Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

OTP - March 2014: Russia denies calling shots in Ukraine’s Crimea standoff

Only Babe Ruth calls shots!

At a press conference for Kremlin-controlled media on Tuesday, Putin reiterated his position that Moscow has the right to use “all means” necessary to protect ethnic Russians and vital military assets in Ukraine, first among them the Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

 

Bitter Mouse Posted: March 05, 2014 at 08:54 AM | 3254 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: lies, politics, war

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 19 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >  Last ›
   1801. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4673291)
Snapper, the 'nuclear family' was not 'the most fundamental sexual relationship in society'. In 1970, it had been in existence for about 35 years.
   1802. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4673294)
The NH Republicans didn't become Democrats, lots of Massachusetts Democrats moved to NH.


Someone get Sarah Palin on this. Someone needs to stand up for Real New Hampshirians.
   1803. GregD Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4673297)
I am pro-nuclear family. I get defining it as an important foundation to society.

I don't get defining it as tradition or history. It seems obvious to me that explicit and implicit polygamy (men with mistresses/slaves/concubines) has defined much more of human history.

That's fine. We should defend positions because they work not because they are traditional.
   1804. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4673299)
The NH Republicans didn't become Democrats, lots of Massachusetts Democrats moved to NH.

Wouldn't this be one of those distinctions without a difference?
   1805. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4673300)
I don't get defining it as tradition or history. It seems obvious to me that explicit and implicit polygamy (men with mistresses/slaves/concubines) has defined much more of human history.

Not Western history; I think everyone here knows I'm a Eurocentrist (i.e. I believe Western civilization, especially Christian Western civilization, to be superior to all others). Yes, a few wealthy and powerful men had mistresses/concubines in addition to their wives, but going back to the Classical world, Western society practiced one spouse at a time (even among the Romans, where divorce was quite common).

Snapper, the 'nuclear family' was not 'the most fundamental sexual relationship in society'. In 1970, it had been in existence for about 35 years.

Monogamy only dates to 1935? I'll alert the presses. There was virtually no polygamy in the Western world in the last 2000 years.
   1806. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4673305)
Wouldn't this be one of those distinctions without a difference?

It doesn't matter practically, but the implication of what I quoted was that the "poisonous Republican brand" had turned formerly staunch Republicans into Democrats. That isn't what happened.
   1807. GregD Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4673307)
Snapper, I thought you were a Bible guy? Both polygamy and concubinage seemed utterly banal in the era and region described in the Old Testament.
   1808. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM (#4673313)
Monogamy only dates to 1935? I'll alert the presses.


You know we see when you try to casually replace "the nuclear family" with "monogamy," right?
   1809. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4673315)
Snapper, I thought you were a Bible guy? Both polygamy and concubinage seemed utterly banal in the era and region described in the Old Testament.

Yes, but that's 2500 years ago.
   1810. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4673317)
You know we see when you try to casually replace "the nuclear family" with "monogamy," right?

I'm not the one who introduced the term. I clearly spoke of the "most important sexual relationship". What ever you want to call it, the sexual relationship between one husband and one wife has been fundamental to Western Civilization for at least 2000 years, whether they happen to live with extended family or not.
   1811. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4673318)
I don't know the NH specifics, but I believe that while the South East was turning red, the North East was turning blue. of course other changes were happening as well, and much of it was due to the demographic shifts (both in how moved where, who was being born/died) and also people changing party affiliation. The change in party affiliation happened at different rates in different states, and at different rates at the state election versus national election level, but almost all of that has been sorted out by now (there are still a couple legacy Reps and Senators around, we will lose some this very election I bet).

And when I say SE and NE, other regions in the US have gone through changes as well, just not as stark.
   1812. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4673319)
Both polygamy and concubinage seemed utterly banal in the era and region described in the Old Testament.


The Almighty can change his mind as to what's he considers acceptable. He's the Almighty!
   1813. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4673321)
What ever you want to call it, the sexual relationship between one husband and one wife has been fundamental to Western Civilization for at least 2000 years, whether they happen to live with extended family or not.


I doubt your faith in the faithfulness of the average western man.
   1814. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4673324)
I doubt your faith in the faithfulness of the average western man.

The faithfullness of spouses is irrelevant to the existence of the social structure. We're not talking morality here, we're talking an organizational building block of society.

There is also evidence that faithfullness was quite high in the past (nobility excluded). British researcher did genetic testing on men with surnames they found had a single point of origin (Sykes was the one of them that I remember), and they found only a 1.3% (edited) non-paternity rate over hundreds of years.

Edit: Found the study, 1.3% non-paternity per generation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288207/

And just looking at Wiki, evidence is that non-paternity still only ranges at 1-2% among whites.
   1815. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4673329)
I can agree with snapper that marriage has been an organizational building block of current society. I can also agree with snapper in #1809 that the world changes. I just don't think he that can agree with himself on these two put together.
   1816. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4673332)
I can agree with snapper that marriage has been an organizational building block of current society. I can also agree with snapper in #1809 that the world changes. I just don't think he that can agree with himself on these two put together.

I don't see the contradiction? The world changes. Some changes are good (move from polygamy to monogamy) and some are bad (move away from monogamy to whatever we're seeing now).

As rational beings with free will, we should embrace good changes and oppose and try to reverse bad changes.

The evidence is incontrovertible that the lack of 2 parents families is terrible for children on ever metric of socio-economic development, and is hugely causitive of poverty for women and children.

Why shouldn't we (as a society) resist and try to reverse such a damaging trend? Don't tell me we can't "legislate morality". We do it all the time.

