Texas Republicans have decided on a platform that includes abolishing minimum wage, cancelling climate research, banning the teaching of evolution at schools, and repealing the voting rights act, among other things, but hilariously (or depressingly) the one thing on this laundry list that people are angry about is their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.
BBC News has more: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27774102
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 143 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Monday June 09 2014, @10:22PM
"Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle..."
I'd like to ask each and every one of the people involved in trying to get this passed to give a detailed answer about the specific day in their lives that they decided to be hetero.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @10:34PM
Easy, it's the day in every Texan boy's life when he decides to rape his sister.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:16AM
I think you mispelled 'livestock' there. ;-)
Texas, where the men are men...and the sheep are scared.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @10:56PM
Well, there I was, standing in line at the liquor store, sippin' a burnin' hospital, when I thought to myself, "You know, that brown checker's got a fine ass nad has quite the bulge. I bet he's a power bottom." But the next morning, as I watched his cheeks glistening in the morning sun, I suddenly realized the terrible misteak I'd made. I no longer had the drive to get wasted on whisky. Where was the bitching and the constant diminution of my life? This man—and all the other men in my life—was just too agreeable. I needed change; only a nagging woman could drive me to the bottles I knew as a child. That's it! Like it or not, I had to go hetero! And If I have to do it, so does everyone else.
Brought to you by the letter β
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @11:05PM
I'd like to ask each and every one of the people involved in trying to get this passed to give a detailed answer about the specific day in their lives that they decided to be hetero.
The idea that sexual preference is not a choice just lets the bigots dictate the terms of the discussion.
Maybe it is more convenient to argue that one is just "born that way," but it is not true. Sexuality is a spectrum (see the kinsey scale [wikipedia.org] for an example of one of the earliest and most crude attempts to define it). So while there certainly are some people who are 100% straight and 100% gay, the reality is that many people inhabit various gray areas on the spectrum for a variety of physiological, emotional and mental reasons. [scientificamerican.com] Reasons that aren't even necessarily constant through out their lives either.
The only moral position to take is that someone's sexual preference is nobody else's god damn business.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Monday June 09 2014, @11:20PM
It isn't, actually. I don't have the research in front of me right now but there is plenty of work showing that the mass of a certain region of the brain is directly related to the sexual orientation of the person. Part of the reason this research is on-going is to determine what sort of psychological damage can be caused to a transgendered person who isn't allowed to 'be themseleves', so to speak. Some of the conclusions during that work are shedding light on the homosexual community as well.
This isn't a matter of debate-style convenience. If people are born that way not only can they not be 'rehabilitated', they also should NOT be.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @11:44PM
It isn't, actually. I don't have the research in front of me right now but there is plenty of work showing that the mass of a certain region of the brain is directly related to the sexual orientation of the person.
Actually you do have it right in front of you because I just linked to it - the region is called INAH3. Read the link, it is a lot more complicated of a relationship that you are making it out to be.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Monday June 09 2014, @11:57PM
I did actually, and it's not supporting your point. Basically the article says: "There are quite a few biological reasons whe some people are gay, but the brain changes and that was proven by taxi drivers growing more 'do-my-job' gray matter."
You're right, it is complicated, but not in a way that makes those who are against mistreatment of homosexuals bigoted.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:11AM
not in a way that makes those who are against mistreatment of homosexuals bigoted.
That is a really messed up way to mis-state my point.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:13AM
"The idea that sexual preference is not a choice just lets the bigots dictate the terms of the discussion."
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:31AM
The point is that if you reduce it to something that is biologically predetermined then you are implicitly saying that for people who do choose (e.g. every bisexual person ever) that there is still a right choice and a wrong choice. That the person who "experimented in college" is a sinner. That "waist up lesbians" are immoral. etc.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:49AM
That's a stretch. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' being pointed out in that argument. It simply an explanation of the origins of the behaviour that has a direct impact on how altering said behaviour would have to happen, or even if it should. It does not attack bisexuals in any way, other than some making an assertion that the word 'curious' means "I'm a hetero who wants to try out gay stuff!"
I suppose you're right that somebody will try to make that argument, but if they really understand what they're talking about they have a heck of an uphill battle.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:57AM
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' being pointed out in that argument.
Of course there is, the argument for about three decades has gone like this:
bigots: Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and you are choosing to sin
gays: It isn't a sin because god made me this way
It isn't an explanation, it's a defense in an argument defined by the bigots. If the bigots weren't attacking gay rights as a choice the whole idea of it not being a choice would never have become such a popular meme. Anytime someone says, "when did you choose to be straight?" they are rebutting the argument that being gay is a choice.
Compare it to racism, nobody ever argues that being black is a choice and thus no one ever says "when did you chose to be white?"
If you go back to the 70s, even the gay rights people referred to it as a lifestyle [thewrap.com] because the bigots had not yet settled on "choosing to sin" for their central argument.
The one thing both sides do agree on is that choice/not-a-choice is the shape of the modern gay-rights debate. The idea that choice/not-a-choice is irrelevant has been a minority opinion because people have thought it was a lot easier to get the religious bigots to agree with their god than it is to get them to agree with a purely secular argument.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:54AM
The reason it's an explanation and not an argument is that it means that no form of rehabilitation will, and I'm using quotes for this on purpose, 'cure' them.
"Compare it to racism, nobody ever argues that being black is a choice and thus no one ever says "when did you chose to be white?""
No, instead they pull up statistics about the incarceration rates of certain groups of people and say things I will not repeat. They can't make the choice argument and ... well, guess what, we're not segregated anymore.
"If you go back to the 70s, even the gay rights people referred to it as a lifestyle because the bigots had not yet settled on "choosing to sin" for their central argument."
Actually they chose it to soften the journey of coming out of the closet. Only two decades before there were people claiming that homosexuality was the root cause of child molestation. By the 70's that calmed down and now it was time for people to start coming out and telling their family. Which sounds better, "Oh it's a lifestyle" ... the same way you'd describe city-living to a country-bumpkin, or "well I was born this way" and end up taking a trip to the hospital to be 'cured'? I'll put it another way: Back in the twenties a rather large portion of the United States would have identified themselves as gay. Think about it.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:58PM
The reason it's an explanation and not an argument is that it means that no form of rehabilitation will, and I'm using quotes for this on purpose, 'cure' them.
I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse so this is the last response I will make. The gay rights debate is much larger than the question of rehabilitation. That's only one small corner of it, but the "born this way" argument is used as a defense in all cases.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:33AM
Obtuse? Consistent! Go read my first post and then my last post, I was responding directly to the rehabilitation debate! You're trying to make it sound like they're trying to stand on both sides of the fence and that is plainly not true. What is true is that for most of the issues brought up in the debate, why it happens is important. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you start getting specific.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:44PM
republican views:
1) "its icky!"
2) what we were tought about god, says this is wrong
#1 is none of your business. I find it 'icky' also (I'm straight) but I would NEVER tell someone else how to live wrt to relationships. if I don't see it, I don't care and you have every right to do what you think is right for YOU.
