my problem. My kids are still in college, and "guess who" would suddenly be incumbered with unexpected financial and moral responsibilities? Not you. Me. I know, you'd just have them get abortions... no biggie, right?

4) Women do not have the same sex drive or "manstrual cycle". I know that you don't care to know anything about circadian rythms or hormone cycles, but natural testerone is know to increase male aggressive behavior.

5) Laws restricting blacks? Heck no. I'd simply eliminate many of the existing laws that encouraged young women in the 60's & 70's to have out of wedlock births and reorientate the tax code to promote the traditional nuclear family structure.

6) I don't blame single moms. I blame the absence of a father in the home. And that's a two way street.

7) What's my utility in life? I'm putting 3 kids through college largely at my own, and not the taxpayers, expense. What's yours?

ps - are you now implying that all logic is idiotic? LOL!

Anonymous said...

No, I don't favor laws that would further restrict homosexuals (yet). I simply favor not passing laws that would further subsidize and enable them.

Jane said...

3) If my daughter gets pregnant or my sons inpregnate anyone, it becomes very much my problem. My kids are still in college, and "guess who" would suddenly be incumbered with unexpected financial and moral responsibilities? Not you. Me. I know, you'd just have them get abortions... no biggie, right?

You wrote this in reply to me saying that people who are 18+ are adults who can have sex legally with other 18+ year olds (in some states, it's much lower). I don't know why you suddenly inferred pregnancy from sex. They are, more or less, in modern society, completely separable. Your children are actually adults, so they could choose to have abortions with or without your consent. They can have sex with or without your consent, they can use very reliable birth control with or without your consent.

I am also perplexed by your reference to "existing laws that encouraged young women in the 60's & 70's to have out of wedlock births." I'm not sure to which laws you're referring here.

What's my utility in life? I'm putting 3 kids through college largely at my own, and not the taxpayers, expense.

You wrote this in response to your own question of "what is the homosexual's utility in life?" Now, first of all, if you have any federal loans, you are incurring tax-payers' expense. If any of your kids are in public universities, they are subsidized by taxpayer money. More importantly, a homosexual person could just as well be supporting a child going through college. You've heard of Elton John, Ted Haggard, Governor McGreevey -- all are homosexuals who have children. Fascinating, isn't it? Point is, homosexuals could have kids just like you, could be working jobs that benefit society just like you, i odn't know who you think you are to be questioning their "utility" in life.

2) Freud.

Freud is the end-all, be-all unquestionable authority on sexuality? LOL.

5) Laws restricting blacks? Heck no.

I'm still not sure why you are against it. You are for the exact analogous thing for male homosexuals.

4) Women do not have the same sex drive or "manstrual cycle". I know that you don't care to know anything about circadian rythms or hormone cycles, but natural testerone is know to increase male aggressive behavior.

You wrote this in response to my question about why it seems, according to you, that only male homosexuals are predisposed to pedophilia. Now, i'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you are saying that male homosexuals are simply rendered pedophilic when they have an increase in aggressive behavior? why aren't you, then, equally rendered pedophilic by your self-reported abstinence?

Anonymous said...

None of your charges are true. I don't give lesbians a "pass". Only our discussion has been largely centered on the topic of paedophiles, and you'll have a very hard time finding female paedophiles.

Don't tell me... you think men and women are biologically "equal" and there are no differences between them... That men aren't more visual-spatially inclined and women more linguistically dominant.

Hmmm, I wonder if the people at ETS have managed to eleiminate the "gap" in SAT math and verbal test scores yet... na-a-a-a-h.

Anonymous said...

"And yes, school prayer was in violation of the 1st amendment until it was struck down. Segregation was also unconstitutional for 80 years!"

This is the kind of brain dead comment I would expect you to make. We had prayer in school since the very founding of the country. You basically have to ignore American history in order to believe this. All this means is that you do not want prayer in school. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it, as our history proves otherwise. In fact, if you actually read the Constitution, it says nothing about education at all. It could be argued that the public school system is unconstitutional.

The danger is that you do not care about the original intent of the Constitution; in fact original intent has become synonymous with conservatism. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in a "living and breathing document", which basically means the Constitution means whatever liberals want it to mean.

In 1787, Congress, under the Articles of Confederation passed the Northwest Ordinance, affirming that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged..." In 1789 the first U.S. Congress affirmed the Ordinance.

"Are you serious? Look at what happened when republicans were given free reign for 6 years. The deficit is growing, pork is everywhere, the size of the government has not decreased at all. I know you guys love to worship reagan, but i've got a secret for you: Reagan was a populist, cynical mediocre man."

I said conservatives, not Republicans. The Republicans have done a horrible job with government growth and spending. Bush has increased spending on education, medicare and medicaid, among other social programs. What Bush did do right, was cut taxes, promote free trade, and promote a guest worker program so people that want to work in the country can easily do so. The free movement of people across borders is also a part of free trade, and Bush understands this. I do not agree with the "conservatives" that want to "close the borders". What he also tried to do that is fundamentally conservative, is privatize social security, which of course, the Democrats crushed. I agree with much of your criticism of the Republican Party.

Jane said...

Anonymous, i'm going to be as polite here as I can, but I am not going to be dicussing constitutional theory with someone who writes this: "In fact, if you actually read the Constitution, it says nothing about education at all. It could be argued that the public school system is unconstitutional."

Sorry, it's simply below me. You obviously don't understand the constitution or its interpretation at all.

Jane said...

FJ, care to respond to any of the points in my last few posts? No?

Oh well.

Anonymous said...

1) But they can't get me to pay all their bills w/o my "consent".

2) You crack me up... just because the gay community has completely divorced sex from pregnancy doesn't mean that everyone else has. LOL!

3) Freud. Yep. Nobody better. Well, Rhawn Joseph comes close...

4) Who said I was abstinent? Only you. I simply mentioned that it was a consideration in establishing the duration of troop deployments and battlefield rotation cycles.

Jane said...

Your kids could get jobs and pay their own bills, and be completely divorced from your influence. They don't need your consent. furthermore, your kids are not all 18+ people. My original point was that 18+ year olds can legally have sex with other 18+ year-olds.

2) You crack me up... just because the gay community has completely divorced sex from pregnancy doesn't mean that everyone else has. LOL!

If by "gay community," you mean the 90% of americans who use contraceptives, and pretty much all of Europe except for Poland and Portugal, then... well... yeah, i guess it's only us in the gay community that have divorced sex from procreation.

3) Freud. Yep. Nobody better. Well, Rhawn Joseph comes close...

Where did you get your degree in psychology again?

4) Who said I was abstinent? Only you. I simply mentioned that it was a consideration in establishing the duration of troop deployments and battlefield rotation cycles.

Well, let's see, you keep talking about how you emasure the days between your nocturnal emissions by staying absitent, how you don't believe in sex for recreational, only "healthful" purposes, how you don't practice oral sex. I dunno, maybe you do have a wife (I'm assuming since you're against extramarital sex, you wouldn't have sex with someone other than your wife). But considering your kids are already in college, and you said you're putting them through college "by [yout]self," maybe you don't have a wife. If you do have one, she's probably past menopause, so aren't you wasting precious seed if you are not absitnent?

Jane said...

Don't tell me... you think men and women are biologically "equal" and there are no differences between them... That men aren't more visual-spatially inclined and women more linguistically dominant.

Hmmm, I wonder if the people at ETS have managed to eleiminate the "gap" in SAT math and verbal test scores yet... na-a-a-a-h.


I think that the differences are minicule compared to the similaries, and that people who cite these differences are ones who are trying to explain women's historical underachievement through "biological, scientific" means. In other words, they are trying to deflect the responsibility from past and current discrimination, and trying to blame it on the "biological differences." This kind of research used to be quite popular regarding the question of different racial achievement -- too bad it's become completely unacceptable, otherwise people would still be advancing the "biological differences" argument, trying to deflect the blame from past and current discrimination.

One day, this kind os discussion regarding gender differences will also become unacceptable because people will realize that the differences really are miniscule, and that most of it has to do with socialization and societal gender roles, not inherent biology.

Case in point: my boyfriend is the more verbal of the two of us, has a very advanced degree in English. I'm the one who's all math-and-science. But he and i grew up in very progressive families -- for example, both of my grandmothers had master's degrees in science/math fields, my 2 of my great-grandmothers had post-high-school training. My own mother has a master's degree in a scientific field. I'm sure that makes a big difference.

Anonymous said...

1) Not to the schools they go to. LOL!

2) Contraceptives are neither 100% effective nor are they without health side effects.

3) I don't need a degree to be more expert than many of today's "experts".

4) For a hedonist, you don't know much about the "nature" of "pleasure" do you???... I recommend Plato's "Philebus". You'll gain a whole new perspective.

5) Sex differences... Sorry, but I think Aristophanes had a pretty good idea of what they were in his "Symposium" speech, and Xenophon pegged the proper balance in his "Oeconomicus"

6) You make a powerful case for Hernstein & Murray's "The Bell Curve", me... and after all that talk about everyone being "equal." LOL! Exceptions do not prove rules, me you should know that. Superimpose the normally distributed verbal test score curves for males and females side by side and you'll discover a measurable difference between the sexes. Then do brain autopsies and you'll discover a measurable difference in hemispheric laterality in males related to verbal and visual spatial acuity. All we need now is somebody to correlate the data. Most females do not have as measurable a difference in brain hemisphere size. I guess Darwin's natural selection favored the "male-hunter" who could shoot the best...

Jane said...

(1) Ah, so you've sent your kids to conservative Christian schools, have you? Still haven't answered my question about federal loans. Nonetheless, your children's right to have sex at the age of 18+ with others 18+ is not impinged. They may get kicked out of the school, but they have committed no crime.

