Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Thoughts for a Tuesday afternoon

Wait a minute... Ben Westlund was a Republican?!?!?!?

It's always the gun's fault... unless Cheney pulled the trigger.

How did Eugene become the epicenter for eco-terrorism? Is there something in the pot?

Being gay is a choice, killing a baby is murder.

(Pointed out to me by Jim, president of OFIR) The language that the agriculture business uses today to explain their need for "guest workers" and illegal labor is the same language that the South used to explain their need for slavery...

It is still stealing if you don't get caught, where is your concience?

If you look like an idiot (hat backwards, pants hanging off, every piece of skin that protrudes from your body is pierced) you can't expect people to take you seriously. Especially a prospective employer.

How come the same people who push darwinism are the ones who push the "endangered species act?" And are vegetarians?

Snow in Februrary... must be global warming.

Star Wars beats Star Trek. Any day.

If you believe that most "medical" marijuana is truly for "medical" purposes then you probably have a drug problem.

If you choose to do something stupid don't call it an accident, call it a bad choice.


Gullyborg said...

Star Wars beats Star Trek--but Kirk would still kick Jar Jar's ass!

Kaelri said...

Being gay is a choice...

False, for heaven's sake. I've got a grasp on the hyperbolic humor by now, but keep the outright lies to a minumum, I implore you.

"Star Wars beats Star Trek. Any day."

Firefly owns them both.

"How come the same people who push darwinism are the ones who push the "endangered species act?" And are vegetarians?"

'Cause Darwinism is outdated. Unless the date of the inevitable Penguins' Revolution has been moved up.

"Snow in Februrary... must be global warming."

Not unlike Australia taking on lifeboats.

Gullyborg said...

If you believe in Darwinism, you must believe being Gay is a choice, because it sure as hell can't be genetic!

Kaelri said...

You seem to be lacking a basic understanding of Darwinism. I would recommend the dictionary as a good starting place.

"...it sure as hell can't be genetic!"

That so? Explain.

Bob said...

Why do I ever hang out with a nut like you?

Gullyborg said...


if being gay is genetic, it is unlikely to be passed on to future generations, because as far as I can tell, you are unlikely to impregnate a female while you are buggering some dude up his fudge tunnel.

freakin' duh!

Darwinism: genetic mutations that make an offspring better suited to survival are passed on, as that offspring is better suited to survive and mate. If gayness is a genetic trait, it sure as hell doesn't make one better suited to survival or more likely to successfully mate.

freakin' double duh!


gullyborg said...

careful Vonski, if you allude that being gay can't be genetic or that it is contrary to Darwinism, you must be a homophobe... just like recognizing that carousels of information don't help legal immigrants makes you racist!

Vonski said...

Because, Darwinism, according to the dictionary link you gave says, "...increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce"

As far as I know, homosexual sex has yet to be able to produce children. So, for natural selection to be a truth, reproduction must be a part of that equation.

That being said, I'm not saying I'm for or against anyone's choice in the matter, or that I believe in Darwin's theory.

gullyborg said...

weird--my reply to Vonski comes "before" his comment! TIME WARP!!!

Kaelri said...

I'm seeing such a wealth of maturity.

The general argument seems to be that no genetic quality that does not contribute to the survival of the fittest can possibly exist; by extension, that the claim of Darwinism is that humans are perfect.


terry said...

Homosexuality is an opposite-sex neurosis. (Transgender is a same-sex neurosis.) While homosexual behavior is definitely a choice, "being gay" is not a choice, unless you somehow consider being neurotic a choice.

Daniel said...

My little proverbs morphed into brokeback mountain versus actual cowboys...

Ok, first, is it a choice to be a child molestor? Or to be attracted to children?

Second, is being an "alcoholic" a choice?

And last, nothing beats a jedi. Nothing.

terry said...

1a: Definitely a choice.

1b: I don't know, although I wouldn't be surprised if there's another neurosis involved. (adult/peer neurosis?)

