80 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual fetishes. I'm talking about "Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out.", "These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?" Some people like that sort of thing. So what? Why are they not wholesome? I'm not sure that any scientific studies have suggested that such people are sick and mentally ill...can you point us to some references? Commentary is not recognized as rigorous evidence of anything. I admit I write a lot of commentary, but I recognize that commentary has nothing on rigorous evidence-based study and peer review.

However, if it turns out that public displays of fetishism are due to mental illness, then we will need more than commentary to investigate the matter and come up with a cure. Funding is required, scientific research, drug development, testing, and FDA approval. Before we embark on such an effort, we should probably see if there is any evidence that this is a mental illness first.

I disagree with your reasoning.

I say (through quotes from Michael Savage) that these people are mentally ill because they are so foolish to use their brain power in publically broadcasting a non-issue that is so abjectly self-indulgent when there are so many other things of very grave importance going on that they are ignoring and overshadowing.

Remeber that addiction is a mental illness, and such behavior can really only be understood through the lens of sexual addiction.

Then their doctors will need to make the determination that they are suffering from sexual addiction. I'm not sure what you or Michael Savage bring to the discussion in terms of expertise, and I would prefer to see the science behind the claim. As far as I know, public fetishism during parades and celebrations has not been listed as a mental illness. I will also note that this is not a gay only activity. You have only see commercials for Girls Gone Wild and Boys Gone Wild to see that if it is a mental illness, then college students are sick, too I don't think anyone has made that case yet.

Given my experience in college... I'd certainly make that case!

[RighteousReason]

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual fetishes. I'm talking about "Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out.", "These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?" Some people like that sort of thing. So what? Why are they not wholesome? I'm not sure that any scientific studies have suggested that such people are sick and mentally ill...can you point us to some references? Commentary is not recognized as rigorous evidence of anything. I admit I write a lot of commentary, but I recognize that commentary has nothing on rigorous evidence-based study and peer review.

However, if it turns out that public displays of fetishism are due to mental illness, then we will need more than commentary to investigate the matter and come up with a cure. Funding is required, scientific research, drug development, testing, and FDA approval. Before we embark on such an effort, we should probably see if there is any evidence that this is a mental illness first.

I disagree with your reasoning.

I say (through quotes from Michael Savage) that these people are mentally ill because they are so foolish to use their brain power in publically broadcasting a non-issue that is so abjectly self-indulgent when there are so many other things of very grave importance going on that they are ignoring and overshadowing.

Remeber that addiction is a mental illness, and such behavior can really only be understood through the lens of sexual addiction.

Then their doctors will need to make the determination that they are suffering from sexual addiction. I'm not sure what you or Michael Savage bring to the discussion in terms of expertise, and I would prefer to see the science behind the claim. As far as I know, public fetishism during parades and celebrations has not been listed as a mental illness. I will also note that this is not a gay only activity. You have only see commercials for Girls Gone Wild and Boys Gone Wild to see that if it is a mental illness, then college students are sick, too I don't think anyone has made that case yet.

When someone recurrently causes harm through their actions or negligence due to self-indulgent behavior, this is generally recognized as an addiction.

For example, my very long-time friend just enrolled in a drug and alcohol rehab program. His family had an intervention where they tried to give him information to help him understand his behavior. The result was that he diagnosed himself with an addiction according to the exact criteria laid out above. This is not generally a diagnosis made by a medical doctor, but rather a common sense concept.

Consider me to be brother Savage.

Not to be confused with Dr. Michael Savage, who has a Ph.D in nutritional science and has written many, many books, some of which on the topic of mental illness.

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 08:35 PM.

[Richard Leis]

1. It is an objective fact that an illegal alien slaughtered Ms. Bologna's sons and huband. That is what the article says. It is only as much slanted as it is *not* slanted to the left.

It is an objective fact that a crime occurred, but the article itself is slanted. Word and phrase choices like "blissfully unaware thanks to San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy", "There’s nothing else I can say to prepare you for it so I won’t try.", "No wonder Newsom hasn’t contacted Mrs. Bologna; how could he ever look her in the eye?" etc. are commentary, not objective news reporting. I find that people in forums often link to commentary rather than the actual news story, which always comes across as biased. In fact, when reporting and even in my commentary, I generally try to choose the original science report or objective news article rather than the various layers of commentary that are build on top of the original items.

I agree that a forum is not the most objective of places (which is why I don't label all my posts [Commentary] - this is understood), but it can be helpful to try to strip away commentary to get to the facts, and then allow people to express their opinions about those facts.