A large segment of society has decided, however, that individual sexual autonomy is more important than any other values that we hold.
   1817. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4673335)
Does it really matter how far back the "nuclear family" goes? The more important questions are:

Does it work?

Does it work for all parts equally?

To the extent that it's been breaking down over the past 50 years, what are the primary and secondary causes of the breakdown?

And if it seems that there are multiple causes for the breakdown, why shouldn't we try to address all of them, rather than pretending that addressing only one part will solve everything?

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, don't MOST children benefit from a stable, two parent family situation?

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, don't MOST adults tend to do better when they're engaged in a stable relationship, rather than when they're jumping from one partner to another?

But for people who are trapped in a longstanding unhappy relationship, wouldn't SOME or even MANY of them be better off breaking free of it?

As for causes of the breakdown, why WOULDN'T a culture that with a thousand signals a day promotes the idea that "you can do better", and that you can prolong your adolescence into your 20's or 30's, NOT be the best promoter of family stability? This is a point that goes a lot deeper than the young and studly and the young and foxy hooking up for a series of one nighters. That's not exactly a new development.

And why WOULDN'T the increasing difficulty in affording the basics of a middle class lifestyle also wreak havoc upon family stability? If a family is spending half of its income on rent or a mortgage payment, how is that conducive to good relationships and happy children?

Without getting personal, I think that some people understand (or acknowledge) the many causes of the nuclear family breakdown a lot better than others. This issue really SHOULDN'T be part of the so-called "culture wars", but some people seem determined to make it so.

   1818. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4673338)
Does it really matter how far back the "nuclear family" goes? The more important questions are:

Does it work?

Does it work for all parts equally?

To the extent that it's been breaking down over the past 50 years, what are the primary and secondary causes of the breakdown?

And if it seems that there are multiple causes for the breakdown, why shouldn't we try to address all of them, rather than pretending that addressing only one part will solve everything?

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, don't MOST children benefit from a stable, two parent family situation?

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, don't MOST adults tend to do better when they're engaged in a stable relationship, rather than when they're jumping from one partner to another?

But for people who are trapped in a longstanding unhappy relationship, wouldn't SOME or even MANY of them be better off breaking free of it?

As for causes of the breakdown, why WOULDN'T a culture that with a thousand signals a day promotes the idea that "you can do better", and that you can prolong your adolescence into your 20's or 30's, NOT be the best promoter of family stability? This is a point that goes a lot deeper than the young and studly and the young and foxy hooking up for a series of one nighters. That's not exactly a new development.

And why WOULDN'T the increasing difficulty in affording the basics of a middle class lifestyle also wreak havoc upon family stability? If a family is spending half of its income on rent or a mortgage payment, how is that conducive to good relationships and happy children?

Without getting personal, I think that some people understand (or acknowledge) the many causes of the nuclear family breakdown a lot better than others. This issue really SHOULDN'T be part of the so-called "culture wars", but some people seem determined to make it so.


I agree with all of that.

Re-establishing the economic stability of the working and lower-middle class is clearly very important to family stability. There is causation in both directions.

The issue about getting agreement on a "broad-front" approach, is that large segments of the secular left refuse to acknowledge family breakdown is even a problem.
   1819. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4673342)
I can agree with snapper that marriage has been an organizational building block of current society.


Actually, so can I. That is, in fact, why Snapper should join us in supporting gay marriage. Opening up a fundamental social building block to more members of society is good for society, as it brings the stability of that institution to formerly marginalized groups. Snapper may not be completely off base on his general critique of the impact of the sexual revolution on familial, and thus social stability. But his refusal to advance that stability to as many people as possible is at odds with his proposed import of that stability to the world.

If monogamous marriage = fundamental glue that holds society together, then more monogamous marriage = fundamental good for society.
   1820. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4673343)
I agree with all of that.

Re-establishing the economic stability of the working and lower-middle class is clearly very important to family stability. There is causation in both directions.

The issue about getting agreement on a "broad-front" approach, is that large segments of the secular left refuse to acknowledge family breakdown is even a problem.


But that's only part of it. The other part is the concentrated efforts of conservatives to destroy the social safety net, which is just as much a cause of the sort of tensions that can tear families apart. It's nice to pretend that having clearheaded moral values will trump all material adversity, but that's not the way it often works.
   1821. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4673348)
But that's only part of it. The other part is the concentrated efforts of conservatives to destroy the social safety net, which is just as much a cause of the sort of tensions that can tear families apart. It's nice to pretend that having clearheaded moral values will trump all material adversity, but that's not the way it often works.

That's a huge overbid. Conservatives have not successfully repealed any welfare programs. They just haven't expanded them as fast as you would like.

Republicans have done far more damage to the working man through free-trade and pro-Corporate/Globalization policies than through any welfare changes.
   1822. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4673354)
Conservatives have not successfully repealed any welfare programs. They just haven't expanded them as fast as you would like.


Not "as you would like," as much as "as required to keep up with the gutting of real wages in America." There are two real big-picture solutions to this problem. The first is to drastically alter the economic landscape to staunch the upward hoarding of wealth by the "1%." The other is to leave the economic playing field as it is, but to expand the welfare state robustly to catch the people who fall through the cracks ever more frequently, due to the hoarding of wealthy by the 1%. Either would be functional, if done smartly. Both are opposed viciously by the GOP and conservatives. The rich, of course, want their cake and to eat it to.
   1823. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4673356)
Actually, so can I. That is, in fact, why Snapper should join us in supporting gay marriage. Opening up a fundamental social building block to more members of society is good for society, as it brings the stability of that institution to formerly marginalized groups. Snapper may not be completely off base on his general critique of the impact of the sexual revolution on familial, and thus social stability. But his refusal to advance that stability to as many people as possible is at odds with his proposed import of that stability to the world.

