Consie

This is Social Darwinism - an unfortunate name for a psuedo-intellectual perversion of Darwin's theories and claims. Darwin never even uttered the words "survival of the fittest" and if he had, he would have meant survival of the fittest SPECIES. He claimed certain SPECIES survive and thrive because nature has selected them. Many years after Darwin's death, a man named Herbert Spencer established Social Darwinism by applying his theory to indivdual members of a species. He coined "survival of the fittest." That evolution was survival, not of the fittest species but of the fittest individual or character. Frankly Spencer is the man to be blamed for all the atrocities you mention, and the psychopathic and idiotic contemporaries who took his ridiculous theory to justify political and social atrocities. Darwin was a brilliant man and is surely spinning in his grave at all the disgusting bast*rdizations of his theories in his name. And Christians are to blame in part for spreading ignorance about the theory of evoluation for 100 years.

God I want to resist this but I can't. Every time I see a trailer on TV I become giddy. I really cannot wait for this!!!

The more recent "psychological thriller" genre was invented (or reinvented) with 1999's The Sixth Sense. The list that followed include What Lies Beneath, The Others, Unbreakable... any others?

As far as I know, animated films are still eligible for the Best Picture category. Kind of like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was nominated for Foreign Language Film and Best Picture in 2000.

Apparently it may even have a shot at a Best Picture Oscar nomination :o

Wouldn't starvation take care of that? The famous lab study is of mice in a small, constrained area with plenty of food. They mated and mated and more and more of them were born. Plenty of food and drink were always available. But then after several generations, when it became very crowded in the space, the mice began to mate with the same sex.

You bring up a good point. He seems to be about the least informed person on the planet. However he is very much a "legacy" president. He invaded Iraq despite faulty evidence and with not enough soldiers, not enough equipment, insufficient funding, little international support and no plan of action beyond the initial bombing stage. Why? Because he wanted to be the president who took out Saddam Hussein. Because he wanted to be the guy who finished his father's job and marched all the way to Bagdad. But his father had stopped short of Baghdad because he knew it would be a collosal fiasco!! Duck f***ing Cheney advised they stop short of invasion and said publicly it would be a disaster! George Bush is a man who didn't even listen to his own goddamn father, he was so obsessed with his own legacy, with his own dream to be a time-of-war president, and with his own personal conquests. He has said repeatedly that he doesn't care about approval ratings or doing what's popular, that "history will judge [him]" and that he follows God's will and such.

You're right - in most of the world (and in Western society up until recently), homosexuality was considered some kind of deviant sexual fetish. People of the same sex weren't allowed to be in relationships and were led to believe that homosexual relationships didn't exist, so they acted in desperation in the only way they knew how. Have sex a random guy to get the "gay" out of you, then return home to your "proper" wife and family. Also the HIV/AIDS situation is worsened by the fact that anal sex is much more dangerous in terms of spreading HIV than vaginal sex. Labeling homosexuality as natural or unnatural isn't an easy or useful task. We haven't found a "gay gene" yet but recent studies have shown gay people have different brains - and studies of fraternal twins have for years proven homosexuality to be genetic. No, two men cannot have a child together, which seems to go against all we know about evolution. But many scientists believe that homosexuality is a means of preventing overpopulation. Even if the Earth isn't completely overpopulated yet, the fact that humans gather in great density, in large cities and such, may lead to an evolutionary tendancy to prevent overpopulation. This phenomenon has been studied in other species.

The organization I work for here in Chicago recently hosted Lebanese politician, author and professor Raja Kamal for a political discussion. It was recorded and I'll give the link later if anyone is interested. But anyway... He made a frightening prediction. George Bush, in a desperate attempt to salvage his legacy, will launch an attack on Iran. He predicted it would come immediately after the election in November, because such an attack beforehand would totally eliminate McCain's chances. He will launch this attack despite the outcome of the election (as the new president does not take control until january 2009). And he will do so with very little support domestically and abroad and he will do it without approval from Congress. It was terrifying to listen to but he made a very convincing argument. Meanwhile the media is beginning to beat the drums of war... the front page each day is Iran this, nuclear weapons that... I'm honestly scared. I really fear for the future of this country and world...