I have found here in Politics & Laws in particular that people are expressing emotional opinions, personal attacks, and exceptionally biased commentary, even more than usual. Some of the problems:

• Assuming other members identify as Republican or Democrats.
• Assumptions about other members in general.
• Links to and quotes from commentary, rather than objective news reporting, science papers, etc.
• Various lapses in logic and reason. For example, saying one thing is the cause of another thing, without providing the necessary steps to get one from there to the other.
• Name calling.
• Godwin's law-like statements.

I object to your description of news reports and science papers as objective. That is certainly not always the case.

You are grouping a whole bunch of things against my one little article. Just because the article contains non-objective commentary does not mean its facts are skewed or dileberately fabricated with the intention to mislead.

Besides all that, finding facts and truth are *personal responsibility*. It is often the case that the only place to find a large number of facts along a particular theme is in a non-objective article, where one must discern between fact and opinion.

It is an individual reader's responsibility to believe any given statement according to the evidence they personally have (thus spake Reverend Bayes).

Certainly objective news reporting and peer-reviewed science papers are considered more objective than commentary. You linked to commentary, not an article about the case. By its very practice, commentary can skew facts and fabricate with the intention to mislead. There is commentary on the web now about how I am part of the Mars conspiracy, based on a HiRISE blog post I wrote. The commentary definitely slanted my post to suggest I know there are alien civilizations on Mars.

Personally, I reject the commentary you linked as biased and your point that the San Francisco Mayor's participation in gay pride parades somehow has bearing on the horrible incident is not supported by the commentaries inclusion. Relating gay pride parades with illegal immigration is a questionable tactic.

[Richard Leis]

When someone causes harm through their actions or negligence due to self-indulgent behavior, this is generally recognized as an addiction.

What harm have they caused? You may comment, of course, but your case would be bolstered by reputable evidence.

If, as you say, your experience in college makes the case then this would further suggest such actions know no sexuality. If gays and straights alike demonstrate this activity, then it is not clear how this is a gay issue or a San Francisco issue. It is also not clear how this would support your statements about the activities of the leather-bound in San Francisco. From sea to shining sea people like to get nude, wear leather, swat at each with whips, and sometimes all of this in public.

[Richard Leis]

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?"

Not to assume that you would ever want children, but what would you rather see your child doing:

1. parading around being publicly whipped in the streets as a sexual fetish, wearing leather outfits with their genitals hanging out,

or.... say,

2. at school doing math, or serving in the military, the peace corps, or, Science Forbid, in church, praying for the betterment of less fortunate people?

As children, they will do as I say. As adults, they can do whatever they like. Actually, depending on their maturity, as teenagers they can do anything they like, as long as they finish school, are respectful and nice, and leave the house by 18.

[Richard Leis]

As for praying for the betterment of less fortunate people, what a waste of time. I prefer action. I tolerate religious people but I do not accept religion, faith, or praying.

[RighteousReason]

1. It is an objective fact that an illegal alien slaughtered Ms. Bologna's sons and huband. That is what the article says. It is only as much slanted as it is *not* slanted to the left.

It is an objective fact that a crime occurred, but the article itself is slanted. Word and phrase choices like "blissfully unaware thanks to San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy", "There’s nothing else I can say to prepare you for it so I won’t try.", "No wonder Newsom hasn’t contacted Mrs. Bologna; how could he ever look her in the eye?" etc. are commentary, not objective news reporting. I find that people in forums often link to commentary rather than the actual news story, which always comes across as biased. In fact, when reporting and even in my commentary, I generally try to choose the original science report or objective news article rather than the various layers of commentary that are build on top of the original items.

I agree that a forum is not the most objective of places (which is why I don't label all my posts [Commentary] - this is understood), but it can be helpful to try to strip away commentary to get to the facts, and then allow people to express their opinions about those facts.

I have found here in Politics & Laws in particular that people are expressing emotional opinions, personal attacks, and exceptionally biased commentary, even more than usual. Some of the problems:

• Assuming other members identify as Republican or Democrats.
• Assumptions about other members in general.
• Links to and quotes from commentary, rather than objective news reporting, science papers, etc.
• Various lapses in logic and reason. For example, saying one thing is the cause of another thing, without providing the necessary steps to get one from there to the other.
• Name calling.
• Godwin's law-like statements.

I object to your description of news reports and science papers as objective. That is certainly not always the case.

You are grouping a whole bunch of things against my one little article. Just because the article contains non-objective commentary does not mean its facts are skewed or dileberately fabricated with the intention to mislead.

Besides all that, finding facts and truth are *personal responsibility*. It is often the case that the only place to find a large number of facts along a particular theme is in a non-objective article, where one must discern between fact and opinion.

It is an individual reader's responsibility to believe any given statement according to the evidence they personally have (thus spake Reverend Bayes).

Certainly objective news reporting and peer-reviewed science papers are considered more objective than commentary. You linked to commentary, not an article about the case. By its very practice, commentary can skew facts and fabricate with the intention to mislead. There is commentary on the web now about how I am part of the Mars conspiracy, based on a HiRISE blog post I wrote. The commentary definitely slanted my post to suggest I know there are alien civilizations on Mars.