(2) Contraceptives are neither 100% effective nor are they without health side effects.

Well, neither is sex or pregnancy. But abortion is 100% effective.

3) I don't need a degree to be more expert than many of today's "experts".

Thank you for proving my point about your own arrogance and ignorance.

5) Sex differences... Sorry, but I think Aristophanes had a pretty good idea of what they were in his "Symposium" speech, and Xenophon pegged the proper balance in his "Oeconomicus"

Wow you are so tedious, so backwards-looking. As if nothing has changed since the time of Plato.

Superimpose the normally distributed verbal test score curves for males and females side by side and you'll discover a measurable difference between the sexes. Then do brain autopsies and you'll discover a measurable difference in hemispheric laterality in males related to verbal and visual spatial acuity.

You could find hemispheric differences among people groups in other ways from gender (by age, by race, etc.) Those hemispheric differences don't actually prove anything, though. Just like variable size of feet doesn't. There's nothing in what you say that provides any proof that the "differences" exhibited by men and women, however slight they might be, are because of biological, "nature" differences rather than societal, "nurture" differences.

Little girls love to have their barbies fight, and love to torture and maim their barbies. And that's no exception.

Anonymous said...

So humans have grown another pair of fingers since 400 BC? Hey, technology may have changed significantly, but human nature hasn't changed a bit.

Yeah, NYU and Syracuse... real "Christian" schools. Did I tell you that two of my kids graduated from an urban, inner-city majority-black high school, too? That must have slipped my mind. What lilly-white high school did you graduate from, me?

And as far as hemispheric laterality differences go, have you read the new book on Einstein? They've got a synopsis at Time Magazine's website that you might enjoy.

btw - Science sure doesn't seem to be able to answer many questions, does it, me? I can't imagine why we're so dependent upon custom and tradition for our survival, with all this "scientific" progress dripping out of the computers and cell phones. And I can't imagine why the Moslem's aren't racing to embrace all this progress. Could it be that they've heard of Sodom & Gomorrah and all that "right" thinking about letting paedophiles watch their kids? D'Souza makes a pretty good case...

Anonymous said...

3) btw - Read Charles Murray's book "Human Accomplishment". He loves stats... and I love what he did with the last fifty years of cultural progress... (he basically threw it in the trashcan as worthless tripe).... and he's a Libertarian! LOL!

Anonymous said...

Federal loans? Other than enable colleges to charge higher tuitions, what good are they? I'd can 'em if I were king.

Anonymous said...

I love have supposedly mathmatically inclined progressives can deny all the findings in "The Bell Curve". No matter how good the study or the math...they always claim it isn't good enough. Then what good is doing science if nobody believes it...

Oh yea of little "faith"....

Anonymous said...

Everyone's equal!

What's the matter, me can't handle a little complexity?

Jane said...

Thanks for proving my points about you, FJ. Clearly, you can't stay on the same topic, or admit that you were wrong. You can't stay consistent.

"D'Souza makes a pretty good case..." is all i need to know, frankly. So, take his advice, move to Saudi Arabia, where family values are still in tact, and people live by the Book. What's stopping you? Surely all these humanistic secular values, enshrined in our beloved constitution, which was borne of them, are just corroding our society. Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, are all waiting for you.

Tell me that it's because of traditions and religion, not in spite of them, that the West has progressed to where we are today, and prove my point again. No one ever improved their life and the lives of others by sticking with the status quo simply because it's the status quo.

Anonymous said...

Nietzsche, "Gay Science"

111 - Origin of the Logical.

Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally have been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we! Whoever, for example, could not discern the "like" often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality. The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as the equal - an illogical inclination, for there is no thing equal in itself - first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." In itself every high degree of circumspection in conclusions, every skeptical inclination, is a great danger to life. No living being might have been preserved unless the contrary inclination - to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to mistake and fabricate rather than wait, to assent rather than deny, to decide rather than be in the right - had been cultivated with extra ordinary assiduity. The course of logical thought and reasoning in our modern brain corresponds to a process and struggle of impulses, which singly and in themselves are all very illogical and unjust; we experience usually only the result of the struggle so rapidly and secretly does this primitive mechanism now operate in us.

Jane said...

If your kids are at "normal" colleges, they're probably fornicating right now.

LOL

Anonymous said...

D'Souza's advice to me wasn't to move to Saudi Arabia. His advice was to toss you progressive liberals out on your rears and re-take my country.

Besides, I prefer cooler climes.

And since you and your little buddy thomas, the traitor/ terrorist sympazthizer love the Psuedostinians so much, perhaps you should move there and help them in their struggle against Israel. And if you're both lovers and not fighters, I'm sure they've got some dhimmi job y'all could perform for them. You know, propganda minister... or comfort girl. I'm sure, either way you'll both be adequately compensated for your time.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'm sure they're enjoying their rumspringa.

Jane said...

D'Souza's advice was to toss everything our country stands for -pluralism, individual rights, live and let live, secular humanism, - and become a christian state.

I can see I've made you angry with my comments about your fornicating children who pretend to be al upstanding when you're around. I don't know why you're trashtalking palestinians like this -- it's no better than when radical Muslims trashtalk americans. Good work. Classy.

Thomas and I are, fortunately, the inexorable future, and your ideas are the backward-looking, status-quo-preserving-just-because quaint mores that will disappear soon pretty soon.

You're the same kind of guy who would have been screaming about how women who want to wear pants are going against nature, and how giving women the right to vote is a bad idea. Why? Because, women haven't worn pants or voted for thousands of years, so obviously that's the best way to do it, right?

Anonymous said...

I'm all for women wearing pants. But I'm still waiting for the right moment to repeal the 19th Amendment. The last two wars have proven that women haven't the stomach to do what needs to be done.

Anonymous said...

Could probably just bring back the poll tax, instead though. It would keep the riff-raff from voting and swing things towards the (R)...

Jane said...

See, more reasons to move to SAudi Arabia! They don't let anyone vote there, and women are kept under tight control!

Godspeed! Inch'Allah!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, i'm going to be as "polite here as I can, but I am not going to be dicussing constitutional theory with someone who writes this: "In fact, if you actually read the Constitution, it says nothing about education at all. It could be argued that the public school system is unconstitutional."

First of all, you cannot read correctly. I said one could argue. I did not not say I was arguing that position. However, have you read the Constitution? Did you even attempt to understand the orginal intent of it? Show me in the Constitution where the Federal government is given the power over education. It simply does not exist. Your ignorance is amazing. Please show it to me. I would love to see it. Let me ask you another question if you feeble mind can handle it. If the Founders wanted the federal government to fund education, why wasn't there a federal income tax? How did they expect to fund such a massive program? Lets see:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" No..that is not it.

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Nah..not this one.

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"

Nope.

Hmmm..somehow the Federal Department of Education is never mentioned. However, this is...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

What do you know, anything that is not specifically delegated the United States is left to states. Public education is not delegated in the Constitution to the United States, ergo this power is left to states or to the people.

I often makes little sense to argue about what the Constitution means with liberals, because honestly, liberals do not care what it says; it says what they want it to say. But hey, you think Bush lied and did nothing about 9/11, so I am not surprised. I am sure you think Bush is reptilian alien too.

Anonymous said...

"LOL. You're right, let's do away with the FDA completely"

Now you're talking!

"As if the right doesn't want to tax you? You don't believe in anti-discrimination laws? The left doesn't tell you who you can and cannot marry, unlike the right. It does not want to run your private life. The anti-discrimination laws apply to commerce, employment and education, not your private life."

Of course I do not believe in discrimination laws. I do not need the government to tell how to run my business. I do not cease being an individual once I start a business or go to work. Conservatives want very limited taxes, not to tax 50% of our income. It is criminal to take that much hard earned money. We should eliminate the income tax, all corporate taxes, the death tax, everything, and replace it with one national sales tax. You should be taxes on what you spend, not what you earn.

"LOL. You're right, let's do away with the FDA completely. Let's not have the government regulate food. Then, don't come crying to me when your kid's full of mercury, because some company decided it didn't care about the mercury content of what your kid's mom and the kid eat."

Do you understand how business works? A business does not profit by selling harmful products to its consumers. You run a business my pleasing consumers, not harming them. It is called a willing buyer and a willing supplier. It is called supply and demand. I suggest talking economics 101.

"I don't oppose free trade, and globalization is not a pejorative term. I'm also against rent control, and smoking bans."

I remember on those Letist rioting in Seatle against free trade and "globalization". At least you have some sanity left in you.

"...Fascists and Nazis, no matter what they're called, are not left-wing. Neither was Pinchet's Chile or the various right-wing regimes in Argentina. Francisco Franco's regime was on the right as well, and I think both Portugal's and Greece's dictatorial rulers were right-wing. You think Musharaff's current dictatorship in Pakistan is left-leaning? LOL."

Apparently you do not understand the difference between totalitarianism and fascism. I suggest you open a political science book. Nazi Germany was not a totalitarian government. Totalitarianism means that the government controls every aspect of life, which includes complete control of the economy. Communism, almost by definition, is totalitarian. It would be difficult to find a totalitarian government outside of communism. You will find fascist governments, dictators, and theocracies, but not totalitarian regimes. Misunderstanding terms is your problem.

Anonymous said...

Will you be coming back to America to visit us, me? I hear that life in the harem is really rewarding. Once your husband has beaten you a few times, I'm sure you'll never want to come home.

Jane said...

Anonymous, again, i'm simply not going to argue constitutional interpretation with you. It would be like if you tried to argue about military tactics on a wasp-class boat with FJ. FJ knows a whole lot more about it than you ever possibly could, and being a law student who has taken many constitutional interpretation classes, I think i know a lot about the constitution.

But, I think the real nugget of importance here is "Of course I do not believe in discrimination laws. I do not need the government to tell how to run my business."

