Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This kind of thoughtful reply is all too rare on the Internet - and I'm proud that it's here on VideoSift.>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

@TheFreak @Yogi
Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.
I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!
What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.

@TheFreak @Yogi

Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.

I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!

What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.

Leucism is a desirable trait that many reptile breeders strive to create through selective breeding. Never heard of a leucistic alligator before though.

Since they all look like the same breed (American curl, I would say it's a breeders house. But I cannot explain the dude in tighty-whitey and socks with sandals...

>> ^steroidg:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically that was more of a APC than a tank.


Nope, your are 100 percent correct in this fish breeders professional opinion.

Best cure for that is education, not cutting aid for those who are otherwise completely fucked. Then they'd be driven to abortions even more!
>> ^quantumushroom:

Both sides claim to want to make abortion, "Safe, legal and rare."
Ending all rewards for breeding out of wedlock might increase abortions but will also save a hell of a lot of money long term. Stopping wanton breeders means ending breeder culture.

Both sides claim to want to make abortion, "Safe, legal and rare."

Ending all rewards for breeding out of wedlock might increase abortions but will also save a hell of a lot of money long term. Stopping wanton breeders means ending breeder culture.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

WTF, potent marijuana? WTH does that even mean? It isn't a fucken chemical, its a fucken plant, idiot.


It means the Ratio of Psychoactive components to plant matter are higher now than they where fifty years ago, which is very much true for a lot of strains. This has been done by breeders through different methods combining different strains and only using the ones that held the result you where looking for.

The potency argument is idiotic because you do not smoke cannabis until you cannot function you smoke it to get the desired effect on the body and stop. So what this means is that your Cannabis will last longer and you inherently smoke less at a time because you are getting a bigger bang for your buck. Smoke the same amount of Mexican ditch weed and a higher potent "sour diesel" strain or the like, and you may "green out " ( as some people who smoke too much puke/get sick) but you will not die.

On the other hand, drink 355 ml of grain alcohol in one shot, as compared to a 355 ml beer and you could die of alcohol poisoning. The potency angle is just completely fallible.


Or where you being facetious ?

Edit- Tobacco leaf is just a plant as well but you can die from handling that with just your bare hands, as well Cannabis' main ingredients are chemicals, just as Nicotine is and pretty well everything else thats mind altering. Just because its a plant does not mean the chemicals it produces can not harm you.

>> ^progressivevideo:

do you think the world would be a better place if everyone was gay and godless?


As opposed to overpopulating breeders and oppressive religious zealots? Yes.

Nuclear (breeder) power plants and electric transportation is the most sensible solution. People whine about Uranium also being fossil, but there's enough to fuel many times our current consumption for thousands of years, that's not even including thorium.

Nuclear waste is an issue easily dealt with. Breeder plants need a lot less uranium and produce a lot less waste, they can even 'burn' up most of the waste produced until now. Sure there will always be some waste, but it pales in comparison to the fly ash ponds produced by coal burning, which are also slightly radioactive but not secured.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use solar and wind but it will take much too long, use up a lot of resources, and cost a bunch (especially reconfiguring the power grid and making energy storage solutions). Nuclear baseload with solar/wind dealing with peak power.

No, but how about this: no welfare for unmarried breeders. Let them pay for their bastards; they might actually think twice about being responsibly active.

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Men and women are not interchangeable. As Dennis Prager puts it: "Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

So... you support mandatory abortions for pregnant single women?

This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

I read enough of it to get the gist: that the two are not equal because civil unions are recognized by States only. My answer to that is...it's up to the people. I wouldn't mind a national "civil union act" but 70% of Americans still do.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.

Well said.

Some predictions: At some point within the next 20 years, on our present course, gay marriage will be legal, except in whatever cities or states have been overrun by muslims. 20 years beyond that, homosexuality will be considered a genetic defect correctable in vitro.

The world certainly won't become a better place if people sit around and do nothing.

Can you be so sure? Do you realize--had they done nothing--how many drunk-driving, road-raging shitbirds wouldn't have killed innocents? How many tragic idiots wouldn't have been born because their breeder/keepers did nothing instead of fook? How fewer pieces of highway litter there would be due to canceled roadtrips?

The mind can make a heaven out of hell or a hell out of heaven. --John Milton

This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

It's a short enough article so worth a read. IMO the important points start at "Taxes", halfway down the first page.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.>> ^quantumushroom:
For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions"...