#2 is pure bullshit and a non-issue for anyone in the modern age. hiding behind bronze-age fairy stories should never be a reason to deprive others of their rights and pursuit of happiness.
the republicans are on thin ice, here. the younger generation already has rejected this 'its against god!' argument and they are also ok with #1, in a live-and-let-live kind of way.
if the R's don't do an about-face soon, they will be completely irrelevant. then again, that's not such a bad thing - maybe we should let them destroy their own party. perhaps something good can come from its rebirth.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:52PM
I think you're missing the point that the haters are mostly creationist christians who believe "biologically predetermined" = God made the decision not them.
Then step two of this strategy resembles my favorite scene from Bladerunner, the intro, you know the one with the HR drone interviewing the applicant / replicant?
"Yes. You're in a city, walking along the street when all of a sudden you look at the bathhouse and see a..."
"What city?"
"Doesn't make any difference what city... its completely hypothetical."
"But how come I'd be there?"
"Maybe you're fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself...who knows. So you look at the bathhouse sundeck and see Father God and Holy Jesus have created a gay."
"The gay that our Holy Father God and Sweet Baby Jesus created lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun... But you're hating it."
Leon's upper lip is quivering.
"Whatya means, I'm hating?"
"I mean you're hating! Why is that, Leon? Why do you hate the creation of our Holy Father God and his son Sweet Baby Jesus in violation of his word and disrespect of his actions? Are you implying you know better what is right and what is wrong than your own all knowing and all powerful creator, the same creator who created that gay? Are you implying you're better and more powerful than your own Holy Father?"
This has the obvious tasty analogy of the fictional replicant and the "real world" neocon both being somewhat subhuman, into gunplay and murder, a little slow in the head, angry and antisocial... its really a very good analogy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ArhcAngel on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:56AM
The reason the research is hard to find is that right after it was trotted out and heralded as proof sexual orientation was not a choice potential parents began having their unborn children tested for the gene supposedly responsible for this mutation so they could decide whether to abort or not. And the fact the brains used in the study were all from HIV + individuals cast a shadow on whether the area of the brain might have been affected by the disease or not. It also opened the door to the idea that if orientation is biological in nature why can't other conditions such as pedophilia, or rapists. There is strong evidence to suggest these conditions are genetically motivated as well.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:21AM
Ugh. There is SOOOO much wrong with what you wrote. For one thing, the link I already posted addressed the question of whether HIV affected INAH3 (later studies showed that it does not). But even the original researcher who found the INAH3 differences explicitly warned that there was nothing to indicate whether it was a cause or an effect of sexual orientation. Also, no such biological difference has been found in lesbians. Furthermore all that was in ~1980.
The "gay gene" (Xq28) [wikipedia.org] entered pop culture in 1993 and it was far from definitive - it influences but does not define sexual orientation. At the time thee researcher who found it estimated it plays a role in 5 to 30% of gay men. Much more recent studies suggests that it contributes about 40% to gay male sexual orientation. But those two numbers aren't comparable, nor are they black and white. Sexual orientation isn't simply just straight or gay (for proof just look at how many gay men have fathered children). And finally there is no current pre-natal test for Xq28 - nobody has been using it to abort gay fetuses. [ibtimes.com]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MozeeToby on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:53AM
Pedophiles are significantly more likely to have experienced a head injury at the age that they are attracted to as adults. I.e. a pedophile who is attracted to 5 year olds is statistically likely to have had a head injury when they were 5 years old. There is all kinds of evidence that pedophilia is a function of brain impairment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:49PM
I.e. a pedophile who is attracted to 5 year olds is statistically likely to have had a head injury when they were 5 years old.
Dude, why are you making that up?
Yes, there seems to be a correlation between pedophilia and childhood brain injuries. [discovery.com]
No, there is nothing to suggest that the specific age of injury influences the age that the pedophile is attracted to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @10:15AM
Whether or not gay people are born 'that way' is completely irrelevant. I know for a fact that I'm not born 'that way'. Actually I enjoy having sex with all genders / gender identities. As far as I can see it has something to do with the fact that I'm kind of a 'two spirited' person. My genitals are male, but I'm not a man's man at all. My mind is somewhere in between. I also don't like the stereotypical 'gay scene' where apparently you have to talk in a overly effeminate voice and be ehm.. flamboyant. Luckily many gays I know aren't like that. Anyway I do have sympathy for the gays who feel the urge to express themselves and make a statement. I'm just not one of them.
The essential point in all of this is that those bigots from Texas are either retarded and / or seriously mentally ill. They do not accept scientific fact. They do not see that other persons are not themselves. It should not be anybody's business at all what I'm doing in the bedroom or with whom I have a relationship. As long as it is with consenting adults, of course. Otherwise it would already be covered by law (rape, sex with minors - persons doing that are mentally ill too and should be treated for it).
People must be free to do anything they want in the constraints of their society's laws. There is nothing wrong with having sex with the same gender. It's a physical act that gives a good feeling, just like sports and eating.
People must also be free not to have sex with the same gender. But people must not ever be free to say with whom I can have sex or not. This is a crime (discrimination, taking away one's freedom, etc. ).
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:59AM
> The only moral position to take is that someone's sexual preference is nobody else's god damn business.
Yes, I don't care whether it's genetic, upbringing, chemicals, or a choice. It's certainly none of the goverment's business.
I'm basically straight but I want the right to have sex with other men should I chose to do so (e.g. as a favour to a friend, or for money from a stranger), as a matter of principle.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:25PM
"The only moral position to take is that someone's sexual preference is nobody else's god damn business."
From an empathy perspective I'd disagree strongly in that its better for friends family and coworkers if they're happy, and if they're happy I'm happy, so to a level that's socially acceptable I should always interact with them to help them be happy.
Note there's a difference between helping out and being a jerk. Lesbian at work not too happy about not being able to get married; the jerk solution is trying to pray her gay away. I butt into her lifestyle by gladly signing her meaningless petitions, not because they'll ever change anything but because she's real happy when I sign them and I wish her luck and I high five her. Personally I don't care if chix can marry each other, but it makes her happy, so I know its the right thing to do.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Monday June 09 2014, @11:38PM
> give a detailed answer about the specific day in their lives that they decided to be hetero.
Considering how frequently it turns out that the biggest anti-gay crusaders are doing it as part of an internal struggle with their own sexuality, they probably could give an honest and heartfelt answer to that question.
Something to keep in mind is that these people often find themselves facing a terribly inhumane choice - they can be honest about their sexuality but if they do they will have to give up their entire lives. Their spouse will divorce them, their families will disown them, their friends will abandon them and their church will shun them. And for these people their church is usually at the center of their social lives.
They are under some incredible stress - choosing between their entire lives as they've always known them and one of the strongest biological compulsions in existence. That's one of the reasons they've come up with the idea that its OK to "be" gay as long as you don't have gay sex and thus why the idea of "praying the gay out" is sooo popular with them. It looks like it gives them a way out of an otherwise unsolvable problem. Of course, in the long-run it won't work, trying to live that way just keeps them in a permanent state of internal conflict.
So, yes it is utterly shitty that they end up "spreading the pain" and burdening all of the gay people in the state with their own personal issues. But they deserve compassion, if for no other reason than the practical. The more they can see the pro-gay (or really not-anti-gay) community as a friend rather than an enemy, the more they can envision being part of our community instead of just the intolerant one they've lived in all their lives.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:01PM
"Something to keep in mind is that these people often find themselves facing a terribly inhumane choice - they can be honest about their sexuality but if they do they will have to give up their entire lives. Their spouse will divorce them, their families will disown them, their friends will abandon them and their church will shun them. And for these people their church is usually at the center of their social lives."
