And once again - why does everyone seem to argue with me like I'm not a liberal? Do I have to say it again?
Undecided: It's not a sweeping statement, notice the "don't necessarily" qualifier. The official view of something and the view people actually take are quite different. Nowadays Vatican II has made all manner of statements about how sex is an expression of intimacy and all that bullshit. The Baptists will say the same thing. You'll find very few mainstream denominations saying that sex is dirty, bad, sinful and only to make babies. Leave it to the Christians to take all the fun out of their brainwashing! Have you even ever been to America? Jesus christ. First, "sexual xenophobia" doesn't make sense. They're afraid of having sex with people they don't know? Well hey that isn't a bad fear to have, but I'm not sure of its relevence! Second, yes, many Americans frown upon homosexuality. That doesn't mean they frown upon sex per se!
It's not a sweeping statement, notice the "don't necessarily" qualifier. Although I don’t want to get into semantics here, “don't necessarily" is not a firm qualifier. Thus it is at least imo still a generalization because you are cautiously assuming x. The official view of something and the view people actually take are quite different. Nowadays Vatican II has made all manner of statements about how sex is an expression of intimacy and all that bullshit. Well…I am a Catholic and I can tell you sex is frowned upon by many, and there are a lot of things with Vatican II that same hard core Catholics don’t accept. The Baptists will say the same thing. You'll find very few mainstream denominations saying that sex is dirty, bad, sinful and only to make babies. I don’t really care so much about the actual organization, the organization doesn’t vote. I care about the individual’s perception of sex, and generally speaking in some denominations the views on sex are very repressive. Have you even ever been to America? Jesus christ. Aforementioned…I have, and to the South! ORLANDO! God could I get anymore American? First, "sexual xenophobia" doesn't make sense. They're afraid of having sex with people they don't know? Sexual xenophobia is a simple expression that does make sense, figuratively sex is that person. And yes ur not supposed to have sex with ppl you don’t know…so it does make sense in both senses. Second, yes, many Americans frown upon homosexuality. That doesn't mean they frown upon sex per se! That per se…really doesn’t help your stance all too much. The irrational fear of homosexuality is usually a fear of one’s own homoerotic tendencies. That is a uncomfortable fact of a sexually repressed upbrining, I remember the movie “Jungle Fever”, and when the black women were talking to each other about white girls getting all hot over black men because they were denied the possibility by their parents. Sexual repression is almost innate. Obviously you don't. I've lived here all my life - say something like "sex is dirty" and you'll be given a reference to a head-shrinker! You’ve lived again in a segment of America, you don’t really live in “America” in a holistic sense. If I went to where you live (which I surmise may be a Blue state) surely what I am saying does not ring very well, but I would imagine in the poorest segments of Kansas, West Virginia (where they thought Kerry was going to ban the bible) and Mississippi you’d get a VERY different response indeed from what you are telling me. You don’t know America either. You can't know more about the US than Americans if you haven't lived in the US. You might know more about our government or even our laws, but you can't get the feel of a country through tv! I talk to Americans, I understand the politics of the nation, I have a tenacious grasp on the history, and a familiar acquaintance with American culture. If anything as an observer not a member of your society, I should have a MORE objective view of it then yourself. You are intertwined with Americana much more then I am, and as a result cannot be trusted as a objective observer of it. So this “feel of a country” is nonsense. I've been to Germany briefly, seen plenty of documentarys about German life. Do I know more about Germany than the Germans do? Of course not. No because you don’t live near Germany, I live near the US. You don’t get German TV on every channel we do, you can’t cross the Atlantic with your car, we can cross the border easily. Don’t compare a apple and a orange. I've been all over the US. You've maybe visited - and yet you presume to lecture me on the mores of my own country? Yes…I don’t think that should present a problem. I've been to Canada, several different places in Canada for months on end. I therefore declare that all Canadians are hippy Francophiles who lack personal hygeine, live in the boonies and are obsessed with Tim Hortons donuts. That’s hyperbole, I don’t play that game. Instead of slandering me and the country, give a rational and coherent response please. They can adopt new and useful techniques instead of being ersine whiners. I’m all ears Xev… Yet you claim divide. There are some major differences to be sure. But the lines are being blurred.
