Torture is right. For me, both Star Wars and Star Trek novels lie forever in that acne-laden time between sixth and seventh grades.
That is how I feel about Anne Rice novels.
I'll stand by Lestat the Vampire as a great exploration of the curse of immortality and emergent atheism, but I agree with you about the rest. The more she wrote, the worse it got.
I'll stand byLestat the Vampireas a great exploration of the curse of immortality and emergent atheism, but I agree with you about the rest. The more she wrote, the worse it got.
It's because she thought she was too good an author for an editor. Such a shame.
I like how she presents this in a manner that suggests that the mechanics behind vaginal intercourse are pretty and acceptable.
I like how that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It's like she's making an argument for outlawing homosexuality. OH NOES, THE GAYZ ARE GUNNA BUTTSECKZ U!
I like how that doesn't haveanything whatsoeverto do with gaymarriage. It's like she's making an argument for outlawing homosexuality. OH NOES, THE GAYZ ARE GUNNA BUTTSECKZ U!
I was kinda glossing over the obvious fucked-up nature of her "argument." But yeah, bitch be crazy.
Um yeah, homosexual sex used to be illegal. Then the Supreme Court of the United States said it was unconstitutional to criminalize homosexual activity. She can have fun with that.
She makes it sound like her personal distaste for a given sexual act makes any couple who engages in that act not eligible for marriage. Heterosexuals are just as creative as homosexuals when it comes to sex and many, many heterosexual couples likely engage in sexual acts that she finds distasteful including anal sex. Does this mean that heterosexuals that have more variety in their sex life shouldn't be eligible for marriage?
EDIT:
Here is her contact information: Hillsborough- District 19 Seat #:5007 Incumbent
Home Address: 70 Island Dr Merrimack, NH 03054-4123 Phone: (603)424-4566 Email: nancy_elliott@elliott-controls.com
Once again, we lesbians go completely overlooked. While everyone is busy obsessing over buttsex, we will sneak into all of your rooms and GAY YOU IN THE NIGHT.
Someone should point out to her that other 'unnatural' sex acts include wearing a condom, using any kind of toy, using any kind of lotion or oil, oral sex, role-playing, S & M, and circumcision. Additionally, NONE of those things have any point in receiving legal benefits for being dedicated to a single person in a (hopefully) long term relationship. Even if captain crazy pants there managed to get some sort of law passed, how are you going to enforce anti-sodomy laws? Put a camera on everyone's forehead?
Only silent, heterosexual, consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation within the bounds of a marriage in the Church that was conducted out of mutual love and with permission from the bride's parents is acceptable to these people.
Only silent, heterosexual, consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation within the bounds of a marriage in the Church that was conducted out of mutual love and with permission from the bride's parents is acceptable to these people.
The bride should also be a virgin or be stoned to death, right?
My favorite quote from that article: "Academia is skewed too far to the left."
Hmmm, could that be because the people on the "left" started out as academics who wanted to actually look at things logically? Perhaps Academia came first, rather than the "left" coming first and Academia leaning toward it. But no, there is no point in trying to apply logic to these people.
My favorite quote from that article: "Academia is skewed too far to the left."
If someone actually said that to me, there would be a severe Buzz Aldrining in their immediate future.
Science is not to the left, Science isn't anywhere on the political spectrum. Science is politically aligned with Science, and that is all. If you think that Science is "Too far to the left" because Science doesn't agree with your magical imaginary friend, then maybe you picked the wrong imaginary friend.
Science teaching can become ideological when some theories are given more (or less) weight than they deserve within the academic curriculum. This is most common when a new theory comes out that puts an established theory into question or when a theory conflicts with a religious and/or widely held belief.
Perhaps we need a grading system for scientific theories? Base it on how old the theory is, how well documented it is, how much peer review it has sustained, and rank it according to the other theories it competes with.
PS: Any science that tries to hide its data to avoid peer review is not worthy of being called a scientific theory.
Science teaching can become ideological when some theories are given more (or less) weight than they deserve within the academic curriculum. This is most common when a new theory comes out that puts an established theory into question or when a theory conflicts with a religious and/or widely held belief.
