I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring her hysteria. First time I listened to her is this video.
What is her impact in China? Russia? India? Brazil? Indonesia? On people who make decisions?
Perhaps in the USofA hysteria can have an impact on future elections (I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring the current administration) but will global ecology really be a big (or medium..) election theme in the USofA in the near future, like 20 years?

Im washing out those plastic bottles and sorting trash and keep my car serviced properly and fly rarely. But if this type of hysteria is randomly aimed against nuclear power, attempts to talk to women in the workplace, and eating meat regularly on other days, could we please not go that way... too late.

What can be done to move the 6 countries mentioned at least slightly in the direction of Europe on pollution? To stop China building coal power stations all over Africa? Brasil and Indonesia deforesting? What has (or can) Grrreta really do to help there? This is like trying to shame Saddam Hussein to give up those WOMD he hid so well. How dare you Saddam? Bad boy!

Also how dare three quarters of us not just lie down and die without children to save the planet? Or are we evil and not mature enough to forego making money to buy food for our families? Which in most places on the Earth means polluting like hell. Vicious cycle. Maybe people should be more modest, maybe rich white kids should not be the ones saying that.

Grreta so reminds me of west european academic communism in the 60s. CND in the 70s. Greenpeace. And so on. Should find out more about people, now that she has read all those encyclopediae. Everyone has to eat and f*@k or we die out in one generation.

THIS is why you can't do rape jokes. Society is NOT mature or sensitive enough to know what to do with the subject matter. The anonymity of the internet is no excuse. This is what lurks underneath, internet or no internet. It does not lurk under all, or even most, but some and some is enough. Joking about it reduces its absolute prohibitive status and trivialises the severity of the impact it has on victims and families of all involved.

It is this absolute prohibition that is at stake here. Murder can be joked about because there is an underlying suspicion that we could all do it given the right provocations. Rape however does not have the same situationalist concept. It is not something we secretly want to do when we are frustrated. It is not something we wish on our loved ones to shut them up. It is not something to that is idly fantasized about in the same way that battery and murder are. Therefore, the "comedy" around it has no common ground except for the horror of the experience itself which relies on a victims experience being imagined in the minds of others. We may laugh out of shock but that is all there is, shock. Taboo makes us uncomfortable and we laugh when confronted with it if the circumstances are right and a comedy club instantiates such circumstances. The only comedy, as in laughter from shared premises taken to an unexpected extreme, to come from rape 'comedy' are jokes about 'rape comedy' itself.

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

>>> What is conservatism at its core? A system of traditions and laws formed in the fires of trial and error, over decades, over centuries. 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. I'm tired of liberals skipping the part where their ideas are challenged and going right to activist judges circumventing the will of the people.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

>>> A unified society does thrive on a universal moral code. Everywhere it is wrong to murder, everywhere it is wrong to steal (unless you're in government). If you believe your freedom ends where it wrongfully infringes on others' freedom, that's a root of morality.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

The issue is a lot more complex than you're making it sound. Families of all religions consist of one man/one woman. Most atheists families are probably the same. Without technology, there is no reproduction among 'faithful' gays.

If we have a socialist health care system, then irresponsible sexual practices among gay men are everyone's problem. Are you going to choose between a child dying of cancer and a gay man whose 'peccadilloes' landed him in the hospital? Ideally, a child should have a father and mother. It's not improbable that the adopted child of two gay fathers views one as more motherly, or in fact seeks a mother figure.

I do support gays in most endeavors, but when 3% of the population wishes to overthrow the traditional definition of what marriage is for the other 97%, that's not something to take lightly.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

I'm not against polygamy nor some type of gay civil union which can be self-defined as "marriage", but understand in both cases moral, social and legal upheavals would follow. There are all kinds of unforeseen consequences lurking out there. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Homosexuality is genetic. The brains of gay men are similar to those of straight women. It will likely be something that can be 'cured' in the womb in a few decades. There is no need to glorify it.

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

>> ^oscarillo:
I find her extremely sexy! (doeas that makes me gay?)


No, unrelated.

She does bring the husk at the end though. Once in one of her videos MONTHS AGO she nonchalently metioned wearing a bikini on her summer break. I'm just not mature enough to avoid dwelling on that just a bit.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser, inside edition, teleprompter, bill' to 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser, inside edition, teleprompter, bill, sting' - edited by deedub81

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser' to 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser, inside edition, teleprompter, bill' - edited by deedub81

Irresponsible? – Yes
Abuse? – Not even close.

While I agree with every point the Child's parents have coached her to say, it is pretty poor parenting to brainwash a child into believing things that she is not mature enough to begin to understand. I would say the exact same in regards to involving children in religion.

The more irrisponsible thing here though, is that her parents have made her a public figure, of which she can surely not understand the consequinces. They're no different from a showbiz or bueaty pagent mom who exploits her daughter for her own purposes.

In regards to FOX "News's" coverage. It is the epitome of the type of alarmism that they accuse liberals of on a daily basis. Does this bottom feeder Wendy Murphy seriously believe that this is the "Ultimate inhumane treatment of a child?" Of course she doesn't. She is not an expert, or a child advocate, she is a whore - a media whore. She is the media's equivilent of a bum that a dirty cop pays to claim she witnessed a crime so he can make an arrest. O'Reilly is the cop, FOX "News" is the Mob and Ruppert Murdoch is the Don.