"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi
Disagree?
USA vs England: Once again raising the question, "How is a tie exciting?"
Dan: (on-air) We'll bring you the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and because we've got soccer highlights, the sheer pointlessness of a zero-zero tie.
Ok....I know that you guys don't hear from me much on here. I've been following along with the summations about BP. I cannot fathom the following statement. Poor BP.
"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) during a hearing on Thursday morning with BP's CEO Tony Hayward." I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future."
Way to go Republican party ---> Full story available at Huffington Post
Arizona: The New Jim Crow State
Apparently Arizona is lost in time. They seems to be degrading back to the 50s.... 1850s.
Any guesses as to what they will do next?
Source
Scientist: How the fuck are you not dead?
Ozzy: I'm the Prince of Fucking Darkness.
Scientist: Can we have some blood?
Ozzy: Sure.
(months later)
Science: Holy shit. Ozzy Osbourne IS the Prince of Darkness!
So, I owe Hillary Clinton an apology.
Now, it needs to be said, that during the Democratic primary Hillary Clinton was a gigantic fucking bitch. Her supporters were racists and sexists, she suggested that she needed to stay in the race in case Obama was shot, she was a god damned cunt about Florida and Michigan, she claimed that pledge delegates were not pledged, and her daughter refused to answer a question from a 4th grader, just to name a few things. So, I, and many others, gave her a lot of flack during the primary. And, let's say, 97% of it was deserved. Because throughout the primary Hillary Clinton really was a horrendous fucking bitch who felt she was entitled to the nomination and couldn't believe that some uppity fucking nigger was forcing her to campaign.
I mean, let's be honest; that's what was going on.
But then there's that 3%. And that 3% is this:
Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing. And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect. Maybe I've just lived a little long...but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be.
Some people enter graduate level philosophy programs in order to grow, to intellectually explore new ideas, new concepts, and new ways of being. Others enter graduate level philosophy programs in order to gain both knowledge and practice at rationally defending their own pre-conceived notions, preserved and protected since their infancy.
Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D., Harvard University took a third path: He neither grew as a person nor learned how to rationally argue. Instead, he went to Harvard, received his Ph. D., and then wrote Children in the custody of same-sex couples in parochial schools. Because, well, Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D., Harvard University, is a homophobic, ignorant bigot. I say "homophobic" because, well, he really fucking hates faggots. I say "ignorant" because, well, he never learned how to use a dictionary. And I say "fuckheaded" because he is a fucking fuckhead.
Let us begin.
The question arises of whether children in the custody of (one cannot say, “children of”) same-sex couples should be admitted to Catholic parochial schools.
My own son in the first grade in a Boston Archdiocesan parochial school had a classmate who was being raised by his father and another man.
The first involves the inevitability of scandal. It was inevitable that either the teacher, or some parent, would deal with the two men in such a way as implicitly to teach my son, or other children in the class, that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.
Someone might object that, no, what the teacher or parents would teach is to “love the sinner while hating the sin.” I say in reply that this objector is presupposing that the young children involved have already been taught to recognize and “hate” the sin, which is what is at issue. Also, I reject the idea that an appropriate task for a 6-year-old might be learning how to “love the sinner but hate the sin” in a matter involving both immediate familial affections and sexual disorder.
All of this is not even to touch upon the question of whether teachers and parents will distort how they talk about parents and family life, out of a misguided sense of “love.”
I saw this beginning to happen in my son’s school: not wishing to offend, teacher and parents would refer to the two men as the “parents” of that boy, even though only one was the father.
A mother or father may volunteer to read to the class or chaperone for a class trip. If the homosexual parent does so, what guarantee would I have that he would not be an advocate for his lifestyle, implicitly if not explicitly?
The same-sex couple was interestingly activist in hosting pizza parties, sponsoring tables at fundraisers, and volunteering when parental help was needed.
When I complained to the principal, she claimed that the school would never divulge such information, as it was “confidential” and a matter of “privacy.”
The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic.
When I raised these and similar concerns with the pastor, he replied that the school’s mission was to serve the child of the same-sex couple. I said that I believed that the Church indeed had such a mission, but that this mission conflicted with the mission to educate my son well.
Someone might wonder where the line should be drawn if children raised by same-sex couples are excluded from parochial schools. What about children raised by divorced, contracepting, or cohabiting couples?
Well--what would be the problem in requiring that if parents wish to enroll their children in a Catholic school, they must agree to abide by basic principles of morality?
It should be said that all of my practical concerns involve young children, who should be innocent of sexual matters and whose familial affections are still being formed. Nothing I have said would count against admitting children raised by same-sex couples into high school, and probably not middle school.
Michael Pakaluk is Professor of Philosophy at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA, where he teaches courses on ethics and the philosophy of marriage and the family. He formerly taught at Clark University, in Worcester, and has been a Visiting Scholar at Harvard University.
If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, no happy man can become miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful and mean. For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen.- Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1.
