Wow. You must have a pretty low opinion of our intelligence dude.
Its not that its not a pretty good Wilford Brimley impression, it is. Its just that I’ve read Bork’s** Slouching Towards Gommorah**, and really, that’s the pink Peruvian flake when it comes to pissing and moaning about how the hippies and the liberals destroyed Western Civ.
Don’t get me wrong, you’re pretty good for an amateur! But any time I feel down, I can just open him to any page, and his bitter venom and resentment pours over me like a shower of joy, golden and musical. It reminds me that mine is a life well lived, and a worthy purpose met.
Plus, it was one *hell *of a lot of fun!
Well, now that you mention it…
One of these days I’ll learn that no matter how sincere you sound you’re reallly just looking for more ammo. My bad. :rolleyes:
::grabs crotch:: Yeah, I got yer golden shower, right heah.
Really? I heard the pipes were rusted out.
Nah…just dust.
Starving Artist, I just read your post on the last page, and what I’m getting from that is still “my facts prove something, and yours don’t”. And so I’ll ask again… how is that inconsistent with the the “it’s only true if I believe it” thought process you’ve been accused of?
Conversely, you’ll have to come up with some pretty persuasive evidence that STDs were adequately reported fifty years ago to convince me that their incidence has “gone through the roof” since then. I’m pretty sure, for instance, that women were not routinely screened for HPV in 1958.
I don’t know how anyone can claim to possess an acute critical faculty or an ability to see situations with clear objectivity and then accuse a monolithic “liberal” movement of being solely to blame for such ills as STDs, gangs, drugs, broken families, poor economy, etc. Social dynamics are far more complicated than that and to lay the blame at the feet of one particular group is just absurd. How could it possibly work that way? Liberals may have said, on this board and elsewhere, that conservatives are evil, but I don’t hear them blaming them for everything short of the Great Flood. It takes two to tango, and then some. This overly simplified worldview makes it hard to take a person seriously. It’s not just black and white. The liberals are not dismantling a perfect society despite the best defense of the noble conservatives, and such a characterization only casts doubt on the intelligence of a person who would paint so distorted and oversimplified a picture.
Hmmm…I think you are referring in part to me. What I actually posted was a) a partial factual rebuttal to the notion of sky-rocketing STDs, pointing out that in fact some STD rates have been shrinking for 50 years and b) a criticism of the reported factoid that 25% of female teenagers have an std - as I pointed out that was misreported, the actual number is significantly lower ( how much lower is hard to say, but it is not 25% ) and the use of HPV in the study made the claim even more problematic.
It was not an attempt by me to bludgeon you with the above. In fact I don’t believe I ever posted to that thread afterwards. Nor was it even an attempt to try to disprove your thesis per se. It was just that you were using imprecise language ( your claim on STD rates was and is not not across the boards true ) and flawed numbers ( the problems with that quoted 25% ). Sorry to be a pedant, but such is my nature - I tend to nitpick when people post something factually challengeable. I’d do the same thing if you argued that dry cat food is unequivocally better than wet cat food or that 17th century Polish military technology was inherently inferior to that of western Europe - both of those are highly equivocal and very challengeable statements. It’s what I do.
Now if you ask me has “liberal permissiveness” starting in the 1960’s resulted in increased rates of STD transmission as compared to the 1940’s and 1950’s, I’d say, yeah, I guess. To some degree anyway. There are confounding factors like for example the Vietnam war - large deployments of troops overseas seems to equal a spike in STD rates, we get one in the late 1940’s as well. But sure - the sexual revolution, as limited as it may have been in actuality, undoubtedly increased some base STD rates in some fashion. Though I’ll note that modern correspondance between STD rates and “liberalness” doesn’t necessarily seem to be 1:1 - for example the current highest per capita rates of chlamydia transmission seem to be in Alaska, Mississippi and South Carolina.
I could also that the above is an unfortunate unintended side effect of a psychologically healthier view of sexuality ( IMO ) that can be mitigated by proper precautions and education. Further some conservatives could be seen to be currently making matters worse by digging in their heels on that education part :).
Society is what society is and it perplexes me when both conservatives and liberals, however defined, rage against the “other side” as if that “other side” is the source of all woes. The fact of the matter Starving Artist is that your very conservatism is in some way to “blame” - generations are reactive and the conservatism of your generation bred the liberalism of that which followed it. You know all those radical 1960’s kids didn’t come from broken homes - they came from your house. My, what awful parents you must have been ;). Similarily I’m more conservative than my “permissive” parents. No doubt my father wonders what went wrong that I never became a good Marxist.
You can rail against the liberalization ( or from the other side, the conservatism ) of our society as much as you want. But however much you may want to deny it, you ( the generic you and ALL of you ) had a hand in creating it. And you can’t unmake that omelet.