Yo its not so bad, just enter the priesthood. No problemo, and there's multigenerational huge organizational pressure to help cover up if there's any complaints.
Besides its becoming a stereotype that everyone knows, understands, and accepts that virtually all anti-gay neocon men are deeply in the closet and highly active with other men. If there's one who isn't, that would be the shocker.
The only correct part is spouse will get pissed off. Hetero guys don't get a free pass from their wives either. In that part you were 100% correct the little lady is not going to be happy.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:50PM
> The only correct part
lol at ego
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:16AM
That's usually the day these holier-than-thou types realized they had homosexual urges or tendencies.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Leebert on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:58AM
I'm going to regret this, I know, seeing how other posts in this thread are moderated into oblivion for posting opinions that deviate from the already forming echo chamber around here... That's why I left Slashdot a few years ago. But here goes an attempt at engaging in constructive dialog. Well, OK, monologue, since I've just taken a pretty massive dose of allergy medicine and as such I'm about to go to bed.
I'm a Christian. I believe homosexuality is wrong. (See, among other places, Romans 1.)
Like alcoholism is a genetic/inherited trait which can be situationally aggravated, I believe that people can also also be born with a tendency toward homosexuality. Like alcoholism, I don't believe that makes it right, even if it's a heritable trait. It means you have to work that much harder to not fall into it. So I don't personally see your argument as relevant. There are plenty of gay-leaning Christians who condemn homosexuality, just like there are plenty of recovering alcoholic Christians who condemn alcoholism. You may disagree, but I'm posting this to help you understand how a perspective that differs from yours can certainly be logical, albeit rooted in a differing premise.
That said, I also believe that enforcing God's laws is not the role of civil government. Your actions, to the extent that they don't violate other people's freedoms, are between you and God. I voted for my own state's gay marriage amendment, not because I believe in homosexuality, but because voting otherwise was counter to the role of civil government. Given my choice, I'd take marriage completely out of the hands of the government, because it doesn't belong there. But as long as people insist on the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, I'll vote to extend the right to all consenting adults (yes, that includes polygamy.)
So yes, I agree that this political platform is stupid, but for different reasons.
(Score: 2) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:20AM
Actually marriage has always been a thing of politics and government. It's even a debate point wether the concept owes more to the politics and alliances that lead to a political marriage being VERY important between tribes, families, clans and eventually countries than to the concept we have today. Marriages also up until recently were more about property and ownership, rather than love etc. Marriage therefore has it's roots in government and governments today in our more enlightened times now have a slew of laws and rights that they need to be involved with. Marriage is a VERY political thing, always has been, always will be.
Biblical marriage moreover is a very different beast to what we have today as well. The meaning has changed greatly from the time of Jesus to today's partnerships. We even now basically see that defacto relationships are just as valid as formal weddings and children are born to unmarried parents quite regularly now - 40 years ago born out of wedlock was still a family scandal!
Like it or not, government and politcs will always go hand in hand with marriage. That's just the way it always has been. Does that make it right today? Well unfortuanlty there's a HELL of a lot of shit that also goes along with a marriage / defacto that governments need to be involved with. Property rights, children's rights, issues in case of breakups etc.
However I do agree that the Govt and no one else as well has ANY right to tell legally consenting adults whom they marry or as you said, even how many altho there's a few issues there that govts and society will need to sort out. And frankly, even the definition of legally consenting isnt cut and dry wether govts should be in or out on this one. It's not an easy or straightforward topic at all.
For me, Jesus said ziiiiiiiiip on dems gays. He did say a bit about marriage and divorce tho. But he said a whoooooooooole bunch of stuff that Christians should be well advised to take care of first - and anyway, Jesus tended to sit with the sinners and gave the religious zealots of his day the most condemnation. So as a Christian, I'm perfectly fine with gay marriage, I'm happy to see them marry and live their lives in peace.
I am NOT fine with the way religious nuts treat those "different" to themselves however, the harrassment and outright bigotry. THAT is wrong, not wether two guys that love each other want to marry.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @10:43AM
Only for some values of always :)
Not that I've had any significant problems with this but I don't want the government, politicians, religions, friends, or even family involved in this part of my life, they don't get a voice or a vote and if for some reason they don't accept something then they're out¹. None of those have anything at all to do with two people (or potentially more I guess) professing mutual love and respect and wanting to stay together and possibly creating a family on their own. To me it's a mystery that anyone would see this differently (I've heard all the reasons, still mystified).
If that makes anyone call me neolithic I'll take that as a compliment :)
Some stuff is unfortunately impossible to evade because people think it's "lawful" or "legal" to force how people should split up, educate themselves/their children, and look after their own health. All of which invites nasty people misusing and abusing the system and other people just as much as when there aren't any "laws". Currently any male in the western world risks losing nearly all individual human rights by both official and unofficial marriage unless they prepare all kinds of hoops for their "significant other" to jump through. Count me out of the whole business, I'm not interested, love is not contractually obliged slavery no matter what control freak governments (one extreme) or religious fanatics (another extreme) or abusive non-loving people (yet another extreme) pretend.
As for TFA I'm a foreigner so... but if it was local I simply couldn't vote for anyone running on that, then again in the first place I would encourage people to vote for anything except Republican and Democrat. Those two "clans" have juggled power long enough and things have only gotten worse (lots of other places have the same challenge of two main parties getting entrenched, useless, and inept, it's not only a US thing).
¹ And I'm heterosexual btw, saying that because one gets a distinct impression that maybe some homosexuals and maybe others as well don't realize there's plenty of heterosexual people who have to escape or ignore their families for all sorts of different reasons including stuff superficially as dumb and petty as families being god damn pestering busybodies trying to relive their own lives. Mother-in-law jokes anyone? Such people (not only female although it tends to be that way) are probably the 2nd largest reason for break-ups after infidelity. Yes I do know there's a lot worse shit going on, violence, aggression, that sort of thing, but that also happens to heterosexual couples ("honor" killings anyone?).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by lubricus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:42AM
Maybe that happens with the moderation, but at least here and at the other site, it's nice that as long as you're not trolling, people will engage with what you are saying. Hence, this reply.
To elucidate the contrary viewpoint: non-religious person will not take scripture as evidence that homosexuality is wrong. If you are going to convince someone who does not share your religious views, if would help if you explain why homosexuality is wrong on secular grounds. If you can't, then the rest of your argument loses it's basis.
Again, this relies on the premise that homosexuality is wrong. Otherwise, you can apply this logic to any trait.
Let's say that I start with the premise that red hair is the mark of the devil.
Like alcoholism is a genetic trait .... I believe that people can be born with red hair. Like alcoholism, I don't believe that makes make it right, even if it's heritable. It just means that you have to work that much harder to hide it. There are plenty of people with dye-jobs who condemn red-headedness....