2: I think "being an alcoholic" has a physiological component that takes it out of the realm of pure choice. However, the behavior of getting drunk is a choice, because an alcoholic can choose to have a first drink (which kicks in the physiological process resulting in continued drinking) or to not have a first drink. Dry alcoholics are said to be "recovering" - they're still (physiologically) alcoholics, but they choose to stay sober.

Anonymous said...

Alcholoism begins as a choice but becomes a compulsion. I have a old uncle who is an alcoholic, although he would never admit it, and if he doesn't have his drinks he'll get upset or be anxious, or such.

To compare alcoholism as a choice to being gay though is ludicrous. Being gay is at least due to some physical compulsion, homosexuals have been around at least as far back as the Greek city-states.

Gunslinger said...

Oh my God! Why is it that every single time that Dan posts a tongue-in-cheek rant thing on here, you assholes have to come screw it up because you have the complete and utter incapability to look at something for what it is...HUMOR. Dipshits.

Here is the ultimate test. You have a sens of humor if...

You see a person get beaned by a car and flip through the air like a dead monkey (Dane Cook)
Do you;
a.) Laugh at first, then go help?
b.)Laugh at first, and do nothing but keep laughing?
c.) Freak out and act all "horrified"?

If you answered anything but "c" you have a sense of humor. Congratulations. If you answered "c", lighten up a little. Go get laid or something, read a MAD magazine, listen to, or attempt to tell a joke. It will all be OK, I promise.

Tim Lewis said...


Kaelri said...

I simply have difficulty in finding the humor in casually discriminating against a population that poses absolutely no threat to the rest of us. Forgive me.

Gunslinger said...

No, I don't think I can forgive that kind of ignorance.

What is interesting here, is that those of us with the aforementioned sense of humor picked up and enjoyed things like the Jedi Comments, and Star Wars V. Star Treck. Other folks, although you at least acknowledged the Trek/Wars, seem to focus only on one little issue that you deem inappropriate. Once again, Lighten up.

Try having fun for a change. Perhaps, Kaleri, instead of rushing home from school today and blogging, you should stick around school and participate in some sort of after school event that doesn't have to do with anything political. Perhaps the FFA? After brokeback mountain, I am sure you caould find all sorts of diverse cowboys there.

Chris McMullen said...


Why do you have such a problem with the distinct possibility homosexuality -is- a choice? If folks choose to be gay, why is that such a bad thing? Sounds like you think homosexuality is abnormal and something to be ashamed of by proclaiming that gays just can't help being that way.

Hardly the attitude of a good liberal.

Truth is, homosexuality -is- abnormal and gays know this. That's why they try to convince everyone they are somehow genetically predisposed to be gay.

Why can't they just be happy with their decision?

gullyborg said...

so... let me get this "straight" (heh heh)...

homosexuality is comparable to Down's Syndrome?

You know, if people could find a way to CURE or PREVENT Down's Syndrome (prevent other than aborting, that is), would you support it?

And if you answer YES, can you honestly say that you would not also support a cure for homosexuality?

The Gentle Cricket said...

STAR WARS Definitely beats Star trek, and Episode V is the best.

Tim Lewis said...

I discriminate against rapists, murderers, and child molesters too. Should I apologize for that too?

Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean I hate them. I hate what they're doing.

MAX Redline said...

"I discriminate against rapists, murderers, and child molesters too. Should I apologize for that too?

Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean I hate them. I hate what they're doing."

I have to laugh...not about this comment, but about the trail in general - I saw a completely normal looking guy walking down the sidewalk with (I suppose) his girlfriend. He was wearing a nice leather jacket, but something caught my eye as he passed.

I turned, and there on the back of the jacket was printed:

"Serial killers are people too"

For some reason, I flashed on that just now, because it's the same kind of line that the homosexual "community" promulgates.