A-ha! But in the context of, say, current American politics... it's not as though liberals are FOR gay marriage (they aren't going to try to convince gays to get married of course) but that conservatives are AGAINST it. In this case, the liberals say live and let live, get married if you like and the conservatives say no, gay marriage should be illegal, people shouldn't be allowed to do it. The libertarian, "live-and-let-live" does often parallel traditional conservatives (hence Ron Paul ran as a Republican this year), but in this particular situation it is the liberals that advocate it.

They just become priests, Rob!! :lol:

I don't think we're on the same page here, actually. What I meant by "homophobia" wasn't simply distaste for homosexual sex. I mean fear or hatred of homosexuals. I totally agree that you don't learn to prefer a certain sexuality... And by flipping the sides, you bring up an interesting topic of heterophobia, which certainly does exist. Hmmm... well, sort of, I guess! Most people (taking the entire 6 billion world population into account) are raised to believe homosexuality is nonexistent, deviant, wrong, sinful, shameful, unnatural, etc. The very complaints about this advertisement were that people didn't want their children to see it or know about it.

I think religion isn't always to blame for homophobia - religion is often just the excuse. People are homophobic for a number of reasons, all of which are ingrained in them by societal "norms." People are insecure of their own sexuality, afraid of being immasculated, ashamed of their sexual desires and tendancies - all of this is unnatural, it's learned. People use religion like a crutch. It's the easiest thing to blame for their bigotry. How many people who thunder about the sin of homosexuality actually truly take the words of Leviticus literally? How many simply utter that verse because it's an excuse to justify their own homophobia? And well, how many people are in the gray area in between? When people pick and choose parts of religion - I'll take that Leviticus verse and use it to say homosexuality is wrong... but I'll ignore THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT IN WHICH CHRIST CAME TO EARTH TO SHOW THE JEWS THAT THEY WERE ALL WRONG AND THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS A BUNCH OF BULL$h!t AND YOU SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS YOURSELF AND HE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE AND WASH THE FEET OF THE SINNERS, TAXCOLLECTORS AND LEPERS, etc. etc. etc. If anyone can be so idiotic as to ignore such basic, basic lessons and themes... are they truly religious or are they simply STUPID? Or both??

An interesting question. A couple I know who had a surrogate chose not to know who the biological father was.

AMAZING, thank you!

Friday, June 27 2008 NEW YORK (CNN) -- Natasha Bedingfield strutted onto the Irving Plaza Stage in Manhattan earlier this week, sporting an elaborate faux hawk, black shorts and a fierce pair of thigh-high boots. She delivered tracks from her latest album, "A Pocket Full of Sunshine," and during her hourlong set, the UK-bred artist sang about love and loss. She was alternately determined, ferocious and optimistic as the crowd, a mix of gen-Xers and millennials, watched in utter delight. She closed the show with her album's title track, said her good nights and left the stage. Delight quickly turned into despair ... at least for me. What about The Song? Had she retired it? Was she going to pull a Madonna and act like she was so beyond her old hits? Thankfully not. Bedingfield, after demands for an encore, returned to the stage and sang the song. The song that opens each episode of MTV's hit show, "The Hills." The song that's featured in a ubiquitous Pantene commercial. The song that refuses to die more than two years after its release. "Unwritten." And as Bedingfield sang "Unwritten," a four-minute self-empowerment seminar set to a catchy melody, the room erupted into one giant karaoke session. There I was, a married woman in my early 30s, crooning like some wide-eyed pre-teen at her first slumber party. "No one else, no one else, can speak the words on your lips/ Drench yourself in words unspoken/ Live your life with arms wide open/ Today is where your book begins/ The rest is still unwritten ..." Cheesy? Absolutely. But I was too wrapped up in the warm, feel-good vibes to care. I wasn't alone. At one point, the crowd was singing so loudly that Bedingfield began to chuckle. In recent years, it's become increasingly difficult for a song to have real staying power. "A hit song usually sticks around for about three months, and then it's done," says Caryn Ganz, deputy editor of Rollingstone.com. But "Unwritten," co-written by Bedingfield, Danielle Brisebois and Wayne Rodriguez, was released in 2005, and it's still blasted regularly on the radio. On YouTube, there are dozens of covers of the song. (Warning: Most of them are awful.) Ganz credits "The Hills," in large part, for "Unwritten's" staying power. But it also happens to be a damn good pop song, she says. "It's so bouncy and positive, and it's one of those songs that girls like to get together and sing at the top of their lungs," she says. "And for a tween or teenage girl, it's the ultimate fantasy of self-determination. Your whole life is an open book, you can write your destiny." Walking home from the concert, my sister and I continued to sing "Unwritten" at the top of our lungs. We passed a gaggle of girlfriends, and they were singing the song too. We laughed. All of us were doing our part to keep the song alive. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/2...tten/index.html