I'm posting this to help you understand how a perspective that differs from yours sees that your logic relies on an unsubstantiated foundation, and is thus flawed. If you don't start with the idea that it's wrong, the rest seems silly, and in fact, pretty offensive (red-headedness is like alcoholism???!!!)
I very much agree and appreciate your ability to separate your internal morals from societal ethics. US Democracy would be much improved if this attitude was more widespread. I do think there are practical reasons for government to define marriage. (the power to make legal decisions if the spouse is incapacitated, medical benefits for spouses of soldiers, tax purposes, etc... ). In fact, these were the problems which frequently bring these cases to the courts.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 10 2014, @10:07AM
More to the point, no matter how society feels about it, unlike red headedness or homosexuality, alcoholism will inevitably lead to a bad end if not resisted. Cirrhosis, coagulopathy, brain damage, a high rate of accidental death, and a general tendency to end up in the gutter are clear signs that alcoholism is an actual problem independent of attitudes towards it. That's not even considering the likelihood that an alcoholic will end up accidentally killing others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @10:45AM
Recovery, death, or insanity.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:02AM
Maybe you thought you were joking or making an absurd example?
Now in "modern times" in several different parts of Europe (multiple areas in many different countries) unfortunate people in their home countries have to dye their hair from reds (everything from auburn to ginger) or blonds (light or dark) to black in order to be left somewhat alone from aggression (rape, robbery, murder, general harassment). Not everyone can simply move away (and to where ultimately?).
Saying it because maybe people still don't know and are stuck in a 1970ies (or 50ies or 16th century) world.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:12PM
You can't set aside his initial premise for one minute and examine the rest of his logic? I realize that said foundational assumption may be repugnant to you, but he was trying to explain how you get from there to here, and that it's a logical process. You dismissing his initial assumption does not make the rest of his logic illogical.
You can't *prove* "because the Bible says so." Either you believe it or you don't. There's really very little point in arguing about it.
To add some more constructive dialog, I recently found out the denomination I was raised in (uberconservative Lutheran) is not against homosexuality as a lifestyle, but only the physical act of homosexual sex. I was rather blindsided by that one and now I can't figure out the logic at all...presumably at least part of it is in the same ballpark as the Catholic being against contraception thing, that according to them sex should be for reproduction, not pleasure (any Catholics here please correct me if this is not in fact the logic).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by lubricus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @08:03PM
I did, but this is one of those arguments that sound more sophisticated than it really is. It breaks down to this:
If something is bad, then it's always bad, even if it's genetic.
Sure. But if I don't think it's bad, then it isn't. The genetic part is just a red herring.
Throwing on top of that some false equivalence, equating homosexuality with alcoholism, does not change the argument:
'See, there's this other thing that everyone agrees is partly genetic, and everyone agrees is bad, so we should be able to accept that homosexuality is also bad.'
The argument still boils down to whether or not you start with the prior belief that homosexuality is bad, so what's the point of the rest?
I'm all for having an open conversation where people can voice their opinions, but that includes accepting the replies.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 1) by zsau on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:47PM
The reason that homosexuality as a lifestyle is fine as long as it isn't sex, is because what does it even mean for there to be a "lifestyle"? Our lifestyle is very different from that of the ancients; does that mean we're sinning?
However, really it sounds like a garbled version of the Catholic position, which is that it's fine to be attracted to people of your sex, just like it's fine to want to drink to excess. What's not fine (in Catholic teaching) is drinking to excess or having sex with people of your sex. Protestants often take a different line with this, thinking that even the desire to sin is sinning itself (taking Jesus's "if you hate your sibling you might as well have killed them" as their guide for this).
Of course both of these positions are "outs" for them. You can make all the same choices as you have, and keep the same friends, have the same genetics, just don't have sex with people of the same sex. So, you see, they're not really denying science or equality or whatever, they're just making different choices.
(Source: I was brought up a left-wing Catholic, and I've been entertained by their position; but I do not entertain or hold it. i.o.w. hearsay. Nowadays some would consider me a liberal Christian, and others secular/atheist/polytheist neopagan.)
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:41PM
You should feel free to give your opinion.
However, opinions based upon the collection of evidence are much easier to support than static ones that are not.
It is the difference between dogma and science.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:51PM
You're far from the only Christian around here, there's even a seminary student among the staff. :)
While we could get into a respectful theological discussion as to whether everything St. Paul wrote is a worthwhile source of moral instruction (Hello, endorsing slavery?), I'm happier just to read that you're on the right side of letting your beliefs guide your own life and respecting that others should get to make their own choices based on theirs. If more believers took your approach, there'd be a lot less hostility flying around.
Thanks for sharing.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:31PM
I grew up Catholic and take an interest in these kinds of topics, although I usually don't discuss them with other people because I'm not looking to fight. I struggled for a long time with this topic and others before coming to the conclusions I have today. I'm not religious anymore, but I believe in God and still pray.
I have a question for you to consider. Romans says "females exchanged natural relations for unnatural" and "males did shameful things with males" (New American Bible, English / Catholic) or "women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" and "males behave indecently with males" (Oxford Study Bible, English / Protestant). How can homosexuality be unnatural if God programmed it into our genetics? (Is not the definition of natural and nature the very things that God defined?) And homosexuality is not just in our genetics, but the genetics of many animals [wikipedia.org] as well.
As a side note, I've been friends with a lot of Christians over the years and you are a rare breed to say people should make their own choices and that any right or wrong doing is between them and God. For that, I thank you. We agree 100% concerning the role of government including your idea about polygamy. I wish more people were like you -- not because I'm a fan of polygamy (it's not my thing) but because I believe oppression in any way (including the oppression of homosexuality and polygamy and a thousand other things) is not freedom. If there is one thing I believe about God, it's that He gave us freedom to choose. Oppression of any kind is one of the gravest sins of all, but I also think he wanted us to explore that gray line between my freedoms and yours.
I offer these thoughts as merely food for thought.
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:58AM
> I'd like to ask each and every one of the people involved in trying to get this passed to give a detailed answer about the specific day in their lives that they decided to be hetero.
Well, there was this girl, and this awkward feeling in my pants....
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:19AM
Not even that; I was three years old when I was first enthused/mesmerized, the impression/infatuation was strong enough that I still vaguely remember her and that she was two years older than me and that I desperately (secretly, this was all private to myself) wanted to go to the same school as she would (didn't happen, no other connection, no idea who she was, remember her first name). It never was a choice, hetero from the start before I knew anything or had any kind of sexuality as such.
Common? I think so.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:06PM
I remember having a crush on a member of the opposite sex as a kindergartener. We would regularly smile at each-other from across the room. That's pretty serious at age five. :)
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:26PM
Yes it's surprisingly serious :) I've heard similar from people I know too. Of course it's all individual and likely many who aren't hetero also have similar stories (I've heard a few of those too). I should also add "just in case" that I don't mean to imply that people aren't free to change or choose later on; they are and should be.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday June 10 2014, @06:17PM
As somebody said upthread, it's not really a binary proposition, and like anything hormonally influenced it can certainly drift throughout your lifetime.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:06PM
I thought people were arguing homosexuality is genetic now? In which case, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals "choose."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Darth Turbogeek on Monday June 09 2014, @10:30PM
Being a Texan Republican an unacceptible lifestyle? The world would be a much better palce if it was.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:09AM
You had me at Texan...or Republican...