So you're against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think this is the end of the discussion, really.

And you were the one criticising ME for being out of touch with reality. LOL.

Jane said...

Frankly, I think that Anon - "I don't support the Civil Rights Act" -ymous and Farmer "D'Souza makes a pretty good case.." John should get together, get to know each other, who knows, maybe move in together in Palm Springs and have a gay old time :D

Jane said...

Oh, and FJ, speaking of Thomas and me, traitors that we are, perhaps you should move to Russia where such traitorous talk, what did you call it, "traitorous moralizing" is not allowed.

Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov has been questioned by Russia's security service on suspicion of making extremist comments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6575371.stm

Jane said...

I'm also sure you'll find this fascinating, from WaPo:

Bush tells Pelosi Syria attacks were State Dept.’s fault.

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told colleagues yesterday that she was incredulous after President Bush pulled her aside at the end of a meeting Wednesday and told her he did not criticize her recent trip to Syria. After all, Bush and other senior administration officials and top Republicans had slammed the speaker publicly for meeting in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But in a private meeting with Democratic lawmakers yesterday, Pelosi said Bush told her in an unsolicited comment that it was actually the State Department that criticized her.” 8:27 am

Anonymous said...

Well, there's a word for people who insist on justice to the detriment of wisdom. That word is fool. Now I grant you thomas has not yet admitted to giving material aid and comfort (although he admitted to me that he wants Pelosi to violate the Constitution and negotiate directly with our enemies), so technically, he's not a traitor yet. I concede that. He's merely a fool.... like you. You know... the opposite of wise.

btw - Submarines are "boats". WASP Class LHD's are ships.

Anonymous said...

Plato, "Statesman"

STRANGER: The courageous soul when attaining this truth becomes civilized, and rendered more capable of partaking of justice; but when not partaking, is inclined to brutality. Is not that true?

YOUNG SOCRATES: Certainly.

STRANGER: And again, the peaceful and orderly nature, if sharing in these opinions, becomes temperate and wise, as far as this may be in a State, but if not, deservedly obtains the ignominious name of silliness.

YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.

Jane said...

FJ, you're talking in vague generalities that don't mean anything.

Well, there's a word for people who insist on justice to the detriment of wisdom.

You don't provide any definition for "wisdom," except that you have it and Thomas and I don't.

So, in fact, what you are saying is that people who insist on justice to the detriment of whatever YOU believe to be wise are fools. That's not saying much, it's just saying that whoever disagrees with you is a fool. What a brilliant statement -- you're surely a genius now.

PS please continue Bush's little talk with Pelosi. I love how buck-passing and shirking responsibility is getting a tacit pass from you.

Anonymous said...

Sure I provided a definition of wisdom. I can't help it if you've already forgotten it. Next time, try writing it down on you hand or something... or ask thamus...e-r-r-r-... thomas

Plato, "Phaedrus"

SOCRATES: At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Anonymous said...

Didn't I provide an "objective" definition of "justice"? And what was that definition?

I c-a-n t-y-p-e s-l-o-w-e-r i-f y-o-u t-h-i-n-k i-t w-i-l-l h-e-l-p

Anonymous said...

I didn't define courage, temeperance or virtue. But if you're too slow to grasp justice or wisdom... the others are vertainly WAY beyond your ken.

Jane said...

Well, first of all, I wonder if you've bothered to read what Derrida has to say on this exact topic in "Plato's Pharmacy." What you've written is only "half the battle," as it were.

More importantly, Socrates again does not provide any definition for wisdom except that is not to be had from reading what others have written down. Which is quite ironic in your case, since you repeatedly flaunt how well-read you are, pasting quotes from various masters of antiquity, yet you seem to have little understanding of what they have written and represented. I suggested this hypothesis only one or two days ago -- that merely reading all of these writers without discussing them with anyone or processing them is no learning at all. You didn't respond, but it seems you're supporting my contention now.

Nonetheless, everyone is free to disagree with Socrates as well. Lord knows he wasn't right on everything, no matter what you say, FJ. Learning from what others have written previously is not to be completely discounted as only a "semblance of wisdom." Learning about history, philosophy, literature is actually quite necessary, but not sufficient, to be a well-rounded, balanced, "wise" individual. I find it quite hypocritical on your part to continue to post quotes of things written literally thousands of years ago to support your claims of posessing "wisdom," and at the same time, post something that refutes your own basis for wisdom.

Lastly, the only definition we've got here from Socrates is that wisdom is not to be had from books. But it's not a very good definition still, nor very precise or informative. Try harder next time.

Anonymous said...

That's what I like about you me... you don't even have to duck when things go over your head.

There are also more "revelations" in the Bible than in the book of the same name. Don't worry, I'm sure the next time your reading Joyce, you'll experience a few low brow secular epiphanies of your own. I'm sure it's the closest you'll ever come to "wisdom".

Jane said...

LOL, FJ. I've got you from all sides, so all you can do is feign some sort of arrogance, the classic 2nd grade response, "I know the anwer, but I won't tell you."

If you're so enlightened, so wise, isn't it the virtuous, wise thing to do to share your infinite wisdom, rather than secretively hoard it, guard it from others?

You crack me up. Do your kids know you're such a cowardly lion?

Anonymous said...

You really don't have a clue as to what wisdom is.

Sorry, but you'll have to go back and actually "think" about what I've already told you about the meaning of justice and wisdom if you ever want to learn what wisdom is.

Plato, "Euthydemus"

Do you know something, Socrates, or nothing?

Something, I said.

And do you know with what you know, or with something else?

With what I know; and I suppose that you mean with my soul?

Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of asking a question when you are asked one?

Well, I said; but then what am I to do? for I will do whatever you bid; when I do not know what you are asking, you tell me to answer nevertheless, and not to ask again.

Why, you surely have some notion of my meaning, he said.

Yes, I replied.

Well, then, answer according to your notion of my meaning.

Yes, I said; but if the question which you ask in one sense is understood and answered by me in another, will that please you--if I answer what is not to the point?

That will please me very well; but will not please you equally well, as I imagine.

I certainly will not answer unless I understand you, I said.

You will not answer, he said, according to your view of the meaning, because you will be prating, and are an ancient.

Now I saw that he was getting angry with me for drawing distinctions, when he wanted to catch me in his springes of words. And I remembered that Connus was always angry with me when I opposed him, and then he neglected me, because he thought that I was stupid; and as I was intending to go to Euthydemus as a pupil, I reflected that I had better let him have his way, as he might think me a blockhead, and refuse to take me. So I said: You are a far better dialectician than myself, Euthydemus, for I have never made a profession of the art, and therefore do as you say; ask your questions once more, and I will answer.

Answer then, he said, again, whether you know what you know with something, or with nothing.

Anonymous said...

You learn nothing from me providing you with answers, me... and "critical theory" is only the easier half of dialectic...

Plato, "Theaetetus"

STRANGER: And of the art of instruction, shall we say that there is one or many kinds? At any rate there are two principal ones. Think.

THEAETETUS: I will.

STRANGER: I believe that I can see how we shall soonest arrive at the answer to this question.

THEAETETUS: How?

STRANGER: If we can discover a line which divides ignorance into two halves. For a division of ignorance into two parts will certainly imply that the art of instruction is also twofold, answering to the two divisions of ignorance.

THEAETETUS: Well, and do you see what you are looking for?

STRANGER: I do seem to myself to see one very large and bad sort of ignorance which is quite separate, and may be weighed in the scale against all other sorts of ignorance put together.

THEAETETUS: What is it?

STRANGER: When a person supposes that he knows, and does not know; this appears to be the great source of all the errors of the intellect.

THEAETETUS: True.

STRANGER: And this, if I am not mistaken, is the kind of ignorance which specially earns the title of stupidity.

THEAETETUS: True.

STRANGER: What name, then, shall be given to the sort of instruction which gets rid of this?

THEAETETUS: The instruction which you mean, Stranger, is, I should imagine, not the teaching of handicraft arts, but what, thanks to us, has been termed education in this part the world.

STRANGER: Yes, Theaetetus, and by nearly all Hellenes. But we have still to consider whether education admits of any further division.

THEAETETUS: We have.

STRANGER: I think that there is a point at which such a division is possible.

THEAETETUS: Where?

STRANGER: Of education, one method appears to be rougher, and another smoother.

THEAETETUS: How are we to distinguish the two?

STRANGER: There is the time-honoured mode which our fathers commonly practised towards their sons, and which is still adopted by many--either of roughly reproving their errors, or of gently advising them; which varieties may be correctly included under the general term of admonition.

THEAETETUS: True.

STRANGER: But whereas some appear to have arrived at the conclusion that all ignorance is involuntary, and that no one who thinks himself wise is willing to learn any of those things in which he is conscious of his own cleverness, and that the admonitory sort of instruction gives much trouble and does little good--

THEAETETUS: There they are quite right.

STRANGER: Accordingly, they set to work to eradicate the spirit of conceit in another way.

THEAETETUS: In what way?

STRANGER: They cross-examine a man's words, when he thinks that he is saying something and is really saying nothing, and easily convict him of inconsistencies in his opinions; these they then collect by the dialectical process, and placing them side by side, show that they contradict one another about the same things, in relation to the same things, and in the same respect. He, seeing this, is angry with himself, and grows gentle towards others, and thus is entirely delivered from great prejudices and harsh notions, in a way which is most amusing to the hearer, and produces the most lasting good effect on the person who is the subject of the operation. For as the physician considers that the body will receive no benefit from taking food until the internal obstacles have been removed, so the purifier of the soul is conscious that his patient will receive no benefit from the application of knowledge until he is refuted, and from refutation learns modesty; he must be purged of his prejudices first and made to think that he knows only what he knows, and no more.