If monogamous marriage = fundamental glue that holds society together, then more monogamous marriage = fundamental good for society.


I disagree that gay unions can play that role. The move towards gay marriage has not coincided with any strengthening of heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage by its nature can not unite two people in the raising and care of the children they have together.

If anything, it simply helps cement the view that marriage is a capstone event for affluent people who have "made it", and want a big ceremony.
   1824. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4673357)
I disagree that gay unions can play that role.


Bare assertion. Basically "marriage is good for the people I want to get married, but not for the people I don't want to acknowledge."

The move towards gay marriage has not coincided with any strengthening of heterosexual marriage.


How on earth can you even begin to make this argument outside of blind faith? We don't exactly have a good data set to work with on the subject. What little data we have suggest the opposite of your claim.

Gay marriage by its nature can not unite two people in the raising and care of the children they have together.


All of those adopted kids and children of gays and lesbians being raised in happy, healthy homes might disagree, but don't let facts get in the way of a good religious bias.

If anything, it simply helps cement the view that marriage is a capstone event for affluent people who have "made it", and want a big ceremony.


This is the kicker, of course. You honestly think gays and lesbians get married in order to "have a big ceremony" rather than to assert publicly their monogamous lifetime devotion to the person they love. You clearly don't know many gay or lesbian couples who have gotten married. If you did, you couldn't possibly maintain this level of pure, unadulterated (and yes, bigoted) ignorance.
   1825. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4673358)
Not "as you would like," as much as "as required to keep up with the gutting of real wages in America." There are two real big-picture solutions to this problem. The first is to drastically alter the economic landscape to staunch the upward hoarding of wealth by the "1%." The other is to leave the economic playing field as it is, but to expand the welfare state robustly to catch the people who fall through the cracks ever more frequently, due to the hoarding of wealthy by the 1%. Either would be functional, if done smartly. Both are opposed viciously by the GOP and conservatives. The rich, of course, want their cake and to eat it to.

Expanding the welfare state will only make the situation worse. We've discovered no way to enhance the income of poor/working class people without 1) destroying the incentive to work, and 2) hindering family formation. The welfare state doesn't solve income inequality, it exacerbates it.

We can't effectively move 50% of our population to the dole and retain a robust free-market Republic. Choice one is our only option.
   1826. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4673359)
Expanding the welfare state will only make the situation worse.


Again, bare assertion. I know what you believe. You've still shown zero evidence that your beliefs are anything other than blind faith.
   1827. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4673360)
All of those adopted kids and children of gays and lesbians being raised in happy, healthy homes might disagree, but don't let facts get in the way of a good religious bias.

And if those kids had bad outcomes, you'd still favor gay marriage. Your belief is every bit as religious as mine.
   1828. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4673362)
I disagree that gay unions can play that role.


Point of order, they are Gay Marriages. Full stop. Exactly the same as a Heterosexual marriage as recognized by the civil authorities (in those states - ever increasing - that recognize such things).

Civil Unions are dead. Put a fork in them. No separate drinking fountains or anything, everyone gets marriage.
   1829. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4673364)
Well, I am not sure why I baited the snapper trap... but I guess in for a penny...

The evidence is incontrovertible that the lack of 2 parents families is terrible for children on ever metric of socio-economic development, and is hugely causitive of poverty for women and children.


Actually it's totally controvertible. What you mean is - everyone agrees that it's probably true, but in fact the evidence for this is circumstantial.
For the 50,000th time, correlation is not causation.

Here is an example:

People who smoke have a higher incidence of lung cancer. That's a correlation.
Cigarette smoke (really all smoke) contains various compounds which intercolate into DNA and increase the rate of mutations. Increasing the rate of mutations in dividing cells (for instance lung lining cells) increases the chances of developing pre-cancers and those cells developing into full blown cancer. Thats causation - and those aren't just hypothesis, they have strong physical evidence and a working model every step of the way.

Did I miss a paper or does someone have causative evidence for 1 parent being "terrible for children". And I am not even disputing that it is terrible. It seems terrible. It probably IS terrible. But you cannot make the direct link between the NUMBER OF PARENTS EQUAL TO TWO AND ONLY TWO. Maybe 3 parents is better. Maybe 30 parents with 15 children -- "it takes a village"-- is better. There are a zillion of other confounding factors - the most likely of which is simply that single parent families have no money. And in fact although you say it's CAUSITIVE for poverty, it could equally be the other way around - poverty causes single parent families, or a feedback loop or any number of things.

That's without EVEN GETTING INTO *why* there are more single parent families. You can hypothesize, you can make cogent and reasoned arguments. But *incontrovertable*??. Look it up.

The fact is -- your personal morality and belief system is telling you what you already know to be true. So is mine. That's how the human brain functions. The difference is I realize it.
EDIT: Actually you acknowledge this 1 post above. The difference is you tell people what to do and I don't. Except "don't shoot people". I am kinda a stickler for that one.


ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, don't MOST children benefit from a stable, two parent family situation?

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, don't MOST adults tend to do better when they're engaged in a stable relationship, rather than when they're jumping from one partner to another?


Here the error is just treating people as statistics instead of unique snowflakes. I realize as (pretend) shapers of policy we don't have much else... but that doesn't make it right.
   1830. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4673365)
Does it really matter how far back the "nuclear family" goes? The more important questions are:

Does it work?

Does it work for all parts equally?


In any culture/society, when couples are physically/financially able to get out from under the extended family, to from their own separate independent unit they do so en masse-

the nuclear family structure is what most (or at least a large plurality of) people seem to prefer if given the opportunity.
   1831. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4673366)
Again, bare assertion. I know what you believe. You've still shown zero evidence that your beliefs are anything other than blind faith.