(Score: -1, Troll) by tftp on Monday June 09 2014, @10:30PM
abolishing minimum wage
Minimum wage only reduces employment and/or raises the prices. You cannot legislate that a human becomes more profitable overnight. If someone does not like the offered salary, he is free to walk away.
cancelling climate research
I'm sure the good folks from CRU of University of East Anglia are doing great job already. Why to interfere with the data that they may not like?
banning the teaching of evolution at schools
Reportedly, schools teach nothing anyway. Why then would it make a difference what exactly they are not teaching? (And seriously, knowledge of evolution, or of Divine Creation(tm), makes no difference to anyone except biologists. I, personally, do not benefit from knowing the path from a dinosaur to a chicken. All I need to know is that a chicken is edible :-)
their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.
Statistically, it's true. AIDS and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @10:40PM
sad human being
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @10:51PM
Yeah for bald assertions!
So informative, so persuasive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @11:05PM
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter ... so I can wipe my ass with it.
(Score: 1) by compro01 on Monday June 09 2014, @11:09PM
I wouldn't recommend it. Such material is usually printed on cheap paper, which would be decidedly uncomfortable to wipe with.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday June 09 2014, @11:19PM
Bullshit. What about Syphilis? Al Capone died of it. Lots and lots of straight men had their brains rotted by a disease transmitted sexually. Bacteria and viruses just don't care -- they are not capable of caring -- they are only capable of reproduction in favorable environments, some of those environments are sexually related, some straight, some not, and some both ways. To point out HIV like some kind of sign, is sort of like an obese man bitching about people getting fat eating cake, while he stuffs cookies into his mouth.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday June 09 2014, @11:44PM
To Ncommander and Co., can you think of a slightly better way to present the children of a comment modded down to oblivion/below threshold?
You should probably have a blank/collapsed/hidden placeholder comment, so that the tree of the visible replies still makes logical sense.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 10 2014, @08:45AM
Can't you hide them by browsing at a different score level - or have I missed the point again? The children of a comment that has been modded 'down to oblivion' surely make no sense on their own?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:49PM
There a sometimes some very good things in threads including trolls (or mis-modded comments).
Keeping the tree structure in place while hiding the actual "bad" comment would be a bit more readable than the current version. I can abstract all the "you're dumb" replies, which also make more sense as a structure than dumped to the root of the comment tree.
JMHO.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:05AM
>> their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.
>
> Statistically, it's true. AIDS and such.
By that logic straight women should undergo gay-conversion therapy since lesbian sex has the lowest rate of HIV transmission of any type of sex. Only two confirmed cases. [aidsmap.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:15AM
Well your's certainly didn't teach much.
Did you find that out through scientific experimentation, or did your good book tell you it was ok?
You may also like to know that pigs and shellfish are quite edible, maybe even tasty. You should open your mind and have a try.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pbnjoe on Monday June 09 2014, @10:34PM
This sounds like a list of things one would make up for a platform if they wanted to make fun of them, but that's their actual stance...
(Side note NCommander, there's an "i" missing from "controversial" in the subject line)
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday June 09 2014, @10:38PM
Fixed, thanks.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 09 2014, @11:25PM
This is exactly why I identify Republicans like this: Old GOP, parody of itself
(in the context of identifying Democrats as: "New GOP")
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @10:38PM
and add secession from the Union.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @10:41PM
Bye Texas, sure was nice knowin y'all.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday June 09 2014, @11:34PM
As a liberal in a comfortably liberal corner of the country, I too would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that would create the right for states to unilaterally secede. The civil war and some SCOTUS decisions following it determined that secession takes bilateral agreement, but an amendment would fix that issue.
As a liberal, I'm sick of my money going to an ever increasing war machine, an ever more rapacious wall street machine, an ever expanding domestic spying network, and of course to red states. In my state, if we seceded, we'd get an immediate 14% bump in revenue to do useful things with (because we only get back 86% of every dollar sent to Mordor (AKA Washington DC) plus with all the money we saved on not blowing up innocent people around the world, we'd probably get at least another 15-20% extra to good things (or cut taxes).
Sure, Texas would go all Christian Taliban -- but who the fuck cares? It would give those nut cases a place to go and die from all the exploding fertilizer plants.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:43AM
In my state, if we seceded, we'd get an immediate 14% bump in revenue to do useful things with
In what currency will that revenue be, I wonder? If that's USD then you are still tied to the Wall St. machine that manipulates the USD as it sees fit. If that's your own currency, what would be its exchange rate? (In other words, what unique and valuable goods your country will be selling abroad?) Also, what makes you think that the new elite of your country will not want to rob you blind by devaluing your currency, just as their teachers from Wall St. do currently to the USA?
I'm not trying to tell you that separate existence is bad. You may be right. However those are standard *initial* questions that arise as soon as an idea of a new state is floated. There are many more. Look at the fate of Ukraine as just one example - not just at the 2014, but at all the preceding 20 years of independence.
It would give those nut cases a place to go and die from all the exploding fertilizer plants.
Of course, an ideal world would not contain any dangerous manufacturing. Only the comfortable consumption will remain. Who would be manufacturing the goods then? An invisible caste of elves? I don't think it is proper to laugh at people who work at dangerous chemical plants - their work creates food for the people.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:27AM
Orbital Power Transmitters, Nessus Mining Stations, Sky Hydroponics Labs.
Don't forget to build Orbital Defense Pods, though, Texas may want to drop some bricks on you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:25PM
We Must Dissent
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:05PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Qzukk on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:30AM
Of course, in an ideal world the manufacturer would resist cutting corners that caused the facility to explode and kill everyone. Bad for business, don'tcha know?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:54AM
I can't imagine that the plant owner decided to cut corners just hoping that the plant won't blow up. You can't make much money on those corners, especially when you pay (or not pay) for them once but carry the risk forever.
Quite frequently accidents occur because some workers (not the plant owners!) decide to cut corners. I don't know what happened at these fertilizer factories, but there are many other incidents that we can learn from. In Chernobyl it was the plant manager who approved an unsafe test without asking the manufacturer, and then had all the safeties disabled (or else they would stop his test automatically.) He had no financial reason to proceed with the test. In Japan it was some workers who were loading radioactive materials by the bucket [wikipedia.org] because they, and their manager, and a manager above that, failed to read instructions. They got no money for making a reactor out of a water tank. Later, also in Japan, the plant at Fukushima was damaged because of poor disaster planning [npr.org] - perhaps in small part because of corner-cutting, but primarily because the managers in charge refused to think out of the box. TEPCO, a huge company, could easily build a better diesel backup - but it was never done not in order to save money, but for bureaucratic reasons alone. TEPCO, as a public company, had no owner, and its management is hired to run the company safely, not to cut corners.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:20PM
Everyone knows manufacturing is dangerous. The issue in Texas is that despite that knowledge, they allow residential zoning right up to that danger rather than providing a buffer zone.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:34PM
If they still allow that, after those explosions, then they need to have their heads checked by a professional. However if they allowed it earlier ... how could one move the factory or a residential neighborhood?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:08PM
It's more of an induced negligence. When the owner() reward cost cutting but not safety and drive a constant message of faster! faster! and sometimes even faster and cheaper or someone will have to go!, it's only natural that someone will cut one too many corners.