That's a gross generalization and sounds like nothing more than self promotion. No...Because I don't consider myself to a "liberal" in your American sense. So you have to show how that is self-promotion. We do know that generally speaking that states with higher IQ’s, and more college grads vote democrat, and those with higher incomes. I'll kindly thank you not to put words in my mouth. I asked you a question…note the “?”. So stop pretending to know what you are reading. When the fuck did I say any of this was "the problem with the left"? Again, no more words put in my mouth please. Firstly calm the fuck down, secondly stop foaming at the mouth, and thirdly what are you talking about? See, I've heard a million (gross hyperbole) liberals say this but I've yet to see one shred of evidence. It’s called the UN dickweed it went against International law…ask Annan he’ll tell you.
I've also stated a number of times I'm not American. Please try and read. Okay, that's fine. It's really completely irrelevant to any part of this arguement. Very well. I figured since you went on your little shpeel about right slander and the problem with the left you felt you were saying something to me that was relevant to the discussion or in some way in reply to me. If it wasn't, that's fine and I apologize for assuming so. You said "the problem with the left is not what you're taling about...". I never attempted to identify "the problem with the left". I made no claim of doing so. Once again, I figured your comment about "what I'm talking about" had something to do with what I was talking about. Again, I was wrong. Please, try and follow the discussion. I quoted you as saying that the talking about hte war was taboo. Then I said I have seen no evidence of this. Then I tried to prove this a bit. Somehow from this you gathered I was saying the war wasn't illegal. Frankly I'm blown away you managed to do that. I still can't figure out what you think you're replying to.
Undecided could you give some solid factual proof of your views on American's thinking sex is dirty? Like any kind of objective facts at all? Just curious.
Undecided: Do you have some mental problem which prohibits you from reading correctly? It's not a generalization about people, it's a point of logic - "Homosexual sex is dirty" is not equal to "All sex is dirty" That explains some things. Earth to Undecided! I am talking about mainstream America, not wacky Catholic Canadians. First you say you care about the individual's perception, then you say that "generally speaking in some denominations", which is completely contradictory. Orlando is a hideous simulacra of America - but going to a city does not make you American or an expert on America. Oh dear god. Thinking that homosexual sex is dirty does not equal fearing it. Even disliking homosexuals is not the same thing as fearing them. Disliking anything is not the same thing as fearing it, you illiterate screwball. Further, there is no evidence supporting your theory. I could as easily assert that the fear of homosexuality is based on nervousness about the nature of heterosexual sex, but I don't use that to prove a point. I saw a movie once where the characters thought nothing was hotter than playing with this dead corpse they found. Do I subsequently judge all people as necrophiliacs? NO! Movies, dear Undecided, are not an accurate guide to life. Fine. You don't live in Canada. But that's obvious - you seem to live in Fantasyland. Yes, and I'm sure that in the most redneck backwoods of Newfoundland (no offense to Newfies!) you'd get the same response. Presumptious hack. How about my beating you over the head with a clue-by-four? Would that present a problem? That's not slandering Canada, it is gross exaggeration for the purposes of mocking your stupid ass. Canada is cool. Why don't you show me one fact, just one, one poll that says "Americans think sex is dirty and vile", just one mainstream figure who says "sex is dirty, don't do it, America!" and isn't laughed at, one piece of evidence, just one, showing that Americans have a negative attitude towards sex. Not without qualifiers. I stipulate that many Americans have a negative attitude towards homosexual sodomy, that some have a negative attitude towards premarital sex, that many have a negative attitude to unprotected and promiscuous sex. What I want is evidence showing that the mainstream American attitude towards sex is hostile.