Right back at you, chief.

I've seen the social disintegration of the working class relegated to the dole in every Western nation over the past 50 years. But you take the typical leftist approach, if the medicine caused a bad reaction, the issue must be that the dose wan't high enough.
   1832. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4673367)
Point of order, they are Gay Marriages. Full stop. Exactly the same as a Heterosexual marriage as recognized by the civil authorities (in those states - ever increasing - that recognize such things).

Civil Unions are dead. Put a fork in them. no separate drinking fountains or anything, everyone gets marriage.


And I don't recognize the state has the right to define or redefine marriage, anymore than the Indiana Legislature could make Pi = 3.2. Marriage is what it is, regardless of what the state says it is.
   1833. steagles Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4673371)
The evidence is incontrovertible that the lack of 2 parents families is terrible for children on ever metric of socio-economic development, and is hugely causitive of poverty for women and children.
correlation does not equal causation. i think you're trying to reduce a very complex societal issue to a slogan that conforms to your religious ideals, and that's not how the world works.

   1834. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4673372)
...can not unite two people in the raising and care of the children they have together.

I have little interest in debating gay issues with snapper, we know how that one goes on each side.

BUT

Plenty of straight people adopt. MOSTLY it is straight people who adopt. And have for centuries. Were these people not part of the building blocks?
   1835. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4673375)
What puzzles me is the assumption - unstated but I believe real - that government assistance is somehow qualitatively different than private assistance.

References to "the dole" being a dead giveaway here. I don't think there is any qualitative difference.

That said as a safety net supporting leftist here are my priorities.

1) Make sure people have the safety net support they need to support basic subsistence (relative to the society they are in) and to provide the basic means to better themselves and their children.

2) Structure the above support so that has a minimum of negative externalities.

And in priorities, #1 is far above #2. But all the right ever talks about is #2, and for most of them (you likely not included), that is because they want to use #2 as an excuse to weaken #1.

That's a huge overbid. Conservatives have not successfully repealed any welfare programs. They just haven't expanded them as fast as you would like.


Just because they have failed, does not mean they are not trying. The modern GOP clearly wants to destroy the safety net. They are (so far) failing, but I don't want to give them more "credit" than they deserve.
   1836. GregD Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4673386)
I disagree that gay unions can play that role. The move towards gay marriage has not coincided with any strengthening of heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage by its nature can not unite two people in the raising and care of the children they have together.

If anything, it simply helps cement the view that marriage is a capstone event for affluent people who have "made it", and want a big ceremony.
Are you willing to withdraw rights of marriage for heterosexuals who can't have children or who schedule a ceremony that is too gaudy for your taste? Or do these judgments literally only apply to gays?

And I don't recognize the state has the right to define or redefine marriage, anymore than the Indiana Legislature could make Pi = 3.2. Marriage is what it is, regardless of what the state says it is.
Should all people of faith refuse to register their marriages?

If not, if people of faith should register their marriages in order to accrue the benefits the government gives to the married, then doesn't the government have the right to adjust those benefits? Or has every alteration of the tax code for marital couples been a violation of the definition of marriage? Should people protest the creation of the married but filing separately category?
   1837. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4673388)
I just had a long post eating by the web-site. Don't have time to redo.
   1838. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4673393)
But you take the typical leftist approach, if the medicine caused a bad reaction, the issue must be that the dose wan't high enough.


Key words bolded.

EDIT: Actually this is such a brilliant example I have to elaborate:

Let's break this down, shall we?

1) You feel sick.
2) You go to the doctor
3) Doctor makes a diagnosis
4) Doctor prescribes treatment
5) You take treatment
6) You get worse

What could have happened here?

- You could not be sick at all, just faking it or a hypochondriac.
- Doctor could have made wrong diagnosis
- Doctor/Pharmacy could have given you wrong medicine accidentally, batch could be bad.
- You could have misapplied treatment - "what do you think I did with those suppositories, stuck 'em up my butt?"
- Dose could be not high enough
- Treatment could be ineffective in your genetic background
- There is some other interaction with another drug/food/environment that screwed up the treatment
- You simply didn't wait long enough to get better
and finally
- the drug/treatment is simply ineffective.

So, yes, jumping to conclusions based on your cognitive biases is bad. My point exactly.
   1839. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4673394)
Marriage is what it is,


A political arrangement between two families and their underage wards for the purposes of strengthening political and economic relations.
   1840. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4673396)
And I don't recognize the state has the right to define or redefine marriage, anymore than the Indiana Legislature could make Pi = 3.2. Marriage is what it is, regardless of what the state says it is.


Nonsense. All of the statistics you reference are based on numbers collected on secular marriage. When the term is used by you, it is those marriages. You are not quoting figures on ceremonies recognized by an approved collection of religious organizations, you are quoting figures on all marriages that are state recognized.

If you want to show you numbers based on religious marriages versus secular (justice of the peace only), or snapper approved versus non-approved feel free to do the breakdown, but you have not ever done that. Basically no one does, because it is the state that collects the figures, so you are stuck using them, if you want to use numbers to bolster your case.

No one cares* if you recognize a marriage, society has chosen to legally recognize them and many religions have done so as well. Gays are not engaged in unions, they are married. You can feel free to call them unions if you want, just like you can refuse to use common names for various groups like African Americans, Native Americans or whatever. Hell call the color purple "bled' (for blue/red) if you want, but the word has a meaning.

Note: Amusingly looking at the various web definitions their are a range from agreeing with me to agreeing with snapper. Inside of five years they will all agree with me. Change happens at different rates, but it is happening.

