well i overheard a neighbor talking to a friend about how he had harvested a whole bunch of BUDs from his backyard. He just said he was planning on smoking them; I'm not sure what that means but good luck with your search.
Oh just leave the gal alone. So she made some stupid pop hits in the 80s and then tried to revive her career by posing for Playboy. That's still no reason for eBay's attack.
While I have no empirical evidence to support my assumption that there is a biological bias against homosexuality in most people, I am sticking with it as a working hypothesis. It's not pseudoscientific to brainstorm based on objective observations.
The problem is the working hypothesis you're starting with is one you admit has no evidence to back it up, meaning it is not truly based on objective observations. Your personal experience of "cringing" is possibly an "anecdote," but it is not really "evidence." The fact that some people don't cringe at the same information (or even the fact that you apparently don't cringe at seeing two women together) is just as objectively observable as your own cringing.
I see. And this "yuck factor" is empirically measured how again? I understood what he was saying just fine, but it's just wrong. It's a pseudoscientific way of justifying what is ultimately a moral prejudice via a flawed theory of evolution.
My aversion to homosexuality has nothing to do with Christianity. My aversion is rooted in evolution; the "yuck" factor maintains reproduction. Evolution depends entirely on reproduction!
So would you extend your aversion to nonprocreative heterosexual couples then? Other people's reproductive choices (or, in many cases, physiological limitations) seem like a bizarre thing for you to get worked up over. But if your aversion is only to nonprocreative homosexuals, what about homosexuals who do have children?
It's axiomatic that any person who does what is necessary to become a viable Presidential candidate will not be worth voting for.
True but it is not axiomatic that they would support this particular bill. Even Hillary voted against it, and she's certainly no stranger to doing "what is necessary" in politics.
Slashdot Mirror
you're just not using enough wasabi.
If you are, urine trouble.
This guy is number one in the field!
Thank goodness for that! I almost had to read the article!
My tiny little 6" lathe just won't spin a six foot disk no matter how hard I try
There there, it's ok, I'm sure you make up for it in other ways.
you have to stretch your imagination a little to let "BestCompuMaxCity" rhyme with "expandable tower."
you're not doing it right.
well i overheard a neighbor talking to a friend about how he had harvested a whole bunch of BUDs from his backyard. He just said he was planning on smoking them; I'm not sure what that means but good luck with your search.
I think he meant to type "licked."
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
STFU. FTW!
Slashdot does not censor posts no matter how unreliable or corrupt the poster is. Senator Bill Frist has just as much right to post here as any of us.
I'm sure he was plenty stable until he became disgruntled...
Stable? Wouldn't the correct word here be "gruntled"?
Oh just leave the gal alone. So she made some stupid pop hits in the 80s and then tried to revive her career by posing for Playboy. That's still no reason for eBay's attack.
I'm still working on my first one here. But I hear you can install a feline module to get 8 more.
While I have no empirical evidence to support my assumption that there is a biological bias against homosexuality in most people, I am sticking with it as a working hypothesis. It's not pseudoscientific to brainstorm based on objective observations.
The problem is the working hypothesis you're starting with is one you admit has no evidence to back it up, meaning it is not truly based on objective observations. Your personal experience of "cringing" is possibly an "anecdote," but it is not really "evidence." The fact that some people don't cringe at the same information (or even the fact that you apparently don't cringe at seeing two women together) is just as objectively observable as your own cringing.
PPC!! We've got a few CPUs here that are still working quite well under OS X that are apparently immune to this.
Balloon Help!!
Whoops - I thought it said System 7.
but you should see how long it takes to copy a 17-megabyte file on the iphone...
Would you like help?
I see. And this "yuck factor" is empirically measured how again? I understood what he was saying just fine, but it's just wrong. It's a pseudoscientific way of justifying what is ultimately a moral prejudice via a flawed theory of evolution.
My aversion to homosexuality has nothing to do with Christianity. My aversion is rooted in evolution; the "yuck" factor maintains reproduction. Evolution depends entirely on reproduction!
So would you extend your aversion to nonprocreative heterosexual couples then? Other people's reproductive choices (or, in many cases, physiological limitations) seem like a bizarre thing for you to get worked up over. But if your aversion is only to nonprocreative homosexuals, what about homosexuals who do have children?
True that. Sadly I'm probably going to vote for him anyway in November....
It's axiomatic that any person who does what is necessary to become a viable Presidential candidate will not be worth voting for.
True but it is not axiomatic that they would support this particular bill. Even Hillary voted against it, and she's certainly no stranger to doing "what is necessary" in politics.
We are only going to use it to snoop on phone calls to and from Sweden. The Russians asked us to do it.