I've also stated a number of times I'm not American. Please try and read. Probably but honestly your not important… Okay, that's fine. It's really completely irrelevant to any part of this arguement. Hmmm…maybe you felt that me talking about “liberals” superiority in intelligence, etc. Was nothing more then hubris…maybe you should stop being a pretentious idiot and start thinking. I figured since you went on your little shpeel about right slander and the problem with the left you felt you were saying something to me that was relevant to the discussion or in some way in reply to me. If it wasn't, that's fine and I apologize for assuming so. Well the first thing you can do is get out of 1992 and stop saying the gayest word used on sci “shpeel”…secondly this is what the second time you had to apologize for your ADD-dyslexia. Please, try and follow the discussion. I quoted you as saying that the talking about hte war was taboo. Sorry but I cannot find that quote talking about hte war…its pretty obvious you wrote it due to the incorrect spelling of “the” one the fucking easiest words to spell. Then I said I have seen no evidence of this. I cannot find evidence that I even said what you implied I said. If this is what you were talking about: “but what is ridiculous is that a illegal war is taboo?” Then when you say “quote” actually quote what I said idiot, if you don’t then say you paraphrased, I should not have to expend energy to find quotes that you should present. At least here we disproven that not all liberals are intelligent eh Tyler? Undecided could you give some solid factual proof of your views on American's thinking sex is dirty? Like any kind of objective facts at all? The Bible…
Do you have some mental problem which prohibits you from reading correctly? It's not a generalization about people, it's a point of logic -"Homosexual sex is dirty" is not equal to "All sex is dirty" But you obviously didn’t feel it necessary to put in the most unequivocal of terms why? Why were you so cautious, if it as you say “a point of logic” then why the logical retreat? Obviously you are agreeing with me by what you aren’t saying, rather then what you are. Earth to Undecided! I am talking about mainstream America, not wacky Catholic Canadians. Please Xev, I am pretty like a pagan. Firstly you surely don’t know what mainstream America is, I don’t know either that is why America is finding its way now. It is in a identity crisis, by definition means confusion of the national identity. As shown in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43399 First you say you care about the individual's perception, then you say that "generally speaking in some denominations", which is completely contradictory. No its not, because the individual is shaped by the particular view of his denomination, but it is the individual that votes not the denomination and as a result I obviously have to care about what the individual thinks, because I cannot talk to all these people, I base my opinions on what the denomination believes (taking into account not all members are ultra-orthodox). Orlando is a hideous simulacra of America - but going to a city does not make you American or an expert on America That’s exactly why Xev you don’t know nearly anything about the country you live in. Do you think it was only Orlando I went to? I’ve been to NYC, Hawaii, Buffalo, I’ve seen a lot of blue and a little bit of red. The reality is that you are showing the “Blue state” arrogance that so angers the Red’s look at your description of Orlando, as a second rate trailer park town. What may I ask Xev is the quint-essential US city? Surely NYC is no better then Orlando. Oh dear god. He has nothing to do with your inability to definitively state something. Thinking that homosexual sex is dirty does not equal fearing it. Even disliking homosexuals is not the same thing as fearing them. Disliking anything is not the same thing as fearing it, you illiterate screwball. I don’t see what illiteracy has to do with anything, the only thing here Xev I see is your constant need for attention. But apart from that the irrational fear of homosexuality is largely a fear of one’s own homosexual tendencies, we usually hate what we are humans are hypocrites. Not all those who fear homosexuals are homosexuals I agree but I would say many are if not bisexual. Further, there is no evidence supporting your theory. We do know those who say they are homophobic compared to those who are not (and consider themselves heterosexual) when shown gay sex got harder then those who were not homophobic…there’s a thread here on sci. So I would say there is some evidence, and its really simple human psychology. I saw a movie once where the characters thought nothing was hotter than playing with this dead corpse they