Oh dear lord, where to begin??? I can't do this, I have to get up in 6 hours - can someone else take care of this in the meantime? :lol:

No one said you were stupid. The truth is that we have pretty high expectations in this forum. And especially Scott (Grimly) will not dumb down his comments for anyone. If he refers to something of which you're not aware, it's a good idea to look it up. You'll learn a lot.

You sound like a lot of frustrated Americans - you want peace and think the war in Iraq should have long been over, but you remember how it felt to be attacked (9/11). Here are some things to think about (some of them I'm repeating from Scott's posts). The US was attacked by a multinational group of terrorists who were members of an organization under a Saudi leader named Osama bin Laden - this organization is called Al-Qaeda. We invaded Iraq because the Bush administration told the world that Saddam Hussein (a secular dictator) had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he would allow them to be used by Al-Qaeda against the United States. Not only was there no WMD in Iraq, but there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein ever had any connection with Al-Qaeda. In fact, the Bush administration had discussed invading Iraq before he was even elected and he had declared his intent to invade Iraq before any weapons inspections. I encourage you to research the Downing Street Memo. Bush wanted to take over Iraq all along - why? Oil? Economic development (for US corporations)? Strategic military position? To finish his father's "business" from the first Gulf War? Maybe all of the above. It's really, really important to understand that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. The war in Iraq was based on utter lies, the worst kind of lies. The Bush administration took advantage of Americans' fears, insecurities and vulnerabilities to rush us into this war. Also, to paraphrase what Scott has said, Al-Qaeda is an organization with political goals. Born out of frustration with American military bases being established in Holy Lands, Al-Qaeda leaders have repeatedly claimed that their sold demand is that the US leave the Middle East, specifically our military bases. We want out and they want us out, no problem, right? And that's where Israel comes into the discussion... Now this is kind of a side note, but a lot of people are confused by Al-Qaeda transcriptions saying things like "God willing, the infidels will lose" and "With God we fight" and stuff like that. Makes them sound like a bunch of crazy maniacs. Honestly, though, that's just how people speak in Arabic. "In shah allah" does literally mean "God willing" but Arabic-speakers use it in every other sentence, not only when they're praying or when they're actually asking God of something. Even Christian Arabs use that phrase and others like it.

