Calzaer

Facts, yguy, facts.

Just the facts, ma'm, just the facts.

What? No facts? Then why do you believe it?

Oh, wait, that's a stupid question. You're a Christian, you're not allowed to look at facts.

Thapthim

I do not see how the book "Brave New World" Has to do with Gender rolls. Yguy please explain your connection. Oh wait I want this post to sound nice, so I am going to put a smiley in it ok maybe two

abe smith

uh.... probably qualifies as an ad hominem response;and Mother Mods can disallow it if they wish; of course.
And/but. I am always interested in uh rhetorical structuring (as well as in a lot of other endeavours...). I have read here at this thread a considerable sample of *yguy*'s assertions; I have read them in an effort to try to find some handle to take hold of them by?
Yguy entered this site (the EyeEye) in April 2003; that is, less than 3 months ago (now not-quite July). In that less-than-three-months, he has posted more than 1572 posts . .
Because I have a personal interest in the this-thread matter, I have spent considerably-more time reading here than I want to; and my impression is that yguy's discussion here (word-count-wise ) is disproportionately spent in invective (see passim) against the other participants in the thread. And in avoiding putting his money where his mouth is.
I have considered responding to some of yguy's more ummm
inflammatory assertions, "and/but" I find that attempting to grasp-onto his arguments is like trying to get a hold on Jello...
Hence I'll go read somewhere else. More for-my-profit.
As I leave, I'd just like to mention (my as-usual personal experience in the subject): According to yguy's criteria, I am myself as queer as a 3-dollar bill, ya know; and my only son [born & raised in a familial structure which yguy (who LACKS? personal experience?) decries as maximally-um pernicious, dys-whatchamacallit and certain to produce (something-nasty-or-other)} has grown-up to be at 40, the most "normal", bourgeois, lower-middle-class, married, Army retiree, hardworking, husband & father you could possibly imagine. And the hell with your opinions, yguy. If you had any REAL data, you could have produced them by now. (Going. Gone. Abe)

Nowhere357

Public copulation violates the rights of others. Say, that wasn't so hard. My position is sound - your position needs rethinking.

It hurts to learn your position makes no logical sense. I understand your desire to withdraw. Feel free.

yguy

How exactly would that be?

And since the viewing and production of virtual child porn among adults in private doesn't violate anyone's rights, I guess such activity is as inalienable as the right to engage in anal sex.

Right?

Vylo

It violates the rights of the child, as they are being used to gratify someone elses sexual desires, without their knowledge of what is really going on.

scigirl

Ok I think we need to get this conversation back on topic, so here we go:

I just learned that the USA is thinking about allowing psychologists to prescribe prescriptions. I think this is dangerous, because now they can prescribe combinations of meds to patients which will kill them. For example - now they can go running around telling their patients to take oxycodone and clonazepam together. Clearly this would hurt our moral fabric.

Remember that quote from Hippocrates, "Life is short and the art long." I won't bother explaining how that quote proves my point, because it should be obvious even to you dense atheists.

Still don't believe me? Go to Canada and check out how they sew canadian flags on everything, and then tell me that this doesn't support my theory that allowing psychologists to prescribe meds won't lead to the downfall of society.

scigirl

cheetah

LOL

Scigirl, I thought you were off your rocker at first! It took me a minute. I trust your posts so much that I really thought you were going to bring this around somehow, and I was very seriously reading your info.

Seriously, though, is anything productive still happening in this thread?

scigirl

Mwa hahah! Well the debate about whether to allow psychologists to prescribe meds is a real one - but everything else was bullshit of course! I tried to think of a silly argument where allowing a moral (or indifferent) action would "clearly" lead to a bunch of unrelated immoral actions, and that's what I came up with.

scigirl

Edited to add - I wonder how long it will take Nightshade to see my Canadian flag comment!

Thapthim

Oh my god, I have sown a Canadian Flag on one of my vests, I am destroying the world of American Psychology! Thank you for letting me see the light scigirl!



edit: oops a couple typos