THEAETETUS: That is certainly the best and wisest state of mind.

STRANGER: For all these reasons, Theaetetus, we must admit that refutation is the greatest and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not been refuted, though he be the Great King himself, is in an awful state of impurity; he is uninstructed and deformed in those things in which he who would be truly blessed ought to be fairest and purest.

THEAETETUS: Very true.

STRANGER: And who are the ministers of this art? I am afraid to say the Sophists.

THEAETETUS: Why?

STRANGER: Lest we should assign to them too high a prerogative.

THEAETETUS: Yet the Sophist has a certain likeness to our minister of purification.

STRANGER: Yes, the same sort of likeness which a wolf, who is the fiercest of animals, has to a dog, who is the gentlest. But he who would not be found tripping, ought to be very careful in this matter of comparisons, for they are most slippery things. Nevertheless, let us assume that the Sophists are the men. I say this provisionally, for I think that the line which divides them will be marked enough if proper care is taken.

THEAETETUS: Likely enough.

STRANGER: Let us grant, then, that from the discerning art comes purification, and from purification let there be separated off a part which is concerned with the soul; of this mental purification instruction is a portion, and of instruction education, and of education, that refutation of vain conceit which has been discovered in the present argument; and let this be called by you and me the nobly-descended art of Sophistry.

Anonymous said...

...and I'm afraid there are no "shortcuts" to wisdom and virtue me. Otherwise, Plato and Nietzsche wouldn't have written so many books.

Anonymous said...

Plato, "Laches"

SOCRATES: Indeed, Lysimachus, I should be very wrong in refusing to aid in the improvement of anybody. And if I had shown in this conversation that I had a knowledge which Nicias and Laches have not, then I admit that you would be right in inviting me to perform this duty; but as we are all in the same perplexity, why should one of us be preferred to another? I certainly think that no one should; and under these circumstances, let me offer you a piece of advice (and this need not go further than ourselves). I maintain, my friends, that every one of us should seek out the best teacher whom he can find, first for ourselves, who are greatly in need of one, and then for the youth, regardless of expense or anything. But I cannot advise that we remain as we are. And if any one laughs at us for going to school at our age, I would quote to them the authority of Homer, who says, that

'Modesty is not good for a needy man.'

Let us then, regardless of what may be said of us, make the education of the youths our own education.

Anonymous said...

Virtue cannot be taught. It can only be "learned". (Plato, "Meno")

Jane said...

How convenient. So virtue and wisdom are unknowable to those who do not have them. How do you know you have wisdom and virtue? If there is no definition, how do you know? Did the archangel Gabriel come down and tell you "as of this day, you have attained wisdom"?

It's pretty funny that you think I'm going to go ponder what little "wisdom" you've imparted upon me. I don't know if i can stop chuckling to myself about your amazingly high opinion of yourself.

Have you read any Derrida at all? Or are you just wishing that you lived in Plato's time, when, incidentally, women couldn't vote and slavery was perfectly legal?

You are one funny guy.

Anonymous said...

I never said they were "unknowable" or "undefinable". What I said was that they could not be taught. If I were to define them to you they would be merely "portraits of Daedelus" to you, that would quickly fly away.

Plato, "Meno"

SOCRATES: You would not wonder if you had ever observed the images of Daedalus); but perhaps you have not got them in your country?

MENO: What have they to do with the question?

SOCRATES: Because they require to be fastened in order to keep them, and if they are not fastened they will play truant and run away.

MENO: Well, what of that?

SOCRATES: I mean to say that they are not very valuable possessions if they are at liberty, for they will walk off like runaway slaves; but when fastened, they are of great value, for they are really beautiful works of art. Now this is an illustration of the nature of true opinions: while they abide with us they are beautiful and fruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain long, and therefore they are not of much value until they are fastened by the tie of the cause; and this fastening of them, friend Meno, is recollection, as you and I have agreed to call it. But when they are bound, in the first place, they have the nature of knowledge; and, in the second place, they are abiding. And this is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than true opinion, because fastened by a chain.


Plato, "Phaedrus"

PHAEDRUS: You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which the written word is properly no more than an image?

SOCRATES: Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?

PHAEDRUS: Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest; he will do the other, as you say, only in play.

SOCRATES: And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his own seeds?

PHAEDRUS: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: Then he will not seriously incline to 'write' his thoughts 'in water' with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?

PHAEDRUS: No, that is not likely.

SOCRATES: No, that is not likely--in the garden of letters he will sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path. He will rejoice in beholding their tender growth; and while others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this will be the pastime in which his days are spent.

PHAEDRUS: A pastime, Socrates, as noble as the other is ignoble, the pastime of a man who can be amused by serious talk, and can discourse merrily about justice and the like.

Jane said...

I never said they were "unknowable" or "undefinable". What I said was that they could not be taught. If I were to define them to you they would be merely "portraits of Daedelus" to you, that would quickly fly away.

So your response is basically, "I would tell you, but you wouldn't understand."? HAHAHAHAHA Honestly, every time you post, you outdo yourself.

Go back to kindergarten, where such responses get traction.

Anonymous said...

Plato "Theaetetus"

SOCRATES: The profession of the great wise ones who are called orators and lawyers; for these persuade men by their art and make them think whatever they like, but they do not teach them. Do you imagine that there are any teachers in the world so clever as to be able to convince others of the truth about acts of robbery or violence, of which they were not eye- witnesses, while a little water is flowing in the clepsydra?

THEAETETUS: Certainly not, they can only persuade them.

SOCRATES: And would you not say that persuading them is making them have an opinion?

THEAETETUS: To be sure.

SOCRATES: When, therefore, judges are justly persuaded about matters which you can know only by seeing them, and not in any other way, and when thus judging of them from report they attain a true opinion about them, they judge without knowledge, and yet are rightly persuaded, if they have judged well.

THEAETETUS: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And yet, O my friend, if true opinion in law courts and knowledge are the same, the perfect judge could not have judged rightly without knowledge; and therefore I must infer that they are not the same.

THEAETETUS: That is a distinction, Socrates, which I have heard made by some one else, but I had forgotten it. He said that true opinion, combined with reason, was knowledge, but that the opinion which had no reason was out of the sphere of knowledge; and that things of which there is no rational account are not knowable--such was the singular expression which he used--and that things which have a reason or explanation are knowable.

SOCRATES: Excellent; but then, how did he distinguish between things which are and are not 'knowable'? I wish that you would repeat to me what he said, and then I shall know whether you and I have heard the same tale.

THEAETETUS: I do not know whether I can recall it; but if another person would tell me, I think that I could follow him.

SOCRATES: Let me give you, then, a dream in return for a dream:--Methought that I too had a dream, and I heard in my dream that the primeval letters or elements out of which you and I and all other things are compounded, have no reason or explanation; you can only name them, but no predicate can be either affirmed or denied of them, for in the one case existence, in the other non-existence is already implied, neither of which must be added, if you mean to speak of this or that thing by itself alone. It should not be called itself, or that, or each, or alone, or this, or the like; for these go about everywhere and are applied to all things, but are distinct from them; whereas, if the first elements could be described, and had a definition of their own, they would be spoken of apart from all else. But none of these primeval elements can be defined; they can only be named, for they have nothing but a name, and the things which are compounded of them, as they are complex, are expressed by a combination of names, for the combination of names is the essence of a definition. Thus, then, the elements or letters are only objects of perception, and cannot be defined or known; but the syllables or combinations of them are known and expressed, and are apprehended by true opinion. When, therefore, any one forms the true opinion of anything without rational explanation, you may say that his mind is truly exercised, but has no knowledge; for he who cannot give and receive a reason for a thing, has no knowledge of that thing; but when he adds rational explanation, then, he is perfected in knowledge and may be all that I have been denying of him. Was that the form in which the dream appeared to you?

THEAETETUS: Precisely.

SOCRATES: And you allow and maintain that true opinion, combined with definition or rational explanation, is knowledge?

THEAETETUS: Exactly.

SOCRATES: Then may we assume, Theaetetus, that to-day, and in this casual manner, we have found a truth which in former times many wise men have grown old and have not found?

THEAETETUS: At any rate, Socrates, I am satisfied with the present
statement.

SOCRATES: Which is probably correct--for how can there be knowledge apart from definition and true opinion? And yet there is one point in what has been said which does not quite satisfy me.

THEAETETUS: What was it?

SOCRATES: What might seem to be the most ingenious notion of all:--That the elements or letters are unknown, but the combination or syllables known.
...

Anonymous said...

Sorry Adonis, but the clepsydra's running dry. Tell me what "justice" is and maybe I'll share with you the meaning of "wisdom".

Jane said...

No one as arrogant as you can possibly have an wisdom to impart.

Wise people are humble, kind and calm and understanding, none of which describes you.

You can peddle your "wisdom" to those who don't know any are better, or whose eyes are clouded by your name-dropping, those who will worship your every word. Most of us do know better. We know that wise people don't look for worshippers, for constant self-affirmation from others' adulation and unquestioning devotion. Truly wise people are wise enough to know that self-esteem comes from within, not from constantly telling others how inferior they are.

Anonymous said...

Nope, didn't think so. I guess you'll require the "rough" lesson.

The difference between people with opinions and people with knowledge, is that people with knowledge know "why". You'll always have opinions, me, but I doubt you'll ever know why.

'Till we meet again. Some Lewis Carroll:

And with that she began nursing her child again, singing a sort of lullaby to it as she did so, and giving it a vio­lent shake at the end of every line: -- --

"Speak roughly to your little boy,
And beat him when he sneezes;
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases."

CHORUS-(in which the cook and the baby joined): -- --"Wow! wow! wow!"