found. Do I subsequently judge all people as necrophiliacs? NO! But that movie was not a social commentary, Jungle Fever was a movie that showed the cultural xenophobia of interracial relationships (albeit the acting imo was horrid) the movie had a lot of truth to it. I can talk from my own empirical observations of seeing this xenophobia within the black and white communities. Fine. You don't live in Canada. But that's obvious - you seem to live in Fantasyland. I live in Toronto…compared to the rest of Canada yes a fantasyland…I don’t claim to know all Canadians because I don’t unlike you the demig0d who seems to know everything there is to know about the US a nation of 300 million…compared to a nation of 30 million. Yes, and I'm sure that in the most redneck backwoods of Newfoundland (no offense to Newfies!) you'd get the same response. I’ve met Newfoundlanders and they are very different religiously then Baptists most being Anglican or Calvanist, etc. They are not so messianic as the Bapists, if you want to make a MUCH more accurate comparison btwn the South and Canada you would be much better off comparing Mississippi to Alberta. Presumptious hack. Me or you? How about my beating you over the head with a clue-by-four? Would that present a problem? Yes, not for me for you. Resorting to violence would only prove how very inadequate your faculties are. That's not slandering Canada, it is gross exaggeration for the purposes of mocking your stupid ass. Canada is cool. That’s hyperbole…a game you play and most Canadians wouldn’t be so happy for a pretentious know it all talking about things she does not understand. What I want is evidence showing that the mainstream American ttitude towards sex is hostile. Ok watch televangelists…read the bible…talk to hardcore Christians, facts don’t exist dear…only opinions and you can’t download them either.
If you're going to play the spelling game and try and criticize me because I miss-type, at least use proper grammer. It would be "you're not important". However, this has no weight in any debate, so I'd hope we could both be enough past the age of two to not pretend it does. All this does is give conclusive evidence that you don't read my whole posts. I mentioned my country about four times at least, and you still didn't know it. There is no possible way you could have done this unless you didn't read all my post, or you have the short term memory of a mouse. Or severe brain damage I suppose. I really can't follow a word of what you said above. I think this is an English thing you're missing, you don't seem able to express this particular thought. Because the above is not a coherent response. I said "you may be right, I don't care, it has no importance in the debate". And your reply is that I'm a pretentious idiot? My original point (which you've left completley, despite my attempts to bring it back) is about the uselessness (in fact damaging effect) and unoriginality of these jokes. You seem to think the fact that liberals tend ot have more education or higher iq's or whatever matters one bit in that arguement? Cause I can't see how. Feel free to show me if you think it factors into the debate one bit. You really have no ability to debate do you. So far out of three of your replies, three have been ad hominen attacks. Anyway, seeing as you completely ignored the question the first two times I posted it I'll try a third and we'll see if I get a response this time... How does your little rant (shpeel is apparently too gay - I wonder, is all of yiddish gay? Please I'm curious) about "the problem with the left" relate to what I've said thourhg this thread at all? Here... Maybe you were saying the war itself is 'taboo'. In which case the sentance makes almost no sense. I said there's no problem talking about the war, you said that it's ridiculous an illegal war is taboo (with a question mark, though I'm not sure what you're asking because grammatically the question is ambiguous). So if you mean the illegal war itself is taboo, then your sentance reads... I put the common definition (dictionary.com) of taboo in place. Hopefully you can see how your sentance makes no sense. Anyway, so I followed that up by saying I don't think tlaing about the war is taboo (beause that was my understanding of your statement on the war being taboo). Then you for some reason said... Which simply has absolutely not one thing to do with what we were talking about. So there you go, there are all the quotes for you. The Bible exists therefore America finds sex dirty I cannot begin in any way to explain how the first is not proof of the second. And I cannot fathom that you actually think so. Please, redeem yourself and offer something else. It's the equivlant of me saying "bananas exist, therefore Canada finds pot laws too strict".