At Chernobyl, plant management pressed for the test to be completed by the under-qualified (under-trained) evening shift because the upper management (safely far away) would start chopping heads if it didn't happen. The evening crew pressed forward so it wouldn't be their heads. Training costs money and not kissing upper management's feet costs jobs.
In Japan, they should have paused to formalize a procedure or at least do a safety calculation, but time is money and managers who cost too much monbey don't get promoted...
It's a natural result of human nature, the hierarchical structure of most organizations and garbled communications. Sometimes you need an outside force to put the brakes on it, such as evil government regulations.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:25AM
Sounds good in principle but I have to wonder how long before war starts between the new independent States. There are lots of war mongers and lots of weapons that may go to the seceding State.
(Score: 1) by gidds on Tuesday June 10 2014, @09:23AM
[sig redacted]
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday June 11 2014, @08:07PM
Sounds good in principle but I have to wonder how long before war starts between the new independent States. There are lots of war mongers and lots of weapons that may go to the seceding State.
One cannot sustain a civil war on warmongers alone. They tend to end soon, either by stopping talking like fools, or by fighting and killing each other. Government-organized wars, of course, have fewer constraints because nobody asks soldiers what they want to do.
A voluntary and willful war between two (or more) states is possible only if these states, in firm belief of their populations, have something to fight over. There are certainly some strategic resources (water, for example, in deserts of the West coast) that are valuable. In some circumstances the people may want to fight for them. But by and large fighting will be not between the states; the power of states themselves will be greatly reduced, and they simply won't be able to organize the people or force them to fight for something that they don't care about. Most of the fighting will be between individual citizens, over something that one citizen wants to take from another. This will end up with disappearance of all the excessively violent people; their proportion in the population is not that high even today, and their business will become far more dangerous after the police disappears.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday June 12 2014, @05:03AM
Hopefully you are right. Anyways I doubt America is going to break up so it is all conjecture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:17AM
I would love to see Texas secede from the U.S. We can build a big wall around it, blow up all roads/utilities to it, declare it a terrorist state, and establish a no-fly zone around it. Send any of them back that try to leave, and watch the former Texans all kill each other when they realize they have to stay there. It would be great entertainment. After they softened themselves up enough, we can go back in and take it over, or leave it to Mexico to pick over what is left. We could have "Escape from Texas". To dream.....
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:22AM
Why add a good point to a list of bad points?
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 09 2014, @10:42PM
If that is indeed their platform, then they are committing electoral suicide. Like many people who live in a media-created bubble, the Tea Party-minded folks think most people agree with them. They're quite wrong, and poll after poll shows it. This sounds like the Tea Party captured the Texas Republican party and wrote the entire platform to their liking. What will now occur is that Texas will go blue sooner than predicted by the demographic trend of more and more Latino voters because they will alienate every independent and Democrat and suppress the turnout within their own ranks (yes, there are still Republicans who are not stupid enough to say what they really think out loud).
I remember saying to my wife that we were witnessing the suicide of a major American political party after Obama's first election sent them off the deep end. I thought then it would be more sudden, but as it rolls along it's been rather a series of self-amputations, cutting off one piece of itself after another. I mostly follow right-wing blogs because they're more entertaining, and they have regarded Texas as their bulwark against the tide of progressive success. How demoralizing will it be for them when Texas goes blue a decade early?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Oligonicella on Monday June 09 2014, @11:12PM
Actually, both parties are committing suicide and it's about time. We need people who have rational thought, not extremists from the right and left.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday June 09 2014, @11:39PM
I have sadly failed to witness the left-wing extremist policies since 2009.
False equivalences...
(Score: 2) by Oligonicella on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:04AM
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:06AM
Humor me with a list.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:40AM
Everything including everything you attribute to the right and then add some more, and the next time power "changes" back those on the right will continue adding stuff to such "god's work". That's the list.
It's clearly visible from the other side of the Atlantic ocean and maybe it's equally visible from the other side of the Pacific ocean, could be a perspective thing (because it is a very big list).
It's so big that America has become invisible and presumed dead, some lost sight of it all the way back in the 60ies while others among us could still see it as recently as a few years ago and thought they were only exaggerating because it's hard to believe something like that when you can still see the opposite of what they say (at least partially).
Look at a sheet of paper -sideways- if you don't get why.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:46AM
The USA has an extreme left wing mainstream party? Colour me suprised, I thought it was just shades of retard right to passable not evil right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:52AM
This is correct. Form what I can tell, "left" in the USA just means "not as right as the other guy": http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 [politicalcompass.org]
Pre-emptive link to the FAQ answer regarding this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq21 [politicalcompass.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:02AM
The terms have always been relative. Only in the interest of circumscribing, managing, and limiting debate, has any society's leaders treated them as empirical, so to say "you're either with us or against us".
(Score: 1) by Zappy on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:48AM
I was unaware the US had any left politics, it's just right, and extremely ridiculously over the top right with a touch of moron.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:56AM
Oh no, we do, just don't mention the word 'socialism' or everyone gets their panties in a bunch.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:46AM
This is not the Tea Party. Try not to conflate things.
The neo-conservatives who actually run the Republican party are terrified about the libertarian leanings of the actual Tea Partiers and Ron Paul. The Tea Party people want less government intervention and (shock!) a sustainable fiscal path for our country. These should not be shocking things; they should be things every rational person would want to get behind. In contrast, the neo-cons behind the Republican party at large only want more power and more money going to their military-industrial complex. The neo-cons are terrified their time is coming to an end - for good reason, it is - and are behind this type of insanity.
I'm an independent with libertarian leanings, and I believe in evidence. Science has it. Political control over ANY research must be opposed, full stop. Evolution must be taught in science curricula, full stop. We know much better than to treat homosexuality as a disease, full stop. The real Tea Party - and Libertarian party, for that matter - is actually one of tolerance. Because if you aren't affecting the lives of other people, it's not my business or Big Brother's what you do behind closed doors.
So please, stop conflating the Tea Party with this kind of bullshit. This isn't their platform; it's CNN and friends trying to malign the Tea Party movement because they are terrified of anyone getting ready to rock the status quo.
The status quo needs rocking. It sure as hell isn't being rocked by either major party. I'd much rather vote for a member of the Tea Party than any member of either establishment, and I'll vote against all incumbents if that's not possible.
Consider joining me.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:17PM
Your "sustainable fiscal path" involves starving the poor to death, taking away health care from veterans and the elderly, in order to balance the budget without having to resort to the horror of asking the wealthiest to pay a tiny fraction of their income in taxes. That path involves letting infrastructure rot, letting corporations run roughshod over the rights of individuals, under the (repeatedly disproven) myth that the free market will find an optimum solution, and effects of economic scale and collusion (that anybody can demonstrate) don't exist to undermine it.
These are things every rational person should despise and immediately reject.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:44PM
There is a libertarian faction within the Tea Party, but even if its members were the original founders of the Tea Party the party itself has long since been coopted and its name dragged through the mud by the Masters of the Universe (MotU), who have used it to thwart any action adverse to their profits and control. So its good name is not salvageable, and claiming that it is, and that the things I have stated are not true, belies a willful ignorance of the tropes surrounding it that have settled in the minds of the public. The Tea Party is highly unpopular with a majority of the American public.