* Edit: Well I care, and I don't hold it against you, but I still think you are wrong.
   1841. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4673398)
And if those kids had bad outcomes, you'd still favor gay marriage.


Luckily we have data from the real world which strongly indicates the kids have good outcomes, not bad outcomes. So keep throwing counterfactuals at the wall because you want your beliefs to trump reality, I guess. Ima stick with what we know, as best we can suss that out.
   1842. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4673399)
I just had a long post eating by the web-site. Don't have time to redo.

I don't suppose it was about adoption? ;-)
   1843. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4673400)
But that's only part of it. The other part is the concentrated efforts of conservatives to destroy the social safety net, which is just as much a cause of the sort of tensions that can tear families apart. It's nice to pretend that having clearheaded moral values will trump all material adversity, but that's not the way it often works.


Andy is going to do everything he can to not admit the culpability of the Democratic Party in ripping up the real safety net, which is a good job for all that want one. The dole is a feeble substitute.
   1844. GregD Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4673401)
I just had a long post eating by the web-site. Don't have time to redo.
I recall now that you have addressed the issue of non-reproducing married heterosexuals before so no need to reprise that.
   1845. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4673403)
And I don't recognize the state has the right to define or redefine marriage, anymore than the Indiana Legislature could make Pi = 3.2.


Because marriage is totally like math. You reach so hard on this issue just to keep a small minority of people you dislike in a social pariah box.
   1846. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4673405)
Russia killed a Ukrainian serviceman in Crimea (a/k/a Fort Sumpter) today; the next step is obviously seeing whether the Ukrainian servicemen who have spent their lives and careers there will surrender or leave. I can't see their political leadership asking them to.(*) So if Russia tries to remove them by force, it's pretty much on.

(*) Though query whether they're being pressured to by Europe or the US.
   1847. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4673406)
In any culture/society, when couples are physically/financially able to get out from under the extended family, to from their own separate independent unit they do so en masse-

the nuclear family structure is what most (or at least a large plurality of) people seem to prefer if given the opportunity.


This is an important point. Of course people also prefer easy divorce, allowing gays to marry (recently), allowing divorced people to remarry, allowing various types of sexual behavior, and so on.

Freedom is important. Choice is important. Allowing people enough resources to have freedom of choice (Are we not men?) is important and part of what the safety net is all about.
   1848. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4673408)
The dole is a feeble substitute.


As someone above pointed out, the use of the word "dole" reveals your biases. Paid family leave, subsidized housing, day care, after school programs, school breakfast and lunch programs, health care...there are a ton of ways to expand the social safety net that are more than handing out the "dole", but to conservatives who want to gut such programs, everything falls under the category of "the dole". Makes for a more effective sound bite.
   1849. BrianBrianson Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4673410)
the nuclear family structure is what most (or at least a large plurality of) people seem to prefer if given the opportunity.


Yes, and if you don't ban them marrying, and make jobs available, and don't throw people in prison for bullshit (mostly, I mean pot), then they'll seek out marriages on their own. Merely making the pariahs, or compelling them to stay in bad/abusive marriages, doesn't help (and doesn't help the kids neither).
   1850. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4673412)
As someone above pointed out, the use of the word "dole" reveals your biases. Paid family leave, subsidized housing, day care, after school programs, school breakfast and lunch programs, health care...there are a ton of ways to expand the social safety net that are more than handing out the "dole",

Those are neither the dole, nor the safety net.

Which doesn't really get to the point anyway, which is the Democratic Party's collusion in killing American jobs (and wages). Naturally, the Republican Party is the party of capital, but the Democrats have gleefully joined in the hollowing out of the nation's middle class and wage base.
   1851. GregD Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4673414)
Which doesn't really get to the point anyway, which is the Democratic Party's collusion in killing American jobs.
I think several of us here think:
1) The Democratic Party especially in the 1970s took actions that undercut good jobs and was not as aggressive in 2009-2010 as it should have been
2) The Republican Party has a much, much worse and more consistent record of job destruction

   1852. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4673417)
Andy is going to do everything he can to not admit the culpability of the Democratic Party in ripping up the real safety net, which is a good job for all that want one. The dole is a feeble substitute.


No.

The safety net is a basic function of (progressive) governance which provides for the basic needs of the people. It is wide ranging from bankruptcy laws to SNAP. It is a separate function of government to manage the economy so that full employment is maintained as much as possible (and other sundry activities monetary and otherwise).

However everyone in the western world (slight exaggeration) realizes that even under conditions of full employment there will be those in need of the safety net. There are always those undergoing unemployment (usually cyclical or frictional) even under normal full employment conditions. There are also those who are unemployable (disabled, children, and so on) who require the safety net.

Conflating the governments job to provide a safety net with the governments job to provide conditions of full employment is ... well ... really dumb.
   1853. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4673424)
Ukrainian soldiers now authorized to use arms in Crimea. Putin's easy victory and propaganda whipping Russians into nationalistic frenzy, centered around resentment of the West and the Cold War settlement.

Very dangerous situation.
   1854. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4673428)
I don't suppose it was about adoption? ;-)

Quickly, adoption is a very hard behavior to fit into any logical construct, or drawclear implications from it. Unless it is a close relative, adopting a child is a fundamentally altruistic, non-rational action.

It's like someone who gives up all their possession to serve the poor, or work in a leper colony. It's certainly admirable, but I can't really explain it, and I don't know if you can draw conclusions about the rest of society from it.

   1855. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4673430)
Anyone else having trouble with the web-site? It has now crashed on me in both Chrome and Firefox today.
   1856. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4673435)
Anyone else having trouble with the web-site? It has now crashed on me in both Chrome and Firefox today.