While the Duchess sang the second verse of the song, she kept tossing the baby violently up and down, and the poor little thing howled so, that Alice could hardly hear the words: -- --

"I speak severely to my boy,
I beat him when he sneezes;
For he can thoroughly enjoy
The pepper when he pleases!"

CHORUS-"Wow! wow! wow!"

Anonymous said...

Plato, "Phaedrus"

SOCRATES: And now the play is played out; and of rhetoric enough. Go and tell Lysias that to the fountain and school of the Nymphs we went down, and were bidden by them to convey a message to him and to other composers of speeches--to Homer and other writers of poems, whether set to music or not; and to Solon and others who have composed writings in the form of political discourses which they would term laws--to all of them we are to say that if their compositions are based on knowledge of the truth, and they can defend or prove them, when they are put to the test, by spoken arguments, which leave their writings poor in comparison of them, then they are to be called, not only poets, orators, legislators, but are worthy of a higher name, befitting the serious pursuit of their life.

PHAEDRUS: What name would you assign to them?

SOCRATES: Wise, I may not call them; for that is a great name which belongs to God alone,--lovers of wisdom or philosophers is their modest and befitting title.

PHAEDRUS: Very suitable.

SOCRATES: And he who cannot rise above his own compilations and compositions, which he has been long patching and piecing, adding some and taking away some, may be justly called poet or speech-maker or law-maker.

PHAEDRUS: Certainly.

Jane said...

FJ. I'm surprised you had the audacity to post anything. Amazingly, again you contradict yourself. Now you're claiming that only God can be wise -- quite different from your previous claims, and those who can defend their positions with logic and argument are philosophers and lovers of wisdom.

Well, since you can't, then you are not either.

Anonymous said...

Haven't I? LOL!

Anonymous said...

Excuse me for butting into the conversation again... I just wanted to highlight something that I came across. Here is a prime example of what Mr. Sayet describes, in where the left is going to defend evil over good at any chance it can:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/20/221859/375

The moral inversion is astounding! Unbelievable... yet classic, if you think about it. Classic because this is what is seen from the left time and again.

Jane said...

Haven't I? LOL!

I need only cite the glaring contradiction between your last post regarding wisdom (in which it is said that only God can be wise) and your previous claims before about you yourself being wise.

LOL indeed.

MoleOnABull, I'm not sure what your point is.

Anonymous said...

What claims to my being "wise" were those?

...and moleonabull, we're lucky she's able to recognize her own name, let alone by able to recognize moral hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Me,
I know that it is off-topic to what you and FJ have been discussing, hence why I said "excuse me."

And...

It's actually not a point that I'm trying to make... I'm only providing evidence to the point(s) that Mr. Sayet made.

Jane said...

FJ, you wrote all of the following:

Do you know what wisdom is?

Justice involves "right opinion"...
Wisdom, "true opinion"


Well, there's a word for people who insist on justice to the detriment of wisdom. That word is fool. Now I grant you thomas has not yet admitted to giving material aid and comfort (although he admitted to me that he wants Pelosi to violate the Constitution and negotiate directly with our enemies), so technically, he's not a traitor yet. I concede that. He's merely a fool.... like you. You know... the opposite of wise.

That's what I like about you me... you don't even have to duck when things go over your head.
There are also more "revelations" in the Bible than in the book of the same name. Don't worry, I'm sure the next time your reading Joyce, you'll experience a few low brow secular epiphanies of your own. I'm sure it's the closest you'll ever come to "wisdom".


You really don't have a clue as to what wisdom is.
Sorry, but you'll have to go back and actually "think" about what I've already told you about the meaning of justice and wisdom if you ever want to learn what wisdom is.

..and I'm afraid there are no "shortcuts" to wisdom and virtue me. Otherwise, Plato and Nietzsche wouldn't have written so many books.

Tell me what "justice" is and maybe I'll share with you the meaning of "wisdom".


You implied you had wisdom. Now that I've caught you in your own tangled web of quotes, you deny you ever claimed to have any wisdom.

How many times have I cornered you now, FJ? 10? 15? Maybe it's just really hard for you to admit that you've had your ass handed to you by a liberal. That's fine. But your weaseling, tap-dancing ways speak louder than your protestations.

MoleOnABull, I still don't understand what your problem is with that DailyKos post.

Anonymous said...

Where's the part where I claim to be wise? I don't see it. Stretchin' the truth again, me. That seems to be a bad habit you've fallen into.

I see the parts where I deny that you have any wisdom and that you're a fool... but how does that necessarily mean that I am claiming to be wise? Are you logic impaired?

Anonymous said...

Me,
Please refer back to my comment where I linked to the Daily Kos post.

If you still can't understand, then you have proved another of Mr. Sayet's points... which is rather interesting to me, because that wasn't my intent nor did I realize that was going to happen. But as I think about it, I should've expected it :-)

Anonymous said...

Do you think wisdom is knwoing definitions, me? That would hardly be wisdom.

Anonymous said...

Otherwise Mr. Webster would have been the wisest man in the world.

Jane said...

So now you're saying you're not actually in possession of wisdom yourself? So, then what's the difference between you and me? We're both unwise. So why are you arrogantly pontificating about the meaning of wisdom?

De facto, neither you nor I are wise.

Jane said...

MoleOnABull, you wrote:

"the left is going to defend evil over good at any chance it can." "The moral inversion is astounding! Unbelievable... yet classic, if you think about it."

Now, i don't claim to speak for the author of the post, nor do I have to answer for every thing any liberal says, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to get into Cho's head to try to understand what he did. God forbid we actually try to figure out what motivated him, so as to be prepared for similar things we may encounter in the future, right?

I think what people on the right often fail to understand is that "understanding" is not "excusing."

Anonymous said...

No, I'm merely a lover of wisdom. And not a hater and disrespecter of it, like you.

Anonymous said...

Oh nevermind... :-)

Good day mate!

Jane said...

But to be a lover of wisdom, your compositions must be based on knowledge and trut, and you have to defend or prove them, when they are put to the test by spoken arguments.

Among the myriad times you've demonstrated that you are not, in fact, interested in defending your comppositions when they are put to the test by spoken argument, the one that stands out is your staunch refusal to defend various practices and ideas with any argument beyond "that's the way it's been done for ages." You're well aware that this argument has failed with respect to preventing women from voting, owning property, wearing pants, as well as slavery and serfdom, monarchy, keeping women out of most professions, and various concepts in the arts. Yet you fail completely to go beyond this non-argument in defense of "traditional marriage" and other traditional restrictions on homosexual men and women.

So, you're not lover of wisdom, you do not seek it. Instead, you seem to be most interested in preserving the status quo, whatever it may be, with respect to certain issues.

Anonymous said...

Again, not true. I presented scientific studies and analyses, which you immediately claimed were all "biased." I simply required that you show us the benefits of the changes you propose to make to society before you make them... and that there be real reasons and benefits.

I'm for experimentation... but not a reckless commitment to the unknown course of action based upon an unproven theory and your "dream/ wish" that men and women were interchangable and that everyone else in the world was just like us.

Anonymous said...

I love wisdom too much to abandon the known for the unknown without any good reasons.

Anonymous said...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes better is the enemy of good enough.

I am an engineer, after all.

Anonymous said...

...and it obvious you don't even know what your looking for. You seem to advocate change for the sake of change. You have no clue as to what wisdom or justice is, yet you think so highly of yourself to aspire to practice both. You talk about the benefits of science and experimentation, but are not familiar with its' limits. You're also quick to point out perceived, largely imaginary flaws in others, yet are blind to your own. Get over yourself me.

Jane said...

I simply required that you show us the benefits of the changes you propose to make to society before you make them...

The benefit is ending baseless discrimination against and deprivation of rights from people. I don't think there is any harm caused by homosexual marriage or civil unions. So, there, a benefit without any harm.

Whatever harm you may perceive to "Traditional marriage" by homosexual marriage is either not actually a harm, or is caused by other things.

Jane said...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes better is the enemy of good enough.

You could have said the same thing about segregation.

Anonymous said...

The benefit is ending baseless discrimination against and deprivation of rights from people. I don't think there is any harm caused by homosexual marriage or civil unions. So, there, a benefit without any harm.

What makes you think it is baseless? Any arguments against the practice, you immediately characterize as gross prejudice. You aren't open to hearing arguments against the position.

Anonymous said...

...and as much as you make "dislike" segregation, it was a polically necessary step in the process of freeing the slaves.

But then, the lengths to which our society went to integrate cause the collapse of our inner cities. White flight was a direct result of court ordered integration. And the rsult is even greater segregation today than existed then.

Jane said...

FJ, I've heard your arguments. They consist of citing "studies" from the traditional values coaltion, and references to more or less irrelevant writings from antiquity and the renassaisance. The arguments not premised on that are faulty in that they are illogical or not complete.

For example, the illogical argument of "gay marriage corrupts straight marriage" is easily countered by the point that what really "undermines" straight marriage is divorce, especially "no fault" divorce. Furthermore, if you're really into preserving marriages, you should look into the fact that atheists have the lowest divorce rate by religion, and people who marry at 28+ have the lowest divorce rate by age group. Both of these interesting items run counter to the Christian ideal of early marriage, no sex before marriage, and religion as the foundation of a solid marriage.

As for incomplete arguments, you made at one point an argument about the the questionable wisdom of sanctioning homosexual sodomy in the time of an AIDS epidemic. This argument omits the facts that heterosexuals widely engage in anal sex, and AIDS is spread through heterosexual sex and most people with AIDS today are heterosexual. It is further incomplete because it fails to consider the analogous argument for heterosexuals i.e. by the same logic, it is not wise to sanction heterosexual sex in the time of an epidemic of herpes, HPV, syphilis, chlamydia, and gonnorea. Lastly, it fails to engage in any sort of balancing between the inherent right to express yourself sexually and engage in sexual activity (a right that most people believe does exist) versus public health concerns. Not all individual rights can or should be sacrified at the altar of public health.