I 100% agree that the status quo needs rocking. It needs demolition. The Tea Party is not the vehicle, but rather an object lesson in how the MotU co-opt and defeat traditionally constituted challenges to their power. They have a playbook for every variety of attack, every gambit like the Tea Party that has been tried. So to really do an end-run around their entrenched power those of us who agree on the goal have to think outside the box, waaay outside the box about how to turn their strengths into weaknesses, and employ our strengths where they can multiply and echo in secondary and tertiary effects. That means we have to attack them from every possible vector at once, in 21st Century guerrilla warfare, which, BTW, will happen almost entirely without guns or violence.
To me, it seems clear we share the same core goals. We use different language, you and I, that our respective sides might be uncomfortable with, but that doesn't have to continue to be the divisive, self-defeating dynamic it has been. Rather, we ought to figure out how to employ both sets of terms to motivate everyone toward our shared goals. Perhaps in the process we can sift out a new American vocabulary from the ashes of the old that can help us heal and reunite after the MotU have been burned down to their roots, but if not, that's OK as long as we demolish the status quo and begin a new national conversation about how to not do this nonsense again. In the short term, if I can see Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein swinging from lamposts on Wall Street, I'll be less particular about how that moment is described in the history books.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:06PM
Well put. I sincerely hope you are correct that it can be "without guns or violence", but the MotU have cornered that market, and are not afraid to use them.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:59PM
That is true, and you are correct. But when the larger share of the public is resisting and protesting and attacking their power base from all directions, whom are they going to shoot? And if they're stupid enough to do so, they may well find out how counter-productive it is, the way the perpetrators of the Amritsar Massacre [wikipedia.org] did. It would also surely lead to their execution once their power was broken.
It is only a matter of time. They can be allowed to peacefully retire to a tiny plot of land in, say, Iowa, or end up swinging from lampposts. It's entirely up to them and how hard they want to try to deny the course of history.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Wednesday June 11 2014, @04:46AM
Sorry, but I must ask: "What the HELL do you have against Iowa?" I have friends who hail from there.
Wait - never mind - they left there.
/snark
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:00PM
s/[Kansas|Nebraska|Missouri|Wyoming|Colorado|Utah|Idaho|Montana|New Mexico|Arizona|any other state...]/Iowa/
Whichever place has wide open spaces and most neighbors won't lynch you for being crazy.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Wednesday June 11 2014, @06:34PM
Hell, that's where I am - Texas!
I'm crazy, and my nearest neighbour is several miles away. Nobody has tried to lynch me (yet).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 11 2014, @09:05PM
Yeah I'm originally from Montana and spent summers in Houston as a kid, so that's sort of what I mean: elbow room plus nobody getting in your business.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:47AM
What does it mean? Is it like the color one turns when chocked or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by compro01 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:12AM
Republicans are going to hold their breath and stomp their feet until their states turn blue.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:55AM
A quick search for "Texas turning blue" would have revealed an explanation.
"Turning Blue" means having Democrats win a majority of votes in Presidential elections. Texas is currently, and has long been a strictly "Red" state, voting heavily Republican. Similarly, a "Purple state" is one where the vote is rather evenly divided between Democrat and Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states [wikipedia.org]
Demographic changes (fewer Caucasians) indicate that the state will flip from Republicans to Democrat majorities within the next decade, if the Republicans can't successfully hide and then reverse their decades of harassing and vilifying immigrants, and attract a large number of Hispanic/Latino voters to their party. Thanks to the (mostly) winner-takes-all electoral college system, and the large population of Texas, that single change will make it practically impossible for any Republican candidates to win a presidential election, and shortly thereafter making it impossible for Republicans to gain a majority in either house of Congress, basically eliminating the party's viability in any national politics and leaving the Democrats with no viable opposition.
The term gets used more widely, and GP was likely also talking about Texas state elections swinging towards more Democrat wins, and (eventually) a majority.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:33PM
"attract a large number of Hispanic/Latino"
Note that about 10% of the entire population of Mexico is already in the USA. Not everyone wants to move and eventually you literally run out of illegals. So I'm not so convinced of the whole "extrapolate a graph into the infinite future therefore in 2030 Texas alone will have ninety billion illegals"
That said this is a part of the drug war. Prohibition means death, chaos, and destruction south of the border means illegals north of the border means more Democratic voters. Imagine if we repealed prohibition and all those guaranteed Democrat voters all went back home? And on the R side the neopuritans are sleeplessly terrified that somewhere, someone is having fun while not sitting in church, so they can't repeal prohibition for mental illness reasons. So that's how you end up with vast majorities of the population wanting something both parties strongly oppose.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:40PM
The illegals can't vote, so they don't count. What counts is their legal children, and the fact that they have far, far more offspring than their white counterparts. No more illegal immigration is needed. The numbers will shift in short order, no matter how much you dislike lations and want to pretend they don't exist.
We have immigration problems long before the modern drug cartel violence.
Once they're here, they aren't going back, even if things at home improve. The economics are so much better in the US, that they're staying. Not to mention they lose all connection to Mexico after just a generation. There was a tiny amount of emigration when the economy crashed, but I never expect to see even that tiny reversal, again.
Many hispanic/latino immigrants are from Central America, NOT (originally) Mexico, and drug violence is hardly ever an issue for them. They just all get mindlessly lumped into the same group, since they've got brown skin, speak spanish, and come from "south of here".
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:22PM
"The illegals can't vote"
Must depend on state and voting laws. Around here its no problem, they all vote.
Its kind of a catch-22, if federal policy is to not enforce existing immigration laws against illegal hispanics, and if they only reason they can't vote is violation of immigration laws, then not seeing a problem here. Enforcing the voting laws would mean enforcing the immigration laws which we aren't going to do, so...
If the purpose of voting is to tranquilize the population by making them think they have a choice between two almost identical hand picked candidates that only differ on irrelevant PR campaigns, then whats wrong with the illegal population being tranquilized like the legals?
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday June 10 2014, @06:49PM
It's a common right-wing talking point, but all evidence indicates it's extremely minuscule.
The overwhelming majority of voter fraud is from US citizens, most often felons, or people registering and voting twice in different districts. Illegals are at the very end of the list, in incredibly insignificant numbers:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/we-don-t-have-any-problem-illegal-immigrants-voting-us-dem-congressmen-say [cnsnews.com]
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:47PM
Irony: red used to designate the commies, isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:12PM
What we need is for a group of government funded scientists lead by Obama to declare that nobody should submerge their head in a bucket of water for more than 10 minutes. That should kill off at least half of the tea party.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Monday June 09 2014, @11:34PM
Just let them define whatever they like.
The truth is that "hell" opens the gates when they get into power and actually do what they declare. I'd say, let the war begin.
On a side-note, it seems that history keeps repeating itself. Obviously, we cannot change that feat, so let it ride and the post-WW3 survivors may sort it all out.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:38AM
You equate US with "the world" or do you really wish a WW3 just to clean Texas?