I already provided all the cites and info needed to disprove his hypothesis. The facts show that std rates were a lot higher in the past and then in the fifties with new drugs the public health budget was cut back and the rates rose.
Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberalism’, which is a self-evidently absurd belief that can only be held if you are irredeemably stupid.
Starving is a fact and sense-free zone. He appears not to have the intellectual capacity to understand let alone put forth a reasoned argument. It’s all just ideological hatred stripped of the understanding that, like anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands, correlation does not equal causality.
He is simply someone who has literally been rendered stupid by his own ideological hatred.
Perhaps you don’t recall (or are too young to have known about in the first place): “Make love, not war” and the sexual revolution that took root in the late sixties when lefties decided to champion sexual openness and freedom; the wrong-headed notions among many supporters of the women’s movement that since men were free to be promiscuous, women should be as well; sex-education taken over by the educational system, and, in the wake of AIDS, condoms being passed out in schools, which of course, when combined with the attitude that people are gonna fuck anyway, gave tacit approval to teenagers who lack both the emotional and practical discipline to handle sex properly; a music, movie and television invironment in which sexual messages are constant; etc., etc., etc.
My guess is you either don’t recall these things or you view them as perfectly reasonable and find them a source of pride.
Still, there can be no question that these things most certainly did not emanate from the right, and there can be no question that they didn’t ‘just happen’, thus it’s obvious that the left is responsible. The left is therefore also responsible for the huge increase in sexual activity among teenagers, which, when combined with their aforementioned lack of maturity and discipline, has led inexorably to the spread of STDs (not to mention millions of abortions, which I have a big problem with if done in the second or third trimesters) among the country’s teenagers.
Now I’m sure all of this is just fine and dandy with you. It’s evidence of your ‘progressiveness’ and ‘enlightenment’ and that you know better than uptight righties how society should behave.
It probably also seems anachronistic because things have been fucked up for so long that many people now just view them as normal.
But, like it or not, things are what they are, and for these problems the left is clearly responsible.
Like I said before, one can hardly expect to come onto a board dominated by liberals and point out to them how they’ve fucked things up and expect to be met with bouquets of roses. The attitudes and insults that you and other posters sling my way are both predictable and expected.
Further, in this case correlation is the result of causality.
Nah, my stupidity is genetically encoded.
However, whatever hatred I may occasionally come to feel is reserved for people who hurt little children, people who are bullies and pick on the weak, viscious criminals, and dipshits who think the way to make a political statement is to kill innocent people. My feelings in regard to liberalism are merely contempt, resentment and disgust…and probably in that order.
So, still no evidence aside from your rose colored memories of better days, then?
Sure. Newspapers, magazines, movies, and television news and entertainment programs from the last forty years abound. It’s all quite well chronicled. Knock yourself out.
Yes, I’m quite well read, thank you. That is one of the reasons I question your assertions.
No, didn’t you read? “Make love, not war.” Then, AIDS. What more evidence do you need? How could a more compelling case be constructed? If you don’t get it, you must just be proud of it.
And with that, I’m off like a liberal prom dress. See you later Zoe!
You guys are just constitutionally incable of honesty, aren’t you? It was the mindless homosexual promiscuity (cheered on by the left) that took place in the early eighties that was responsible for the spread of AIDS, not the ‘make love, not war’ movement fifteen years beforehand. They’re interrelated and there’s some overlap, but the AIDS epidemic was not a direct or predictable result of make love, not war…unlike most the other problems I mentioned which were easily predictable.
And now I’m off to work. Bye, Hector, bye Zoe, bye everybody else…have a nice day!
And I will ask you, for the very last time, before I finally write you off as a completely worthless individual…
Cite?
Jeez, no. There was nothing about the homos in your prior post, but now that you mention it, of course promoting the homos and their rampant homo promiscuity that should be part of the laundry list of things that the left is to blame for. I remember that it wasn’t too long after the paint dried on the “Make love, not war” signs that we all worked up our “Homos should have lots of homo sex with lots of different other homos” signs.
You really can connect the dots. I thank you for opening my eyes to everything that we’ve wrought.
Well, in spite of the fact that [list=a][li]I know perfectly well you don’t mean it[]you will instantly dismiss any and all cites provided[]and basically, you are just trolling[/list][/li]Cite (pdf), etc., etc.
Now, are you going to dismiss them out of hand and then go to abuse, or skip the dismissal part?
Regards,
Shodan
I know that I, personally, stand by bathhouse doors and next to gay people’s beds with pompoms and literally CHEER them on while they have unprotected gay sex and spread teh AIDS. Of course, handing them condoms is also not OK, because that also promotes sexual promiscuity so… yeah. Can’t win for losing, eh?
That was you?!