Jane said...

...and as much as you make "dislike" segregation, it was a polically necessary step in the process of freeing the slaves.

Um, no, actually this is just your opinion, and not a very well-informed one at that. Segregation, as you know or should know, developed around 1880, the first Jim Crow law appearing in 1876. For 10-15 years, there was no legally mandated segregation. Freed slaves voted and were elected into state legisltures. White people put a stop to that with Jim Crow, but it was not a natural, immediate, planned or inevitable outgrowth of emancipation. Furthermore it was completely unconstitutional, in light of the text of the 14th amendment.

But then, the lengths to which our society went to integrate cause the collapse of our inner cities. White flight was a direct result of court ordered integration. And the rsult is even greater segregation today than existed then.

Um, no, white flight was a result of white people's racism, and continues to be so. This is all very dubious contentions on your part, not proven facts in any way.

Anonymous said...

Like I said, you are not open to argument, have no desire to uncover the truth. On top of that, you cannot even show how homosexuals are being discriminated against in any way, shape or form other than to be denied "privledges" currently being denied to polygamists and people who indulge in bestiality.

And what is the purpose of marriage? Is it served by allowing homosexuals to marry? Where does "what's best for raising children" come into the discussion? Oh, that's right, just becuase EVERYONE who get's married doesn't have children, so it's "illogical" in your opinion to even bring it up. No, who cares about what's good for kids, they don't vote.

And your "just because everyone else does it" is as bad as a "just because" argument. The Moslems are circumcising their women... so everybody should be doing it!

All arguments but yours are illogical, irrelevant or incomplete. Why is that me? Could it simply be that you are not a very good judge of the logic or relevancy of arguments? And given your arguments thus far, that's the only conclusion one is left with.

Anonymous said...

and as for segregation...you're right. before segregation was the Klan. The Klan must have been the better solution, in your eyes.

and "racism" was partly responsible for white flight...because much as you may think blacks and whites are completely "equal" and "interchangeable", they are not. Most polite people call it an "achievement gap".

Anonymous said...

Ignoring difference does not make it go away. And you can't legislate "equality", where it doesn't exist. Only a god could do that.

Anonymous said...

...and before the Klan were hundreds of thousands of Union troops...

Jane said...

And what is the purpose of marriage? Is it served by allowing homosexuals to marry? Where does "what's best for raising children" come into the discussion? Oh, that's right, just becuase EVERYONE who get's married doesn't have children, so it's "illogical" in your opinion to even bring it up.

It doesn't say in the law what the purpose of marriage is. It is not conditioned on having children. It may have had a different purpose expressly defined previously, but it is no longer only for having children. It's not the state's business whether people get married to have children, or for some other reason. That's the end of the question. Furthermore, as you know, gay people can have and adopt children, so if you care about promoting marriage for the sake of the children, you should promote same-sex marriage.

Your argument goes something like this: strawberries are for eating, so only people who intend to have children should be allowed to buy them. You say, marriage is for having children, so only people who itnend to have children should be allowed to marry.

Except of course, excluding same-sex couples is not rationally related -- it's under and over inclusive at the same time. Many same-sex coulpes do want to raise children, and may opposite-sex couples who get married don't want to have or raise children. Your argument isn't really logically connected. It would be like saying that only fat people should buy strawberries -- it's both under and over inclusive. Many fat people don't want strawberries for eating them (maybe for whatever other purpose), and many thin people do want to eat strawberries. ultimately, what is it your business what people do with their strawberries or marriages?

All arguments but yours are illogical, irrelevant or incomplete.

No, just yours and your buddies. And a few others.

On top of that, you cannot even show how homosexuals are being discriminated against in any way, shape or form other than to be denied "privledges" currently being denied to polygamists and people who indulge in bestiality.

Hmm, well, actually, i don't think that serving in the military is being denied to polygamists or bestiality-engagers. I think bestiality is a separate question, since it doesn't involve consenting adults, and polygamy should be legal, provided it involves consenting adults, rather than the way it is practiced currently, where underage women are forced into it. Can you explain to me what is wrong with polygamy?

Jane said...

and as for segregation...you're right. before segregation was the Klan. The Klan must have been the better solution, in your eyes.

Oh c'mon, you're not that stupid. The Klan wasn't a government organization. That's the end of that argument.

and "racism" was partly responsible for white flight...because much as you may think blacks and whites are completely "equal" and "interchangeable", they are not. Most polite people call it an "achievement gap".

I'm not sure what you mean.

Jane said...

In the previous post, that should have been:

Your argument goes something like this: strawberries are for eating, so only people who intend to eat them should be allowed to buy them. You say, marriage is for having children, so only people who itnend to have children should be allowed to marry.

Anonymous said...

That's the end of the question? A law's purpose is "irrelevant". Then why change it? Don't you have to have a purpose for changing it? Is it to make new work for lawyers? Pretty self-interested, aren't you me.

And no, your strawman is not my argument. And I'm not going to repeat my previous argument just to have it ignored a second time and dismissed as irrelevant.

Your argument isn't really logically connected.-- it's both under and over inclusive. And besides, what is it your business that everybody has the same right to eat strawberries? What about those poor people in Africa. Can't they eat strawberries?

And they don't allow polygamists in the army either... or people who practice bestiality. So you're argument is again, completely foundationless. Kind of like most of your so-called thinking.

Jane said...

That's the end of the question? A law's purpose is "irrelevant". Then why change it? Don't you have to have a purpose for changing it? Is it to make new work for lawyers? Pretty self-interested, aren't you me.

No, you're right, the law's purpose is relevant. This is called the rational relationship test. every law in the country must pass it. so, if the law is challenged on equal protection grounds, the state must provide a rational reason to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Here's an example, in Griswold, the issue was a law prohibting the sale of contraceptives to married people. The state's reason was "to prevent extramarital sex." The Supreme Court held that it is not rationally related:

Although the Connecticut birth-control law obviously encroaches upon a fundamental personal liberty, the State does not show that the law serves any "subordinating [state] interest which is compelling" or that it is "necessary . . . [*498] to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy." The State, at most, argues that there is some rational relation between this statute and what is admittedly a legitimate subject of state concern -- the discouraging of extra-marital relations. It says that preventing the use of birth-control devices by married persons helps prevent the indulgence by some in such extra-marital relations. The rationality of this justification is dubious, particularly in light of the admitted widespread availability to all persons in the State of Connecticut, unmarried as well as married, of birth-control devices for the prevention of disease, as distinguished from the prevention of conception, see Tileston v. Ullman, 129 Conn. 84, 26 A. 2d 582. But, in any event, it is clear that the state interest in safeguarding marital fidelity can be served by a more discriminately tailored statute, which does not, like the present one, sweep unnecessarily broadly, reaching far beyond the evil sought to be dealt with and intruding upon the privacy of all married couples.

I see no possible rational relationship between restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples and any possible justification the state could bring. This is not ideological -- the studies simply don't show that growing up with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is any more detrimental than growing up with a mommy and daddy or just a mommy or just a daddy, or a mommy and stepdaddy, or vise versa, et cetera.

You write:
And besides, what is it your business that everybody has the same right to eat strawberries? What about those poor people in Africa. Can't they eat strawberries?

Well, if you want to talk about itnernational law, we can, but i think that might not be desirable for your self esteem. What is my business that everyone has the same right? It's back to my ethics, remember? The golden rule. Would I want to be artbitrarily discriminated against because of my sexuality? No. Would i want others to support me and help me get my rights? Yes. So I do the same for people who want a same-sex marriage.

And they don't allow polygamists in the army either... or people who practice bestiality. So you're argument is again, completely foundationless. Kind of like most of your so-called thinking.

I dunno, they allow people who have been convicted of misdemeanors. Are you sure they don't allow people who have been convicted of polygamy or bestiality?

Jane said...

But really, I don't know why I'm still talking to you. You're an admitted homophobe, sexist and now, racist too.

I'm amazed people like you still exist...

Anonymous said...

the studies simply don't show that growing up with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is any more detrimental than growing up with a mommy and daddy or just a mommy or just a daddy, or a mommy and stepdaddy, or vise versa, et cetera.

What studies would those be? Show them to me, and then we'll have something to discuss. And while you're at it, shouldn't you be showing that polygamy and bestiality are not rationally related either? I mean, why are homosexuals special? Aren't there thousands of polygamists being falsely imprisoned out of forbidden love? And shouldn't you being doing studies to prove that these practices don't harm any people or kids?

And so you agree, that we are ethically responsible for providing the people in Africa with strawberries now. My, I've got to find me some more of this wisdom of yours. It's real fair.

And yep, I'm sure they don't let polygamists and beast lovers in the armed services.

And please, I'm a racist, sexist, homphobe? Then your an admitted ignorant fornicating irresponsible traitorous slut. I love it when an argument comes down to ad hominems!

Anonymous said...

...and all this time you had all those studies proving that kids raised by homosexuals become normal, well adjusted citizens and that family environments, whether it be single moms, or civil servants in an orphanage had no impact on kids. Why didn't you simply produce them at the outset of this discussion and saved yourself all this trouble? I know, you just wanted to tease me.

Anonymous said...

...all this time I've been feeling sorry for those 70% of black kids born out of wedlock and being raised by single moms... and whoda thunkit, but me has scientific studies PROVING that these kids do just as well later in life as kids raised in dual parent households.

Anonymous said...

It just goes to prove, that if you stick with one of these "discussions" long enough, you actually learn something!

Jane said...

(1) You write: "and whoda thunkit, but me has scientific studies PROVING that these kids do just as well later in life as kids raised in dual parent households."