If the later, there are cheaper solutions (like: sell Texas to China, you can outsource closer to home and the cost of goods will be even cheaper).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:31PM
No, I do not equate US with World. The point, however, is that once the radicals in Texas take over, they are sure to instigate a war that is no longer contained to the state of Texas or the continental US. It will spread like a cancer. There are just too many eager to settle a score.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mendax on Monday June 09 2014, @11:50PM
The party platform forgot to include reestablishing Jim Crow so that they can keep all those uppity niggers, wetbacks, and gooks out of white people's neighborhoods and out of their schools and out of the polling place, and by extension out of the White House. Next they'll want to reestablish the death penalty for common burglary, carrying out the sentences through the convict being drawn and quartered. They they'll go after the Roman Catholics and Jews. Oh, and they'll also ban birth control so women will stay at home where they belong.
In previous comments I have expressed my disgust of the State of Texas. Well, it hasn't gotten any better.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:43AM
Why was this modded troll? Because he/she used a few no-no words to poke fun at the idiocy of the texas republicans? Oh the horror!
Truth is this is exactly how these people think. Behind closed doors blacks, hispanics, asians and jews become niggers, spics, chinks and kikes. Believe me, there is plenty of this kind of two faced racism out there. They will loudly proclaim "I'm not a racist! bla bla bla..." in public. But the moment they are left to themselves, behind closed doors the hate starts flying. And its every bit as ugly as mendax made it out to be.
"If you aint like me you can swing from a tree" is alive and well in the good ol US of A.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:56AM
> Believe me, there is plenty of this kind of two faced racism out there.
While there certainly are racist republicans, not all republicans are racist. The guilt by association thing can be used against anyone -- like Obama and Jeremiah Wright [wikipedia.org] -- and so it doesn't really add to the conversation, it's just flamebait.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday June 10 2014, @06:55AM
I despise Texas as a whole (with the possible exception of the People's Republic of Austin). It is a sink of all that is bad and evil in conservative American politics. And while there are few active in Texas politics who would admit it, if one were able to look into their hearts, I think you'd find a large minority who genuinely want to "get that nigger out of the White House" and use that awful word in their thoughts.
I know that not all conservative Republicans are racists, but I suspect it's a large majority although they're not quite so blatant about it as their grandparents were.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:47PM
> I despise Texas as a whole
Yeah and hearing you inveigh against it is boring.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:25PM
These particular Republicans are a parody of themselves. Just a quick thought about the mentality that produced their platform (that they seem proud of) will reveal that that particular group of Republicans can be relied upon to be closet racists.
That the rest of the party isn't throwing up right now say a lot about them as well. I wouldn't say no Republican is throwing up a bit at least or at least desperatly trying to hold their lunch down, but as a party, I notice they haven't disavowed all ties yet.
(Score: 1) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:14AM
No, no, not drawn and quartered. It's hang the convict from the bough of a sturdy oak until dead, then quickly retire so that, in the words of Judge Roy Bean of territory that once was part of Texas, "vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @10:48AM
Who or what on earth are "wetbacks"?
(Score: 1) by thephoenix on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:35PM
I believe is usually used to refer to Mexicans.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:11AM
I wasn't aware that SN was trying to become HN 2.0. I don't like this moderation system, but that was a minor grievance (especially since I rarely comment anyway). The fact that anonymous users are penalized is ridiculous, but I was willing to look past that. However I won't tolerate this. Nope nope nope nope. Sorry, I don't come here to see clueless americans bickering about their laughable political system and patting each other on the back for being "so progressive!" I've had enough of your stupidity. Time to find another place to get my news. Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to achieve here.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:52AM
What is HN 2.0?
I'm also curious how the lameness filter works. I couldn't post just the above sentence because of too many caps.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:06AM
Homeshopping Network? I was thinking, "Walmart, clean-up in aisle Five!" (too soon?, or not Texas?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:31AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:25AM
In some places, they refer to Tejas as "Southern Wyoming". All hat, no cattle, who shot JR?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:29PM
The hell? Texas doesn't even share a border with Wyoming. It's 2 freakin' states away through Colorado and (Oklahoma|New Mexico).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:29PM
Check out the historical maps of Texas. An early one can be seen at https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_texas/texas_land_grants.jpg [utexas.edu] and shows parts of current New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Wyoming were once "Texas".
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:55PM
Even on that map, Texas barely has a border with Wyoming.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @06:53PM
You didn't get it? The "some people" who say this might be Americans, and that means they are "geographically challenged" (See Miss Teen South Carolina, 2007). Or it was intended to be a spiritual relation, the kind where Petroleum substitutes for cattle ranching, and brings about intellectual decline, moral collapse, and the rise of rather bizarre Republican party platforms. And Cheneys.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:06PM
I'm wondering if the AC meant Huffington Post (or am I too getting the name wrong?). I kind of sympathize with his general point and I think a lot of people are sick of the Republican/right vs. Democrat/left charade and fake debate. Neither does it matter if anyone or everyone thinks they're all on the right (because right is bad and they're all big government racist fascists I mean look at their history [wikipedia.org]) or all on the left (because left is bad and they're all big government racist fascists I mean look at their history [wikipedia.org]), it makes no difference.
One has to stop ideology (it's a circus of vampires). One has to stop putting everything in one great big bag or sausage where the vast majority of people don't get any power to debate and decide among the nearly infinite possibilities on each specific issue.
And most "issues" aren't and shouldn't be political at all: like leaving people the hell alone even if you don't like or agree with whatever. Those are cultural and social issues and ultimately politics doesn't help but only makes it worse.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday June 10 2014, @06:56AM
Considering how my own country like to 'import' foreign ideas (all the while wailing about how everything outside of us is zomg teh bad) I'd like to keep an eye on those things. But then again, Russia don't need no stinking lessions in being idiots about sexuality among other things.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @01:15AM
sounds like a familiar ploy from the republicans, when logic would dictate a middle line they push the boundary into lala land -- and take the national debate with them.
(Score: 1) by Fnord666 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:14AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday June 10 2014, @07:37AM
In this case because...?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:13AM
Out of scope?
(Score: 1) by Fnord666 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:22PM
Once we delve into "general interest" as a category, what isn't a valid story? Might as well start posting recipes and quilt patterns.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:09PM
We aim, submissions permitting, for roughly 70% sci-tech/30% general interest. In choosing stories for the latter, group, we look for things that we think would foster an interesting discussion among our community members. As of this writing, this story has over 3k views and 19 comments scored at three or higher. We seem to have had a good discussion.
Out of our 4k+ registered users and uncounted AC's, not everyone will like all the same stories. If one doesn't grab you, hopefully the next one will. We'll keep 'em coming.
(Score: 1) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:05PM
The reason for this platform must be because they don't look like a steer so kind of narrows it down.
Hint I am attempting to make a joke.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:58PM
This will make people homosexuals because the corporations are vying for their ass. And so the people has to bend over for their overlords and take the abuse of rights. ;-)
(Score: 1) by Freeman on Thursday June 12 2014, @03:59PM
In Regards to the comments about homosexuality:
"Ironically, the controversy over the new language overshadowed the removal of a stronger condemnation of gays that had been included in the platform for the past three decades:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behaviour is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders and shared by the majority of Texans."
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"