If you're going to play the spelling game and try and criticize me because I miss-type, at least use proper grammer. It would be "you're not important". However, this has no weight in any debate, so I'd hope we could both be enough past the age of two to not pretend it does. I never asserted it was important you were the person who brought up this syntax situation, grammatical questioning, etc. Not I, I admit my English sucks ass when I am not writing a formal essay etc. So really I could care less, if one cannot get past the semantics to the point then I have no reason to talk to that person. All this does is give conclusive evidence that you don't read my whole posts. I mentioned my country about four times at least, and you still didn't know it. Generally speaking I just glance over your posts, and don’t take much out of it because there isn’t much to take out. I hardly ever come to Free thoughts, and this is the reason why I get pseudo’s like yourself who’s sole purpose to waste time not to think. I really can't follow a word of what you said above. Look buddy the sentence made sense…don’t get all anglo-chauvinistic on me because you aren’t exactly perfect. As shown in the bolded words… My original point (which you've left completley, despite my attempts to bring it back) is about the uselessness (in fact damaging effect) and unoriginality of these jokes. You seem to think the fact that liberals tend ot have more education or higher iq's or whatever matters one bit in that arguement? Cause I can't see how. Feel free to show me if you think it factors into the debate one bit. My point was essentially is that low brow works in the US, the GOP insults, slanders, and misrepresents the facts and their opponents much more effectively and coherently then Democrats. Negative ads work in the US, and look at the damage done to Kerry with the Swift boats vets’ thing, or the attempted misrepresentation of THK by a conservative journalist just prior to the Democratic convention I believe, when she told him to “shove it”. You really have no ability to debate do you. I don’t need something of your intellectual calibre to tell me whether or not I am good debater, I never lost one in real life and rarely on the web. Its hard to debate with an idiot…I have to dumb myself down. How does your little rant (shpeel is apparently too gay - I wonder, is all of yiddish gay? Please I'm curious) about "the problem with the left" relate to what I've said thourhg this thread at all? Oh it’s Yiddish? I thought it was a SNL thing, anyways it’s still pretty gay within the context in which you are using it. I mean I would never be caught using that word outside a theme party…but I digress. Secondly you apoloized so why drag it out further? Maybe you were saying the war itself is 'taboo'. In which case the sentance makes almost no sense. I said there's no problem talking about the war, you said that it's ridiculous an illegal war is taboo (with a question mark, though I'm not sure what you're asking because grammatically the question is ambiguous). So if you mean the illegal war itself is taboo, then your sentance reads... No I meant what I said, here in Canada we got a commentator prior to the War in Iraq who was in the US, and said that in his IFB the control room was telling him to “tone down” the anti-Bush (meaning anti-war at the time) rhetoric. The fact that prior to the war if you opposed not only the war but the administration you were “un-American” pretty much sums up what I am saying. Which simply has absolutely not one thing to do with what we were talking about. So there you go, there are all the quotes for you. I thought that you were also implying that liberals have no shown how the war was illegal…my faux pas. The Bible exists therefore America finds sex dirty No, it’s the interpretation of the bible that matters. It's the equivlant of me saying "bananas exist, therefore Canada finds pot laws too strict". Are you a Christian by any chance? Before I go on...
Heh! Tyler, I must say - I'm a bookworm, and always ashamed of grammatical or typing errors I make. However, your excellent logic makes your spelling absolutely irrelevant to me. These attacks on you are the very definition of "ad hominen". Only about 1 part in 10 of the responses have been on-topic, most have been about the medium rather than the message.