Now, Kaelri goes all "oh, they're just people, too, they aren't hurting anybody." Or something along those lines.

Well, they are.

Personally, I don't give a rat's heinie what people do (sexually) behind closed doors. But I've never seen a "heterosexual Parade" covered in the news. I've never seen heteros running around yelling stuff like "I'm Hetero; I'm Here; Get Over It!"

No, I think it's clear that normal folks tend to keep their sex lives out of the entire public equation. It follows, then, that folks who run around screaming about their sexual preferences and stirring things up are, in fact, abnormal.

To the extent that they are permitted to promote their agenda of making what is clearly abnormal a generally accepted anomaly by invading classrooms, for example, then the question of their "harmlessness" takes on great importance.

If, in a school environment, it is considered harmful to students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance - and all the more so if the words "under God" are included, then it makes sense to consider the potential effects of alternative theocratic perspectives. And when one looks at the "gospel" being preached by the homosexual "community", it is clearly theocratic in nature. The effort, after all, is to actively work to alter the established belief systems of other people.

It is my view that if "alternative lifestyles" are acceptable as material to be presented to students, as is presently the case with the homosexual lifestyle, then that should logically open the door to consideration of a range of "alternative lifestyles" - which would include courses dealing with subjects such as Christianity.

Of course, that would be unacceptable. I wonder why.

Kaelri said...

"Try having fun for a change. Perhaps, Kaleri, instead of rushing home from school today and blogging, you should stick around school and participate in some sort of after school event that doesn't have to do with anything political."

I did.

I'll now reiterate a few truths which you seem to have forgotten. One, I am not the socially-deprived fanatic junkie you seem to envision. Being simultaneously entertained and worried on weblogs by people like you accounts for about twenty minutes a day, or a bit longer if there's a good debate to be had. This is less time, yet far more productive time, than some people spend laughing at wannabes on American Idol.

Two, criticizing me personally instead of the issues sends a strong signal, apt or not, that you are incapable of the latter. Suspend your realization that "Kaelri" is the representation of a person, and read the words. Same to McMullen, who seems to think I intend to have "the attitude of a good liberal." Cute rhetorical distractor, but I en't impressed.

Now then.

I understand that you're differentiating between homosexualism and homosexual "behavior," or more simply, sex. This is fine. The analogies to raping, murdering and child molesting are, at least from that specific perspective, apt.

In fact, if we can agree that being homosexual is involuntary, then I have little more to say. Of course the "behavior" is a choice, I don't contest that.

Given those things, I don't really see the problem. Homosexuals may choose to act on those instincts, accepting the consequences for themselves. Heterosexuals, quite simply, won't.

I'll still respond to your collective posts point-by-point, if you so desire, but if you'd chew on that

Gunslinger said...

My point, which was missed apparently, is that this post was supposed to be a light hearted rant thing. But some folks got all up in arms about it. I could honestly care less what you are going on about, because it has nothing to do with the premise of the post. Yes, Dan said some things about gay people, yes, Dan said some things about child molesters, yes, Dan said some things about Jedi Knights!

As I said before, Lighten up. The intent of the comment about you doing something besides blogging had nothing to do with how much time per day you spend (I think we actually spend about the same ammount of time), but rather that perhaps you should (if you do not already)tkae some time to enjoy being young, instead of arguing on here about a meaningless rant post.

Kaelri said...

"tkae some time to enjoy being young, instead of arguing on here about a meaningless rant post."

Meaningless? The "gay advocates" you demonize would probably be less offended by a straightforward criticism than by this casual, offhand, lighthearted dismissal. I will not lighten up about it because I think it was wrong of Daniel to write, and is my responsibility to defend them. And I feel as good about doing so as I do about enjoying "being young," if you really must lure me to so patronizing a plane of argument.

Anonymous said...

Another one:

"The best arguement against the legalization of marijuana are the proponents of legalization."

The Gentle Cricket said...

Star wars definitely beats Star Trek