Nope.
   1857. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4673440)
Which doesn't really get to the point anyway, which is the Democratic Party's collusion in killing American jobs.


Collusion in increasing productivity so that we produce twice what we produced in 1950 while needing only 60% of the workers?
   1858. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4673441)
Nope.


Me, neither, other than finding myself logged out for no apparent reason. That's pretty much a once-a-day occurrence, regardless of browser (usually Chrome, though).
   1859. The Good Face Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4673442)
Quickly, adoption is a very hard behavior to fit into any logical construct, or drawclear implications from it. Unless it is a close relative, adopting a child is a fundamentally altruistic, non-rational action.

It's like someone who gives up all their possession to serve the poor, or work in a leper colony. It's certainly admirable, but I can't really explain it, and I don't know if you can draw conclusions about the rest of society from it.


Pretty much. The only thing that saves my kids sometimes is the fact that they share my DNA. I couldn't begin to imagine raising some random, non-relative's kids. Obviously some people do it, and that's great, but it's hard to figure from an evolutionary biology/psychology perspective.

Anyone else having trouble with the web-site? It has now crashed on me in both Chrome and Firefox today.


No worse than usual.
   1860. ASmitty Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4673443)
I couldn't begin to imagine raising some random, non-relative's kids. Obviously some people do it, and that's great, but it's hard to figure from an evolutionary biology/psychology perspective.


I was watching Planet Earth last night, and the mother penguins whose babies died would fight for the opportunity to raise orphaned baby penguins. I don't think the parental urge is quite so evolutionarily honed that it's restricted to our seed.
   1861. The Good Face Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4673444)
I was watching Planet Earth last night, and the mother penguins whose babies died would fight for the opportunity to raise orphaned baby penguins. I don't think the parental urge is quite so evolutionarily honed that it's restricted to our seed.


People ain't penguins.
   1862. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4673446)
Obviously some people do it, and that's great, but it's hard to figure from an evolutionary biology/psychology perspective.


EO Wilson, and others, have done some layman accessible work on the evolutionary biology of altruism. On Human Nature* is (I think) his most cited work.

Besides you don't have to understand it. The point is that if you are going to praise the family unit, it is more than just the nuclear family of strictly biologically related entities. Remarriage, adoption and so on are reality. One can examine the impact of the various permutations of families without ever understanding why that family state came into being.

* NOTE: I am not endorsing everything he says or anything like it (he is a mixed bag IMO), but from that and other things (not as memorable) I have read since then folks have done work on that sort of thing. It does make sense how altruism evolved.

   1863. steagles Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4673447)
Quickly, adoption is a very hard behavior to fit into any logical construct, or drawclear implications from it. Unless it is a close relative, adopting a child is a fundamentally altruistic, non-rational action.

It's like someone who gives up all their possession to serve the poor, or work in a leper colony. It's certainly admirable, but I can't really explain it, and I don't know if you can draw conclusions about the rest of society from it.

if you don't understand why someone would adopt a non-biologically related child, maybe you shouldn't have children. i know this has caused problems in this thread before, but i think you should read what you just wrote and consider why you think that distinction makes a difference.

   1864. ASmitty Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4673449)
People ain't penguins.


Then no wonder you're having a hard time figuring it out from an evolutionary biology standpoint.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on my kids. They look cold.
   1865. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4673451)
I was watching Planet Earth last night, and the mother penguins whose babies died would fight for the opportunity to raise orphaned baby penguins. I don't think the parental urge is quite so evolutionarily honed that it's restricted to our seed.

Right, but that suggests it's non-rational, which makes it hard to use as evidence in logic based arguments.
   1866. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4673453)
People ain't penguins.


Just when I was coming to grips with the assertion that grits ain't groceries, you dump this on me.

Goddammit. Back to the drawing board.
   1867. The Good Face Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4673454)
Besides you don't have to understand it. The point is that if you are going to praise the family unit, it is more than just the nuclear family of strictly biologically related entities. Remarriage, adoption and so on are reality. One can examine the impact of the various permutations of families without ever understanding why that family state came into being.


I've never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage certain types of family formation over others.
   1868. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4673455)
I don't think the parental urge is quite so evolutionarily honed that it's restricted to our seed.


More correctly, the evolutionary instinct is honed to the point where we care for young is NOT limited to "our seed." The reason human primates out compete other mammals, reptiles and pretty much everything else, is precisely BECAUSE the species has evolved beyond the "ain't my spunk, ain't my junk" theory of carrying for the young. TGF's position is, rather unsurprisingly, devolved.
   1869. ASmitty Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4673456)
i know this has caused problems in this thread before, but i think you should read what you just wrote and consider why you think that distinction makes a difference.


Ding, ding, ding!

Your kids aren't special. They're human babies, no different from any other human baby. The fact that they share your DNA may give you a biological bout of the warm fuzzies, but it makes no real, logical difference.

If you only care for your kids because they're your biological seed, then you are viewing parenting from a standpoint that is so aggressively biological that even "dumb" animals don't endorse it. Caring for children qua human beings is decidedly more of a "human" way to look at child rearing.
   1870. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4673457)
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage certain types of family formation over others.


If by "we" you mean society, then sure. We should encourage family types that work. Every study of the limited data indicates that gay and lesbian families work just as well as two Christian's ####### in the missionary position.
   1871. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4673458)
Besides you don't have to understand it. The point is that if you are going to praise the family unit, it is more than just the nuclear family of strictly biologically related entities. Remarriage, adoption and so on are reality. One can examine the impact of the various permutations of families without ever understanding why that family state came into being.