No, that's not what I said. Stretching the facts again? I said "the studies simply don't show that growing up with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is any more detrimental than growing up with a mommy and daddy or just a mommy or just a daddy, or a mommy and stepdaddy, or vise versa, et cetera."

(2) And please, I'm a racist, sexist, homphobe? Then your an admitted ignorant fornicating irresponsible traitorous slut. I love it when an argument comes down to ad hominems!

Yes, you are those things.

Racist: "and "racism" was partly responsible for white flight...because much as you may think blacks and whites are completely "equal" and "interchangeable", they are not. Most polite people call it an "achievement gap"."

Sexist -- all your blather about the 19th amendment and focus on the "biological differences" between the sexes and the Bell Curve. You yourself have stated that men and women aren't eqaul.

Homophobic - you want to continue to discriminate against gays, based on "scientific studies" of dubious merit that really seem to be just the icing on your "i hate homosexuals" cake.

I don't know where I've shown myself to be "ignorant" or "irresponsible" or "traitorous" or a "slut." I'll take "fornicating" though.

And I don't know if i can put this politely, but if you want evidence that growing up in a 2-parent, male-female household does not always result in being a well-adjusted, socialized, balanced, self-respecting person, just look in the mirror. :)

(3) I just love how you're not addressing the facts that atheists have the lowest divorce rate. Just another topic to add to the list of "topics FJ does not address because they contradict his opinions and he's too cowardly and insecure to admit he is wrong."

Anonymous said...

1) Show me the studies. I can't wait! I'd also like to see the ones covering kids raised by wolves in the wild. I'm sure a really wild upbringing is not in any way "detrimental" either.

2) Much like you don't know what justice or wisdom is, you obviously don't know what a racist, sexist, or homophobe is. The only thing you do seem to have more than a passing familiarity with is fornicating.

3) At what age do atheists marry? Are they usually over 28?

4) Why didn't you include any of Justice Blackman's dissenting opinion when you were discussing Griswald? Sure, just tell us what the liberals on the Court said about the case.

5) And when are you going to address why it's okay to discriminate against polygamists and people who want to marry their goats, but not poofters?

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, let me retract a statement. There is no achievement gap. Just what the Dept. of Education is spending billions on w/no child left behind and Title 9... is a mystery. These must all be "latent" discrimination issues.

Anonymous said...

Boy, all I've got to do is deny the truth, and I, too, could become a progressive liberal...

Jane said...

Main Entry: rac·ism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination



Main Entry: sex·ism

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex


Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals



Take it up with Merriam Webster (m-w.com) if you don't think their defintions are correct. Your opinions fit all of them, though.

Anonymous said...

Webster was so wise...

truth 1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. 3. Sincerity; integrity. 4. Fidelity to an original or standard. 5a. Reality; actuality. b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

Who'da thunk that stating the truth was racist, sexist, and homophobic? My, my, my. How far we have fallen into the swamp of political correctness.

Anonymous said...

Cause we all know, that DISCRMINATION has been scientifically proven to be the cause why black kids don't score well on the SAT and why girl's can't do math.

I'm sure I can do a poll at the next National Academy of Scientist meeting to confirm that the above is both the mainstream and concensus scientific opinion. Either that or simply take an add out in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times stating same.

Jane said...

Who'da thunk that stating the truth was racist, sexist, and homophobic? My, my, my. How far we have fallen into the swamp of political correctness.

What truth were you stating, with respect to race, exactly?

Anonymous said...

I was merely stating that there was once believed to be a racial achievement gap... but obviously there is none... it must have gotten legislated out of existence, so never mind.

Jane said...

Cause we all know, that DISCRMINATION has been scientifically proven to be the cause why black kids don't score well on the SAT ...

If it's not discrimination, historical and ongoing, then what is it? Please, let us. C'mon, don't be a coward.

Anonymous said...

I mean, what do a bunch of scientists know, anyways. Bunch of wankers if you ask me.

Jane said...

4) Why didn't you include any of Justice Blackman's dissenting opinion when you were discussing Griswald? Sure, just tell us what the liberals on the Court said about the case.

Because his dissent is not the law. Very few dissents have ever made it to become the law, the most famous being the dissent in Plessy.

5) And when are you going to address why it's okay to discriminate against polygamists and people who want to marry their goats, but not poofters?

I told you. Bestiality is a separate matter, and polygamy should be legal.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was environmental. But you proved me wrong there, so it can't be the 70% out of wedlock birth thing. So it must be from whatever you think its' from.

Jane said...

1) Show me the studies. I can't wait! I'd also like to see the ones covering kids raised by wolves in the wild. I'm sure a really wild upbringing is not in any way "detrimental" either.

My point is that gay parents are, at the very least, no mo detrimental than single parents. If you want to make gay parenting illegal, you should also make single parenting illegal.

Jane said...

I thought it was environmental. But you proved me wrong there, so it can't be the 70% out of wedlock birth thing. So it must be from whatever you think its' from.

Environmental? Care to elaborate?

Anonymous said...

If "it's against the law, so it must be bad" isn't a very good argument. does that mean that just because something is the law that it IS a good argument. Like slavery used to be part of the law...

...and so, what does that mean for your "but his dissent is not the law argument"...

...and why is bestiality a separate matter. Why do you discriminate against single person marriages? Brother and sister marriages? First cousin marriages?

Anonymous said...

How you were raised...

I mean if I'm raised by a single mom, I get stuck in day care, but if I live in a two parent home, mr. mom takes care of me...

But you said this made no difference, and have the studies backing that up (which I'm still waiting for you to produce, by the way).

Anonymous said...

I'm all FOR making single parenting illegal. Heck, it should probably be licensed as well. But I'm afraid of being accused of being a sexist for having such regressive views. Women have been liberated. They're free not to kill their unborn children and condemn those they do bring into the world to whatever helll they care to create for the kiddies.

Jane said...

Who'da thunk that stating the truth was racist, sexist, and homophobic? My, my, my. How far we have fallen into the swamp of political correctness.

Unfortunately, as our disagreement shows, what is "truth" is subejctive. YOu think you have the truth, I think I have the truth. How to decide who is right? The best way I can think of, which is of course not perfect, is through scientific inquiry.

Anonymous said...

They used to license it. I had to take a blood test for mine.

Oh yeah, that was a marriage license.

Sorry, bad example.

Anonymous said...

...and what if scientists cannot establish the truth beyond a reasonable doubt? How do we decide then? Vote?

Jane said...

I'm all FOR making single parenting illegal.

Well, apart form the question of, "how would that work, exactly?" don't you think that people have a right to procreate (or not to procreate) without the intrusion of the state? I do.

...and so, what does that mean for your "but his dissent is not the law argument"...

You make a good point. Am i obligated to cite all of the dissenting opinions when I cite some text from Griswold? I don't think so.

...and why is bestiality a separate matter. Why do you discriminate against single person marriages? Brother and sister marriages? First cousin marriages?

Bestiality involves concerns of cruelty to animals. Brother and sister marriages are dangerous for public health. Outside of 1st cousin, though, any geneticist will tell you that it's not a genetic problem, and I don't think it should be illegal. Interestingly, same-sex marriages between relatives, because there's no way the two people will produce a child, don't post a public health concern, and therefore shouldn't be illegal.

Anonymous said...

...and since the truth is subjective, perhaps that's where wisdom comes in.

Naaaah. That's just a bunch of prattling old pre-renaissance era logic and thinking that dominated western thought for two thousand years. That's Old stuff. Burn those books, eh?

Jane said...

...and what if scientists cannot establish the truth beyond a reasonable doubt? How do we decide then? Vote?

Well, we don't live in a country where there is majority rule on everything. Vote, but subject to constitutional limitations. The good people of Georgia can't simply vote their state back into segregation by a majority referendum. Or do you think they should be able to ?

Anonymous said...

But what if the brother and sister don't want to have children? Neither their intent nor ability is any of your business...

Jane said...

Well, we allow two ashkenazi jews both carrying genes that will cause their children to be severely disabled to marry and procreate, so maybe we should allow brothers and sisters as well.

Anonymous said...

...not with the 14th amendment staring them in the face.

...and public health issues... it fails to engage in any sort of balancing between the inherent right to express yourself sexually and engage in sexual activity (a right that most people believe does exist) versus public health concerns. Not all individual rights can or should be sacrified at the altar of public health.

Jane said...

Here, look at this study. The effects of gay parents, if any are detrimental, are ntohignt compared to single parenthood.

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

So, as you said before, you should for making single parenthood illegal as well. So what if it trumps on people's most basic rights, like the right to control their own reproduction. FJ doesn't approve, so we must make it illegal. right?

Anonymous said...

...and we allow blacks to procreate too, with that sickle cell thingee...

Jane said...

Yeah, allow brothers and sisters to marry as well, I say. It's no worse than allowing Ashkenazi Jews, or two disabled people to procreate. We allow disabled people to have children, so what's the diff?

Anonymous said...

actually I prefer shunning fornicators who have out of wedlock births. Illegal is such a "harsh" word.

Anonymous said...

Heck given the results of that study, we should make heterosexual marriages illegal and only let lesbians raise kids! I'll help you co-sponsor that one.

I mean, that children of homosexual parents would be more likely to have homosexual experiences themselves is just sooooo cool.

Maybe one day, they'll be brave enough to have sexual relationships with animals too... providing the goats are willing, of course!

Jane said...

actually I prefer shunning fornicators who have out of wedlock births. Illegal is such a "harsh" word.

Send them all to an island? Boy, you really are all about individal rights, aren't you?

go on, please tell me what is the difference between brothers and sisters marrying and procreating, and ashkenazi jews with lots of inbred diseases marrying and procreating, and variously mentally and physically disabled people who have genetic "problems" marrying and procreating (their right to do so is strongly protected). Please, go on, tell me.