Ah, dude. You were the first to bring up spelling, you said if I can't even spell 'the'... Remember? It wasn't spelling, it was an ambiguous sentance, it could have more than one meaning. There we have a point finally back on track. And here I disagree. Smear 'campaigns' may work. But that is vastly different from these jokes. The Swiftboat thing was them saying the reason Kerry says you should elect him (because at the time basically all Kerry had said was "look at me, I fought a war!") is a lie (note: I'm not defending the ads, I'm explaining a difference). If you tell a swing voter "Kerry's lying and I have proof (yes, I know this is debatable, but what's important is that it was their claim)", it's different then "Bush is an idiot and everyone who likes him is an idiot!" Not to mention, I don't even think this has anything to do with the topic at hand. If the jokes are only made between liberals, then fine they don't hurt no one, they just aren't funny. They're just the same bullshit repeated a thousand times a day for five years. In which case, my only comment to one who makes them is "get a life, or think of an original joke for once instead of repeating what you heard everyone else say". If they're made to or around or involving rightists or undecided, then I say the above as well as "you're probably hurting your chances of convincing the rightist/centre guy of turning side if you call him a blodothirsty idiot". Well if I'm so beneath you I'll start trying to understand how The Bible exists = The nation of America thinks sex is dirty as a whole I live in the same city as you by the way (let's see if you read it this time). Anyway, yes certain news stations want toned down anti-Bush stuff. So? How does that in any way indicate it's taboo for the people of the U.S. to talk about the war being illegal? I've also seen CNN specials on the legality of it, discussing it possibily being illegal. And read magazines from the States saying that it IS illgeal. So I have no idea what you're saying. And please, someone, anywhere, give me proof that if you politely say the war is illegal you'l be brandind un-American and no one will talk to you at all. I've heard it asserted many times, but never once seen evidence of it. No.
Ah, dude. You were the first to bring up spelling, you said if I can't even spell 'the'... Remember? “Please try and read.” That’s was your quip in that post, you instigated the situation and with the ample amount of spelling mistakes I couldn’t help myself. It wasn't spelling, it was an ambiguous sentance, it could have more than one meaning. Then use your brain…and figure out which context I was using it in. Smear 'campaigns' may work. But that is vastly different from these jokes. More then anything that is a matter of interpretation, a joke is an extremely less complicated form of smearing the other, but none the less a smear. In every joke there is bit of truth, what I am saying is that the Democrats either have to play the game with the GOP who have shown their Darwinian superiority in campaign style or develop a new one. "Bush is an idiot and everyone who likes him is an idiot!" Not to mention, I don't even think this has anything to do with the topic at hand. Ok I never seen an ad saying "Bush is an idiot and everyone who likes him is an idiot!" now you have to show me where that was said by anyone on the Kerry campaign of 527’s? You are going out there, and I’m in here (meaning the box) I am talking about actual campaigning, and Democrats were much more clean then the GOP. They're just the same bullshit repeated a thousand times a day for five years. Again if you are pissed off that the Daily show is doing its job…then something is wrong. You have to prove to me where the actual democrats and affiliates have been so straight forward with the Bush bashing. Well if I'm so beneath you I'll start trying to understand how The Bible exists = The nation of America thinks sex is dirty as a whole That is a simplistic correlation when put in that context…but once u understand the fabric of America the situation changes rather dramatically. This is the core of the problem of the American identity today, and one of them is a repressed sexuality among SOME members of American society, but whose political power is much larger. Anyway, yes certain news stations want toned down anti-Bush stuff. So? How does that in any way indicate it's taboo for the people of the U.S. to talk about the war being illegal? Are you serious…? In a democracy like the US portends to be, there is censorship? Think… I've also seen CNN specials on the legality of it, discussing it possibily being illegal. Post-war, and after things got ugly sure… And please, someone, anywhere, give me proof that if you politely say the war is illegal you'l be brandind un-American and no one will talk to you at all. I've heard it asserted many times, but never once seen evidence of it. Your so simplistic…the reason why is because its not a countable, or palpable fact, it’s a spirit of the age thing. Its just something that you know exists…don’t demand evidence of things that cannot be proven…like thought. No. So then why do you think you know what you are talking about Christian influence in the US. I am a Christian I have intimate knowledge of many people’s stances on sex within the religious context. Sorry but don’t talk about things you have no experience with…this not a debate over facts but over empirical observations, and experiences which you so lack.