If you're going to make logical arguments about what behavior to encourage/discourage then you have to understand.

If you're just willing to rely on the accumulated traditions and wisdom of generations, then you're in my camp. But you guys are the ones arguing that the traditions no longer should be followed.

You won't accept my tradition/religion based arguments, so we're left with logic and reason as our only field of dialogue.
   1872. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4673460)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on my kids. They look cold.


We have a winner for the page.

Seriously though it is OK to not understand why people do things. Much of the time people themselves don't understand why they do things. That does not make it any less real or valid.

The fact that there are plenty of non-biologically "pure" families out there and from everything I have seen the kids still end up OK is enough for me.
   1873. GregD Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4673461)
People ain't penguins.


You sure?
   1874. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4673463)
Much of the time people themselves don't understand why they do things.


For example, I try to talk sense to you lot pretty much every day. Rational experience suggests that you're never going to learn, but still I come down from the mountain and try to raise you slovenly fvkcs above your natural stations. And for what? Why do I even bother?
   1875. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4673464)
If you're going to make logical arguments about what behavior to encourage/discourage then you have to understand.


No. You have to understand the impact of the decision, you don't need to understand the motivation of the decision.

I don't need to know why LeBron James took his talents to South Beach to analyze the impact to the Heat, the Cavs, and the rest of the NBA. Similarly one can look at the outcomes of various permutations of families and draw conclusions.
   1876. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4673465)
Snapper, the 'nuclear family' was not 'the most fundamental sexual relationship in society'. In 1970, it had been in existence for about 35 years.


You're referring, presumably, to the Manhattan Project?
   1877. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4673468)
People ain't penguins.


You've never seen me bust this move out at parties.
   1878. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4673472)
Oswald Cobblepot says *squawk*.
   1879. The Good Face Posted: March 18, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4673473)
The reason human primates out compete other mammals, reptiles and pretty much everything else, is precisely BECAUSE the species has evolved beyond the "ain't my spunk, ain't my junk" theory of carrying for the young.


Swing and a miss. Penguins have apparently moved beyond "ain't my spunk, ain't my junk" and they're a bunch of goofy birds freezing their asses off in the middle of nowhere. Look elsewhere for why humans have outcompeted other mammals.

Your kids aren't special. They're human babies, no different from any other human baby.


Actually they are; they're MINE. I wouldn't have put up with all the BS that goes along with babies if they weren't; there are people and places who do, and if I somehow found myself with a baby that wasn't mine, that's where it'd go.

If you only care for your kids because they're your biological seed, then you are viewing parenting from a standpoint that is so aggreesively biological that even "dumb" animals don't endorse it.


In some perfectly successful species, adults will kill young who are not their biological offspring.

Caring for children qua human beings is decidedly more of a "human" way to look at child rearing.


Humans are animals.

If by "we" you mean society, then sure. We should encourage family types that work. Every study of the limited data indicates that gay and lesbian families work just as well as two Christian's ####### in the missionary position.


I support gay marriage. I think it furthers public policy on several fronts.
   1880. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4673482)
White House official quits over policy dispute - WHITE HOUSE PASTRY CHEF RESIGNS:
White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses is resigning after First Lady Michelle Obama fundamentally changed his job duties to focus on healthier food. Yosses is leaving the White House in June to work on a new project focusing on “food literacy” and The New York Times says Michelle is “partly to blame.” The openly gay chef was hired by Laura Bush in 2007 to make his trademark cookie plates and sugar sculptures. Mrs. Obama took over in 2009 and ordered Yosses to make healthier plates in smaller portions.

Yosses began replacing butter with fruit puree and sugar with honey and agave. But Yosses was never fully committed to the new policy. “I don’t want to demonize cream, butter, sugar and eggs,” Yosses said, noting that his departure from the White House is a “bittersweet decision.”

The tyranny of anti-pastry bigots must be opposed.
   1881. steagles Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4673483)

White House official quits over policy dispute - WHITE HOUSE PASTRY CHEF RESIGNS:

White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses is resigning after First Lady Michelle Obama fundamentally changed his job duties to focus on healthier food. Yosses is leaving the White House in June to work on a new project focusing on “food literacy” and The New York Times says Michelle is “partly to blame.” The openly gay chef was hired by Laura Bush in 2007 to make his trademark cookie plates and sugar sculptures. Mrs. Obama took over in 2009 and ordered Yosses to make healthier plates in smaller portions.

Yosses began replacing butter with fruit puree and sugar with honey and agave. But Yosses was never fully committed to the new policy. “I don’t want to demonize cream, butter, sugar and eggs,” Yosses said, noting that his departure from the White House is a “bittersweet decision.”


The tyranny of anti-pastry bigots must be opposed.
not sure if serious....
   1882. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4673485)
noting that his departure from the White House is a “bittersweet decision.”


This has to have been said tongue in cheek.
   1883. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4673486)
The jibe at the end was the icing on the cake. Presumably some sort of low-calorie icing made with carrageenan.
   1884. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4673488)
Reports that Fred Phelps, 84, the founder of the Topeka church known for its anti-gay message and protests of military funerals, is on his deathbed has some looking forward to the Westboro Baptist Church pastor's passing.

The Facebook page Fred Phelps Death Watch was created March 16 and has nearly 1,900 likes. The page states, "While we wait for God to take him, because he hates homosexuals, let's relive some of his more memorable moments while we wait."


Yuck. I support nearly nothing that the man believes and find many of his actions deplorable, but celebrating anyone's death is barbaric.