Anonymous said...

NARTH wouldn't be biased towards homo's would they? I'm sure they're real independent scientists... not like that slimey Family Research Council.

Anonymous said...

I give up. What's the difference? Nature vs. nurture?

Jane said...

I mean, that children of homosexual parents would be more likely to have homosexual experiences themselves is just sooooo cool.

But of course, according to you, that's SO MUCH WORSE, than all the things that children of poor people are more likely to experience. Maybe we should make poor people having children illegal. Or what children of single mothers are more likely to experience.

Anonymous said...

You progressives have got your work cut out for you. You need to stop all that senseless discrimination against sexual relations and marriages between brothers ands sisters, mothers and sons, daughters and fathers, children and adults, goats and their farmers, pigs and chicken tree-ways and all possible combo's in between.

You are going to be one bust lawyer, me, eliminating ALL that senseless discrimination and beastophobia.

Jane said...

I give up. What's the difference? Nature vs. nurture?

Of course you do. You don't want to start sounding like a eugenicist, do you?! Advocating for not allowing certain groups of people with "impure" or "insufficiently good" genes from procreating, right?

Still haven't told me what exactly you meant by "environmental" as an explanation for the achievement gap.

Anonymous said...

No, you've convinced me, me. No discrimination at all. Mothers-daughters-sisters-brothers. Like they say in Appalachia. Incest is best! And once we get rid of all those child-adult silly restrictions, we can do like group-family-sex things. That will be just sooooo coooool.


...the aristocrats!

Jane said...

It's about adults consenting, FJ. I trust that adults know what's best for them in their private lives. You don't.

Jane said...

Main Entry: pa·ter·nal·ism

1 : a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other
2 : a policy or practice based on or characteristic of paternalism

Anonymous said...

70% out of wedlock births would appear to me to be a significant environmental factor in explaining the poor achievemrnt of black youth to me. But since you have studies proving that only lesbians are good care givers that can successfully raise children, I'm convinced, that that cannot be the cause. So I guess you'll have to.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I'm with you. I mean if a woman consents to having the crap beat out of her, I think people should just step away. And if I want to pay a woman for sex, what the hey! And if Joey and me want to start a business and agree not to hire any negroes.... so be it. And if someone wants to sell me themselves, or their baby or kidney...we're all consenting adults, right?

Anonymous said...

Plato, "Republic"

And these are not the only evils, I said--there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.

Quite true, he said.

The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.

Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?

That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at any body who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.

When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.

And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.

Yes, he said, I know it too well.

Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.

Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy--the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

True.

The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

Yes, the natural order.

And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?

As we might expect.

Anonymous said...

So let me sum up for us me, since marriage serves no purpose, there is no single or combination of people or animals that should be prevented from getting married (provided no animals are harmed). Right?

Jane said...

Hey, I'm with you. I mean if a woman consents to having the crap beat out of her, I think people should just step away.

People already do this. You've heard of S&M.

And if I want to pay a woman for sex, what the hey!

Agreed. Nevada, Holland, Switzerland, Greece have legalized prostitution.

And if Joey and me want to start a business and agree not to hire any negroes.... so be it.

Well, see, now you're affecting the black person's life by refusing categorically to hire him.

And if someone wants to sell me themselves, or their baby or kidney...we're all consenting adults, right?

Well, the baby is not consenting, so taht's out of the question. But with the kidney, people already donate them. So yeah.

Jane said...

But remember, you are still allowed to discriminate however you want if you have a private club. There are clubs out there that don't allow black people or Jewish people.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Well as novel and heady as it was to overturn all those US Laws on the basis of consistency and good feeling, I'm drawn back by Justice Black's dissenting arguments in Griswald. There is a process in place for changing these laws, and we whould have to follow that process. Simply declaring that laws to have to be consistent or interpretted in a certain manner is not Constitutional. If the laws are to be changed legalizing all these new fangled ideas like homosexual marriage, they need to be submitted to the state legislatures and passed (and not done like in MA by "court order" LOL!). The courts cannot simply declare a Constitutional Right abridging all the State and Federal Laws currently in place.

From Justice Black's dissent in Griswald...

I agree with my Brother Stewart's dissenting opinion. And like him I do not to any extent whatever base my view that this Connecticut law is constitutional on a belief that the law is wise or that its policy is a good one. In order that there may be no room at all to doubt why I vote as I do, I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren of the majority and my Brothers Harlan, White and Goldberg who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court's opinion or by those of my concurring Brethren to which I cannot subscribe--except their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional....

...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision (p.521)of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[521.16](p.522)

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old-fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an "arbitrary and capricious" or "shocking to the conscience" formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45. That formula, based on subjective considerations of "natural justice," is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379; Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, and many other (p.523)opinions.[523.17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

I guess that argument, "if it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me," really is a good argument.

Anonymous said...

Don't those club laws "affect other people's lives," too? What about those NOW protests at Augusta a few years ago? Didn't NOW have a point?

You crack me up, me.

Anonymous said...

btw - babies can't consent. What should the "age of consent" be, me? Fetus' can't consent to their mothers abortions... that's a woman's choice. Babies can't consent to slavery, shouldn't that be a mother's choice? They do sell their babies in many countries. Why not here? And do "fathers" have any say in what a child can and cannot do up until those kids reach the age of "consent"?

Of course, once children have all their sexual rights homosexual paedophiles can simply adopt kids to serve as catamites and the "artbitered" vision of Petronius' "Satyricon" will be complete.

Anonymous said...

I don't suppose we could adopt the native American approach to homosexual marriage and simply grant "berdache" status to effeminate gays?

Of course, the sex change operation would follow...

So there. A techical solution that doesn't discriminate! Woo-Hoo!

Which proves the law, as it stands today, IS non-discriminatory. Homosexual couples DO have the right to marry! And I can pass all those evil anti-sodomy laws again for public heath reasons, and apply them "equally" to all.

I got a feelin' the AMA will back me up on this one. Sex change operations are a lucrative business. The only losers are the gay rights lawyers.

Jane said...

There is a process in place for changing these laws, and we whould have to follow that process. Simply declaring that laws to have to be consistent or interpretted in a certain manner is not Constitutional. If the laws are to be changed legalizing all these new fangled ideas like homosexual marriage, they need to be submitted to the state legislatures and passed (and not done like in MA by "court order" LOL!). The courts cannot simply declare a Constitutional Right abridging all the State and Federal Laws currently in place.

This just shows that you know nothing about constitutional interpretation.

And I can pass all those evil anti-sodomy laws again for public heath reasons, and apply them "equally" to all.

The case Lawrence v. Texas was about a law that only banned homosexual sodomy. That kind of law is now unconstitutional. Justic o'Connor's opinion in that case suggested that she favored overturning the law not on a privacy ground, but on an equal protection ground, meaning, she favored an all-or-nothing approach - no sodomy for anyone, or sodomy for everyone.

Regarding Augsta National, if it's a private club, then it's okay. As deplorable as it is, because our society is still full of idiots like you, we need a safety valve for racists, etc., where they can be racists or sexists with each other in their private clubs. Private clubs don't affect other people's lives and employment prospects as directly or as drastically as having businesses that don't hire people based on race, gender, etc.

Jane said...

Your suggested method of constitutional interpretation seems pre-Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court is not an advisor to the legislative branch, it can strike down laws as unconstitutional. You should go read Marbury -- it's not like the constitution actually says that, you know. It doesn't say, "the surpeme court shall review laws for compliance with the constitution."

Here's what it says (article 3 of constituion is very short):

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

That's pretty much it. There's some stuff on ambassadors, impeachment and treason. But that's ALL.

The Court's power to strike down laws was invented by John Marshall in Marbury. And the court has been "inventing" things ever since.

You write: "The courts cannot simply declare a Constitutional Right abridging all the State and Federal Laws currently in place." In fact, they can, and they have, many times. There's nothing in the constitution or the relevant amendments that says that "separate but equal" doesn't satisfy "equal protection under the law." In fact, in Brown v. Board of Educ., that was a clever little slight of hand the court played -- it relied on quite questionable scientific and sociological studies, not any constitutional principle or law, to say that segregation is not "equal protection under the law." "Separate but equal" is still the law of the land for men and women in many cases. The VMI case, which forced Virginia to admit women, was not out of the blue. The Court ruled the way it did because Virginia had been told to create a "separate but equal" institution for women, and isntead, it converted a backwater college with little faculty or alumni into a "leadership institute" the teaching methods of which had nothing to do with the methods at VMI. in essense, VA failed to create an equal institution that was in any way even remotely equal, and that is why it was forced to open VMI. Not just out of thin air.

But I digress. Go read a book about the constitution or something. Really.

Anonymous said...

Which all goes to prove what I said before, there are no rights.

The Court's power to strike down laws was invented by John Marshall in Marbury. And the court has been "inventing" things ever since.

This means your statement: "This just shows that you know nothing about constitutional interpretation." means that I don't have to know anything about constitutional interpretation. The court can invent anything a five member majority wants.

So my arguments don't have to be fair, logical, reasonable, or follow any of the objections you've posted previously. That's all just "smoke".

This also renders your statement: "Go read a book about the constitution or something. Really." a waste of time, since Constitutional interpretation has become an exercise in post-modern deconstruction and decontextualization in whatever manner one sees fit.

So now that you've confessed your complete cynicism, I'm sure there's room for you and your "expert" legal "wisdoms" in the honey pot next to Diogenes.

And all your crying for gay rights is exposed for what it really is... so much foolish whining about not being able to yank their willies whenever and wherever they want.

Thanks me... it's always great to get free legal advice. Even it the source is a mere legal wannabe.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 598   Newer› Newest»