Well if you want to be out of Iraq, McCain is not your best choice. He advocates for staying in Iraq permanently, setting up military bases and keeping troops there essentially forever. He doesn't even want to pull out any combat troops on a schedule - in fact he has always supported sending more troops. The so-called "surge" has put a terrible strain on the armed forces of this country and has forced the Army to extend deployments, increase "stop-gapping," and lower its admission standards to the point where people unfit mentally and physically are sent off to Iraq. Excuse me? You're "sick of everyone blaming Bush?" It's Bush's fault - the war was his idea, his undertaking. Congress shamefully voted for the war because Congress was controlled by REPUBLICANS from 2000-2006! The Republicans never challenged Bush on ANYTHING and gave him free reign to do as he chose for 6 years. Democrats didn't have enough votes to overcome this problem. Until 2006, when Democrats took back control of Congress. And ever since then, Bush has vetoed virtually every single piece of legislation he's been given! He's acted like a stubborn little brat! He has vetoed EVERYTHING, using the veto more than any other president in history. He refuses to concede a thing and won't allow anything beyond his desk that a Democrat has touched - he has vetoed perfectly good legislation with wide bipartisan support. He has done all he can to prevent Congress from functioning since he and his cronies lost control in 2006. No other president in history has held Congress and the desires of American people hostage like Bush. But never fear, come November, when the Republicans lose the presidency and lose even more Congressional seats, things will improve. Pretty much all intelligent political dialoge is lacking Republicans. :lol: Really, though, I encourage you to speak up and give your positions - you are indeed among only a couple McCain supporters active on this board. Just understand that you'll be ripped apart if you don't back your comments with evidence and analysis. "I'm sick of people blaming Bush" will not suffice.

:lol: Britain considered Zimbabwe enough of a "problem" to occupy it for nearly 100 years up until the 1980s... Mugabe is a tyrant and a murderer but can Britain really disavow all blame for the situation?

Again, the distinction must be made between female and male circumcision. Jewish faith and tradition doesn't in ANY way advocate or encourage ripping out a woman's clitoris. I won't defend male circumcision certainly but it's not even close to the same thing... Frankly "Female circumcision" shouldn't even be used. The term should be "female genital mutilation."

I don't have any idea why it's happening - and it is happening over here too - except that maybe this "new generation" of gay men (of which I am a member) don't remember or know about the awful, awful years of the late 80s and early 90s and don't take the warnings seriously.

Amazing to see the mention of Oum Kalthoum in the article - she is probably the most famous and beloved musician/vocalist in the entire Middle East (and just happened to be a woman).

1) Obama is promising to end the war in Iraq which will save billions of dollars each month. McCain's tax record is absurd - he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice, claiming they were irresponsible in the face of SKYROCKETING federal spending and they only positively affected the rich (he was damned right!). And now, suddenly, he is FOR the same tax cuts and has called to make them permanent. Obama has admitted he would raise taxes for the rich and it hasn't lost him political capital. Besides, Americans are very worried about the terrifying deficit that Bush has created by cutting taxes and increasing spending (military spending) exponentially. 2) Any southern racist would have voted Republican anyway. They are they ultra-right. Race won't negatively affect this campaign. 3) McCain has more experience but he has run an embarassing campaign so far in the general election, ditching many of his previous stances (many of them noble, bipartisan, and courageous) for Bushisms. Gay marriage is up to the states but, oh, I will fight against them and civil unions. Cutting taxes and increasing spending is irresponsible, but I'm now for it anyway. War is terrible, so lets send thousands of more soldiers to Iraq and declare success. Torture should be illegal, except in Guantanamo. Campaign finance needs to be reformed, oh not anymore because I'm running for president and I need money. The religious right is dangerous, of except when I stand up with Rev. Hagee who has called for the execution of Catholics and gays. The economy is in trouble and needs help, so allow me to propose we do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT. 4) Absolutely no argument from me - they certainly will. And they will swiftboat Obama like they did Kerry. They will continue to spread false rumors that Obama is Muslim, that he studied under terrorists in Indonesia, that his mother in Kenya is connected to some violent anti-American terrorist group. Republicans are the most despicable people on earth and the only thing worse is a desperate republican. It will get ugly because they will make it ugly. But it won't work. Obama is going to win in a landslide. Mark my words. It won't even be close. McCain will embarass himself in November.