Personally, I reject the commentary you linked as biased and your point that the San Francisco Mayor's participation in gay pride parades somehow has bearing on the horrible incident is not supported by the commentaries inclusion. Relating gay pride parades with illegal immigration is a questionable tactic.

Another questionable tactic is comparing an editorial news report with a Mars conspiracy, or suggesting that because it is an editorial it is likely to skew facts or intentionally mislead.

[RighteousReason]

When someone causes harm through their actions or negligence due to self-indulgent behavior, this is generally recognized as an addiction.

If gays and straights alike demonstrate this activity, then it is not clear how this is a gay issue or a San Francisco issue.

I never said it strictly was.

[RighteousReason]

As for praying for the betterment of less fortunate people, what a waste of time. I prefer action. I tolerate religious people but I do not accept religion, faith, or praying.

The first step of action is intention. Prayer is one format for developing the specifications of one's intention.

Praying in the presense of many other people doing the same thing simultaneously (as in a religious facility such as a church) could theoretically prove to be useful, which in turn could engender some amount of evidenced faith.

So, I think with this understanding you would not accuse praying of being a waste of time, and thus you would agree with, or using your terminology, accept, prayer, and, at least in the narrow context described here, faith and religion, because as you say, you do indeed prefer action for the betterment of less fortunate people.

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 09:33 PM.

[RighteousReason]

...

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 09:28 PM.

[RighteousReason]

When someone causes harm through their actions or negligence due to self-indulgent behavior, this is generally recognized as an addiction.

What harm have they caused? You may comment, of course, but your case would be bolstered by reputable evidence.

Well, as I said, their behavior is abjectly self-indulgent. As such, they are being negligent of issues of real importance. It's not like they are marching to stop the Nazis.

To take the behavior totally out of context wouldn't parse entirely clearly, but I believe it's common sense that these activities do cause harm and bring about nothing good.

[RighteousReason]

...

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 09:28 PM.

[RighteousReason]

you know, after hearing some of the vp debate now after the fact, I think Palin may have done a little better than I initially thought

[RighteousReason]

She is certainly dogmatic, and I tend to shy away from dogma

That's kind of ironic coming from someone so seemingly dogmatic

[RighteousReason]

and w00t for topping 1000 posts!

[RighteousReason]

As for praying for the betterment of less fortunate people, what a waste of time. I prefer action. I tolerate religious people but I do not accept religion, faith, or praying.

The first step of action is intention. Prayer is one format for developing the specifications of one's intention.

Praying in the presense of many other people doing the same thing simultaneously (as in a religious facility such as a church) could theoretically prove to be useful, which in turn could engender some amount of evidenced faith.

So, I think with this understanding you would not accuse praying of being a waste of time, and thus you would agree with, or using your terminology, accept, prayer, and, at least in the narrow context described here, faith and religion, because as you say, you do indeed prefer action for the betterment of less fortunate people.

From an antidisestablishmentarian point of view.

[biknut]

69.9 Million Watched Biden And Palin’s V.P Debate

October 3rd, 2008 Posted in Media & Entertainment, Nielsen News, Politics

On Tuesday night, 69.9 million viewers tuned in to watch the sole vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

The Biden-Palin matchup set a new V.P. debate TV audience record, beating the previous high of 56.7 million viewers set by the debate between Rep. Geraldine Ferraro and then-V.P. George H.W. Bush in 1984*.

Biden and Palin’s debate also surpassed the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, which drew an audience of 52.4 million last Friday night.

During the last presidential election in 2004, the vice presidential debate between V.P. Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards drew 43.6 million viewers.

http://blog.nielsen....

[luv2increase]

69.9 Million Watched Biden And Palin’s V.P Debate

I guess it is great she did so well then. I would also like to say that Biden did well too. I was a little disappointed that he said Pakistan had nuclear missiles that could hit Israel when it simply isn't true. The longest range missile that Pakistan has is 1200 miles. Israel is 2100 miles away from Pakistan.

[biknut]

No Republican is ever allowed to win a debate by the major media. A tie is the best they can expect. Any time a Republican is said to at least tie that means the Republican probably ran away with it.

AOL Poll Results
Who won the debate?

Sarah Palin 47% 256,472
Joe Biden 45% 246,281
It was a draw 8% 47,510

Total Votes: 550,263

http://webcenter.pol...p;pollId=152822

[Iam Empathy]

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.hulu.com/...a3Y8681DA/0/128

http://www.hulu.com/...#x-0,vepisode,1

There are some characteristics of Sarah Palin so like Elvira that it is a bit macabre in its own right. I guess it is just getting too close to Halloween.