Consie

Speaking of dire suggestions, you claim I know nothing about life?? What does that even mean? I never, ever said that the child should be a source of unhappiness. I said that Sarah Palin had a child at 44 years old, 17 years after her last child. If she didn't intend to get pregnant, she doesn't believe in contraception so she had to carry the child. If it was intentional, then fine. But it is somewhat irresponsible for women to have children at older ages, because of the skyrocketing risk of genetic disorder. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the risk of Down syndrome increases from about 1 in 1,250 at age 25, to 1 in 1,000 at age 30, 1 in 400 at age 35, 1 in 100 at age 40 and 1 in 30 at age 45. If someone drank a pint of vodka everyday while pregnant and the child is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and I suggested the mother had been irresponsible, would you then accuse me then of knowing "nothing about life?"

I love Invisible Touch with Genesis. Most of his solo stuff is bad. You Can't Hurry Love is kind of a cute and unexpected cover, though!

Alitalia is a disaster. They can only repair planes in one city, they have an older, inefficient fleet and they can't decide whether to base operations in Rome or Milan (execs in both cities are fighting each other). And the worst part is, when Air France-KLM offered to buy them out (which would have saved them), they said it's an Italian company and should stay that way. They've buried their own grave. Also it's a DREADFUL airline to fly on. SAS is in trouble which is a shame because I really like them!

I also think that different acts under the same crime have different ethical/moral standings. A 15 year old having consensual sex with a 20 year old is quite different than a 20 year old sexually assaulting a 9 year old. That's why judges or juries choose a measured punishment proportionate to the offense. But unfortunately now, at least in the US, there are all kinds of minimum sentence laws and "zero strikes laws" (meaning first time offense is a huge automatic sentence). So now the justice system probably doesn't work fairly because the young couple in love may end up with the same sentence as a dangerous child rapist. Now this doesn't ALWAYS happen in every case, but it can.

Well actually some species engage in monogamous, exclusively sex-sex relationships. I know this is Wikipedia (not a great source), but see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Also in nature, there is homosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in lions, lizards, dolphins, birds and bonobos. And a lot of other species.

Well let's move this out of the theoretical realm and into the real world. Because even if you think pedophilia and homosexuality are similar theoretically ("natural instinct" and such), you must agree the reality, the physical action, the end result is different. So what would you change about the laws, if anything?

Look, I have defended you before on this board in the past, so it's not personal. "Revealing your religion" is not a mistake or a problem. Personally I think the anti-religious rhetoric on this board is overly hostile and atheists, as I am, aren't going to convince the rest of the 6 billion people on the earth with hostility. Having said that, I know that in previous discussions you have defended religion by claiming non-religious people can't have ethics or morals. You have blamed science, Darwinism, "survival of the fittest" etc. etc. for all kinds of genocide, murder and destruction. Murder in the name of atheism, you have said. And you have said religious people are more tolerant of homosexuality because atheists would dismiss it as utterly nonhuman in that is does not allow reproduction. I'm sorry, but when you start the "well, homosexuality doesn't permit reproduction so it could be considered worse than pedophilia" stuff, I feel as though you're just prodding for the sake of prodding. I sincerely doubt you (a tolerant person, so you have said) actually considered this question seriously. You know what, people who are atheist and scientists and believe in evolution - many of them DO still respect homosexuality, despite its stifling of procreation. It's true. You've found yourself a loophole. Congratulations, you win. Now if I'm alllll wrong about all this, then I do apologize. But I just feel you try to get a rise out of people for the sake of doing it, then blame political correctness when you're challenged for it.

It's not surprising given JJN's past posts. It's important to challenge and question certain issues, of course, but JJN often takes this too far. He is an ideologue, the kind that believes that Pope John Paul II and Charles Darwin are beating the $h!t out of each other somewhere in the after-world right now. But there is an entire world in between extremes and most of us comfortably reside there...

Since you insist on taking a hardline Social Darwinism approach to this (in an attempt to prove atheists are all soulless barbarians, no doubt), let me suggest this. A man's choice of an underage wife to deliver his offspring is riskier than choosing a woman of the age at which one is mentally able to fully consent. Studies have shown for years that in places with high rates of teenage pregnancy, there has been a breakdown of family structure, and an increase in crime, lower life expectancy, high infant mortality rate, etc. So a man chooses a 14 year old to impregnate. She has his child at 15 and is neither capable of remaining in a relationship with the father, nor raising the child properly. This child then has a vastly reduced probability of survival. So there's a (admittedly rudimentary) scientific justification to condemn and prohibit pedophila.