Perhaps we need a grading system for scientific theories? Base it on how old the theory is, how well documented it is, how much peer review it has sustained, and rank it according to the other theories it competes with.
PS: Any science that tries to hide its data to avoid peer review is not worthy of being called a scientific theory.
That wouldn't help the problem. A scientific theory doesn't have any need for grading, as it cannot become a theory without having the weight of evidence behind it that indicates that it is most likely fact.
Also, even if you did grade theories, Intelligent design - their chosen religion dressed up in a veil of science so thin that it's essentially non-existent - still wouldn't be graded, because it's not a scientific theory. It's a weak attempt to turn their religious belief into science so that it can be taught as fact, and it never is, never has been, and most likely never will be considered a scientific theory.
And then of course, if you were grading scientific theories, they would protest that their "Theory" wasn't being rated, rate it as "A++ would believe teach again" and claim that academia was too far to the left, and suppressing their "theory".
And please, Don't pretend that their comment of "Academia is skewed too far to the left." is about anything but the general refusal to teach their chosen religion as fact, or to acquiesce to their demands to "Teach the controversy" when there is none, unless you want to count the "Controversy" that they manufacture by screaming "Our religion Scientific theory is right, and you're just trying to suppress us!"
PS: Any science that tries to hide its data to avoid peer review is not worthy of being called a scientific theory.
Yes, I agree. That's why Intelligent design isn't a theory, and shouldn't be taught.
And please, Don't pretend that their comment of "Academia is skewed too far to the left." is about anything but the general refusal to teach their chosen religion as fact, or to acquiesce to their demands to "Teach the controversy" when there is none, unless you want to count the "Controversy" that they manufacture by screaming "OurreligionScientific theory is right, and you're just trying to suppress us!"
Comments
Man, with all this twilight BS, I wish vampires would go back to being gay.
Long live these forums.
I like how she presents this in a manner that suggests that the mechanics behind vaginal intercourse are pretty and acceptable.
EDIT:
Here is her contact information:
Hillsborough- District 19
Seat #:5007
Incumbent
Home Address:
70 Island Dr
Merrimack, NH 03054-4123
Phone: (603)424-4566
Email: nancy_elliott@elliott-controls.com
Have fun!
Meanwhile -
Teabaggers RAGE at Marvel Comics for depicting them... accurately? And Marvel actually apologizes to these people.
(By the way, that "Bag the liberal dems before they bag you" sign was based off of an actual sign by a bagger used at a rally.)
Faith in humanity today: -100000000
Man, the religious right is SO messed up.
Hmmm, could that be because the people on the "left" started out as academics who wanted to actually look at things logically? Perhaps Academia came first, rather than the "left" coming first and Academia leaning toward it. But no, there is no point in trying to apply logic to these people.
Science is not to the left, Science isn't anywhere on the political spectrum. Science is politically aligned with Science, and that is all. If you think that Science is "Too far to the left" because Science doesn't agree with your magical imaginary friend, then maybe you picked the wrong imaginary friend.
Perhaps we need a grading system for scientific theories? Base it on how old the theory is, how well documented it is, how much peer review it has sustained, and rank it according to the other theories it competes with.
PS: Any science that tries to hide its data to avoid peer review is not worthy of being called a scientific theory.
Also, even if you did grade theories, Intelligent design - their chosen religion dressed up in a veil of science so thin that it's essentially non-existent - still wouldn't be graded, because it's not a scientific theory. It's a weak attempt to turn their religious belief into science so that it can be taught as fact, and it never is, never has been, and most likely never will be considered a scientific theory.
And then of course, if you were grading scientific theories, they would protest that their "Theory" wasn't being rated, rate it as "A++ would believe teach again" and claim that academia was too far to the left, and suppressing their "theory".
And please, Don't pretend that their comment of "Academia is skewed too far to the left." is about anything but the general refusal to teach their chosen religion as fact, or to acquiesce to their demands to "Teach the controversy" when there is none, unless you want to count the "Controversy" that they manufacture by screaming "Our religion Scientific theory is right, and you're just trying to suppress us!" Yes, I agree. That's why Intelligent design isn't a theory, and shouldn't be taught.
Also: 5 elements, hollow earth, humors, demon theory, and Illuminati.