Anyone's misery, ill-fortune, or death takes away from everyone. George Takei showed once again his class:
“I take no solace or joy in this man's passing,” Takei, who is openly gay, wrote in a Facebook post. “We will not dance upon his grave, nor stand vigil at his funeral holding 'God Hates Freds' signs, tempting as it may be.”
“He was a tormented soul, who tormented so many. Hate never wins out in the end. It instead goes always to its lonely, dusty end.”
   1885. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4673489)
The tyranny of anti-pastry bigots must be opposed.


I actually agree wit YC on a post of his.

Replacing butter with fruit puree? Egads.
   1886. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4673491)
Unless it is a close relative, adopting a child is a fundamentally altruistic, non-rational action.


Your fundamental error is assuming rationality and free will are a real thing.

In some perfectly successful species, adults will kill young who are not their biological offspring.


In some perfectly successful species, adults will kill and eat THEIR OWN OFFSPRING. Example: guppies.
We started with 3 guppies. We now have like 50. That's _net_ 50.

The only rule is that they cannot kill ALL their offspring, that probably would not be a successful strategy.
   1887. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4673492)
“We will not dance upon his grave, nor stand vigil at his funeral holding 'God Hates Freds' signs, tempting as it may be.”

Who is Sulu referring to as "we?"
I'll be quite surprised if there are no "God Hates Freds signs" in the vicinity of his funeral
   1888. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4673494)
Replacing butter with fruit puree? Egads.


If they outlaw butter, only Paula Deen will have butter.
   1889. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4673495)
Who is Sulu referring to as "we?"


Well, there were two Sulus (& two of everybody else) in that one episode, right?
   1890. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4673496)
Anyone else having trouble with the web-site? It has now crashed on me in both Chrome and Firefox today.

YES! It's been freezing up my browsers for over a week.


Humans are animals.

But not penguins. Some other kind of animal. Whatever kind that helps his point.


Replacing butter with fruit puree? Egads.

Replacing butter with anything is an outright failure.
   1891. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4673497)
Who is Sulu referring to as "we?"


The royal we, as befitting a man of his internet stature. He is my favorite Facebook follow. He is awesome.
   1892. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4673498)
In some perfectly successful species, adults will kill young who are not their biological offspring.


Ever see Grizzly Man?
About a man who really really really wanted to be a bear?

Deep down, you really want to be a lion instead of a human, come on, admit it.
   1893. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4673501)
YES! It's been freezing up my browsers for over a week.


Actually, it's been doing that for me on IE, but I try not to use IE, so I'm not counting that.
   1894. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4673502)
not sure if serious....


Dude. Even Clapper isn't in the tank so much as for this to not be a joke. He's clearly taking a piss.
   1895. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4673503)
Quickly, adoption is a very hard behavior to fit into any logical construct, or drawclear implications from it. Unless it is a close relative, adopting a child is a fundamentally altruistic, non-rational action.

That has to be one of the stranger statements I've read here, even by the standards of someone who often churns out strangeness at the rate of a post a minute.

Jesus Fucking Christ, what is not "rational" about wanting to feel needed? What is not "rational" about wanting to live for someone beyond yourself? If these basic human needs aren't "rational", then what's "rational" about marrying a person whom you have to support, when there's no guarantee that your offspring will turn around and support you in your old age?
   1896. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4673507)
The royal we, as befitting a man of his internet stature. He is my favorite Facebook follow. He is awesome.


I guess, if you like puns. A ceaseless, never-ending torrent of puns, each more grating than the last.
   1897. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4673509)
YES! It's been freezing up my browsers for over a week.


1. Use Chrome.
2. Install AdBlock. (it's the ads that are clustering the site performance)
3. Pay the guy that developed AdBlock a little change you cheap ####.
   1898. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4673510)
I guess, if you like puns. A ceaseless, never-ending torrent of puns, each more grating than the last.


Hey man, you don't hear me mocking lovers of Pavement and similar dreck, do you? (Darn, you just did).

Or as my econ teacher often said, "de gustibus non est disputandum".
   1899. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4673514)
"de gustibus non est disputandum".


Latin for "you should have your children taken away," I presume.
   1900. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 18, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4673515)
Jesus ####### Christ, what is not "rational" about wanting to feel needed?


I get this from my dog.
Page 19 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLester return to Boston a long shot; Cubs, Yankees are likely players
(30 - 10:05am, Aug 21)
Last: RickG

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4619 - 10:03am, Aug 21)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(49 - 10:00am, Aug 21)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogAstros slugger Chris Carter: The most 2014 player of 2014
(3 - 9:59am, Aug 21)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-21-2014
(4 - 9:59am, Aug 21)
Last: Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee)

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(29 - 9:56am, Aug 21)
Last: Rusty Priske

NewsblogSabermetrics Gets Soft «
(6 - 9:54am, Aug 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(457 - 9:46am, Aug 21)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogPrado at second base not how Yanks Drew it up
(48 - 9:37am, Aug 21)
Last: Russ

NewsblogSellout Crowd Turns out in AAA Charlotte for Native Son Carlos Rodon
(7 - 9:30am, Aug 21)
Last: TJ

NewsblogLA Times: Angels' Garrett Richards Suffers Knee Injury in Win Over Red Sox
(14 - 9:23am, Aug 21)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Newsblog[Ubaldo] Jimenez to the bullpen
(18 - 9:04am, Aug 21)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogBrisbee: The 10 most underrated players in baseball, part 2
(24 - 8:52am, Aug 21)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogGiants plan to protest bizarre loss at Wrigley
(78 - 8:24am, Aug 21)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(278 - 4:39am, Aug 21)
Last: RollingWave

Page rendered in 0.5997 seconds
53 querie(s) executed