Interesting. Sarah Palin has said publicly that she believes abortion is wrong in every single situation. She was asked "If your daughter were raped and became pregnant with the rapist's child, is it ok to abort?" She said absolutely not. She she believes it should be ILLEGAL to abort even in that situation. And yet, when she released the press release stating her daughter had become pregnant, it said "She has chosen to keep the baby." She she respects choice ONLY if it's her own daughter. It's outrageously hypocratical.

Like has already been said, it DOES have to do with her job. It's proof that her stances on abstinence education are absurd and incorrect. And anyway, now we've got a woman with 5 kids, including one special needs newborn baby, and 1 grandchild of her 17 year old daughter. How is she going to be able to put forth the time and effort needed to be Vice President... or President?

Atlantic Records is certainly doing its best to make a mockery of the chart... I feel bad for the poor unnamed vocalists on those cover versions - selling tens of thousands of copies but I doubt they'll see a dime.

Would never have believed it. It's her 10th solo top 10 hit but the first to break the top 3.

Yeah I may be going too far to suggest what I did about her newborn baby, but as you said, if she wasn't such an outspoken critic of sexual education, contraceptives, abortion rights, etc - I'd never have the grounds to suggest her refusal to use contraceptives may have led to a risky, unplanned birth. I know! She says the "explicit" sex education will never have her support. She doesn't want her 17 year old to learn the "explicit" details of sex because it's better to tell kids not to have sex. Well guess what, Sarah, your 17 year old learned the "explicit" details of sex herself and now she'll experience the "explicit" details of childbirth herself.

Okay it just keeps getting better. Turns out that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter has been pregnant for five months! And She's "going to marry" the boy who knocked her up. UN-FUKKING-BELIEVABLE! Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/pal...hter/index.html This is a woman who has demanded "abstinence-only" education for her entire career. During the 2006 Gubernatorial campaign form in Alaska: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools? Palin's Response: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support. Source: http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/...-candidate.html And the Republicans are saying this is a private, family matter. EXCUSE ME?! This is a woman (and a party) whose anti-gay, anti-abortion rights stances have brought the private, family matters of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE into the public eye. Also the woman has a newborn baby with Down's Syndrome. Want to know why? Because she was 44 years old when she had the baby earlier this year. Studies have shown for DECADES that women who have babies post age 40 present HUGE risks of genetic disorders to their newborns. But, no doubt, Sarah Palin believes contraception is wrong. And God provides. Well great, now you've got a little boy with Down's Syndrome. Hope you're happy with yourself, Sarah. So now we have a woman who has FIVE children, including one special-needs newborn baby and a pregnant daughter (who she is forcing to MARRY shotgun, which is unbelievably stupid, intolerant, ignorant, etc) who could be DANGEROUSLY close to the highest position of leadership in the country and one of the highest positions of leadership on this Earth. Absolutely SHOCKING and unacceptable. This goes beyond politics. The woman needs to resign as VP contender. I don't care if it helps John McCain's campaign. John McCain or not, it would be unbelievably irresponsible to put this woman within 1 heart attack of the Presidency of the United States.

:blink:

Truly bizarre. A "hockey mom" from Alaska who has spent all of 2 years in politics on any major scale and has never worked in Washington. I'm speechless. I see this as an act of desperation. Disillusioned Hillary Democrats are McCain's only hope at this point. But I think he insults them by bringing in Palin, obviously chosen simply because she's a woman. It's like in Illinois in 2004 when the Republicans brought in Alan Keys (perhaps the only black conservative they could find) to try to beat Obama in the Senate race and failed miserably. The vast majority of Hillary supporters support and will vote for Obama/Biden. It was a gutsy move by the McCain camp - and frankly one I didn't think he was smart enough to consider - but it won't succeed.

Anyway it's chump change compared to the astronomical overspending taking place for the London 2012 games. How many BILLIONS is that over budget now?

I know, they're so obnoxious!! A new stupid song every week!! And in the iTunes popularity bars, they are KILLING Rihanna and MIA... :angry:

Stunning, amazing film... will break records too, and win Oscars, no doubt. Ledger will be nominated, it goes without saying. Agreed that he should have won for Brokeback, it was an incredible, life-changing performance - they gave it to Philip Seymour Hoffman because Hollywood likes to reward their own. Same reason they gave Best Picture to the awful, hometown favorite "Crash" that year (based in Los Angeles).

At least this guy gets it. A warning to all the Brits: Americans, bless our hearts, do not get satire.

Exactly, it will never win for the reason you just gave. But the Academy may nominate it...

If anyone wants to know how low the utterly desperate Republican party will go this election season, take a look at this: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/07/16/911.billboard/art.fla.billboard.wftv.jpg Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/911...oard/index.html Pitiful, despicable, contemptible.

Why is MIA rising all of a sudden? She's been hanging around the middle of the chart for months...