Hey ''Undecided" -- I'm reborn from having been 'reborn'. I traveled the USA and Europe for a couple of years with an Evangelical Christian performance/witnessing group. I'm still even legally ordained. I've had the experiences, I used to just KNOW that I knew the ''truth''. So . . . I'd be happy to chat with you about such topics! As our moron-boy president said to the Iraqi's ''bring it on''. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey ''Undecided" -- I'm reborn from having been 'reborn'. I traveled the USA and Europe for a couple of years with an Evangelical Christian performance/witnessing group. I'm still even legally ordained. I've had the experiences, I used to just KNOW that I knew the ''truth''. Don't appeal to authority...Gravity, logical fallacies aren't pretty.
Oh please, you accused him of not having proper ''experience'' to even debate this subject with you. I was simply pointing out that I AM and I was trying to open the door to debate. But here, a simple start: the Bible is either: (A) An extemely inaccurate book, (B) Its accurate and we are ALL in trouble because it depicts an evil being as ''god'', or (C) Both.
Oh please, you accused him of not having proper ''experience'' to even debate this subject with you. Would it be appropriate to discuss Buddhism if I never read their text, been to their sermons, etc? If so then I am no better then a Republican. But here, a simple start: the Bible is either: (A) An extemely inaccurate book, (B) Its accurate and we are ALL in trouble because it depicts an evil being as ''god'', or (C) Both. I am not debating with you about the bible's theology so much as others interpretations of the book and the political implications. I don’t care for the actual theology.
Undecided: I'm...agreeing with you because I am not agreeing with you in the things I am not saying about not agreeing with you. Yay logic! I don't put anything in absolutely unequivocal terms because I don't see anything as absolutely unequivocal. Hell, you're a pathetic ill-mannered schmuck who can't get laid but you are at least politically interested, so you're not unequivocally pathetic. "Pretty like a pagan"? What, you "sorta" worship trees? Nobody can know precisely what mainstream America is, yes. So now you're saying that you know precisely that mainstream America is hostile to sex because you don't know precisely what mainstream America thinks? Umm, please quote me saying that Orlando is "a second rate trailer park town" Sorry, I overestimated your intelligence and thought you could handle some ambiguity. Your inability to READ ENGLISH. I'm going to close my eyes and pretend that makes sense. "we usually hate what we humans are hypocrites" Is not even proper English, let alone a logical argument. I mean hell, I might forgive your tactic of "argument through assertion" but dear fucking lord, is it also necessary to assrape the English language? The device they use to measure that is hardly a precise instrument. There's an article about that at www.skepdic.com but in any case, one sample in one study is not overwhelming. How do you know? You've gotten stoned with me and watched the movie in question? Oh right, you haven't, you don't even know the title. Well gee... "Dawn of the Dead" is pretty damn astute social commentary, hell give me a few shots of vodka and I'll deconstruct a fucking action flick. Your subjective opinion on a movie does not give it objective validity. In light of all the monographs, papers, polls and studies done regarding interracial relationships, I doubt that one movie is authoritative. Now maybe I think "Invasion of the Neptune Men" has the last word on space exploration, "Return of the Living Dead" the best treatment of youth culture, and I'm damned if "Mistress Lynx's Dungeons of Debauchery" isn't the last word on postfeminist gender relations, but I am not going to claim these movies to be the penultimate treatment of any subject. Actually, it would make me loved and cherished by several members of this forum. I watch Robertson and Falwell frequently. Pat Robertson gives advice on how to have a healthy sex life on the 700 Club show. I've talked to numerous hardcore Christians, I even live with one. Hell, even Fred Phelps doesn't say that heterosexual sex is sinful and bad.
Xev: The movie Die Hard was actually about foreign influence on the American market. Specifically the Japanese. Once you get passed all the killing and the yippie-kye-yay-mother-fuckering, it has an important lesson to teach about globalization. Who does shots of vodka? That's sickening. Vodka is meant to be mixed, not divided up into shots. Ugh. Leave me to my brandy and bourbon.
