Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3444
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. yeah Rogan’s not progressive. He’s not really anything. He’s, as suggested earlier, a sponge that can be talked into and out of anything.
  2. Right and that’s really the overarching theme here: that a person so suggestible to provably false falderal has absolutely no business being in the kind of position he occupies.
  3. Hell, they go batshit when anything gives that vague appearance. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read/heard the phrase “freedom of speech” or “first amendment” in connection with fucking Neil Young. It’s absolute insanity. It basically goes like this. They don’t want Original Law or New Law. They want Diet Law: all the rights, none of the responsibilities.
  4. Also, a quick Wikipedia search on the MAOA gene shows this. ”Several studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOApromoter repeat between ethnic groups: 52-59% of African American men,[11][10] 48-62% of Chinese men,[12][10][13][14] 62% of Maori men,[9] 57% of Japanese men,[15] and 33-37% of European men[10][11] carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele." Ok so by this dumbass’ rationale, Chinese and Japanese men should be as or more violent than African Americans. Except… “However, a large genome-wide association study has failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression.[47] A separate GWAS on antisocial personality disorder likewise did not report a significant effect of MAOA.[48] Another study, while finding effects from a candidate gene search, failed to find any evidence in a large GWAS.[46] A separate analysis of human and rat genome wide association studies, Mandelian randomization studies, and causal pathway analyses likewise failed to reveal robust evidence of MAOA in aggression.[49] This lack of replication is predicted from the known issues of candidate gene research, which can produce many substantial false positives.[50]” … ”The effects of MAOA genes on aggression have also been criticized for being heavily overstated.[56]Indeed, the MAOA gene, even in conjunction with childhood adversity, is known to have a very small effect.[57] The vast majority of people with the associated alleles have not committed any violent acts.[58][59]” So is this what that fuckwad would qualify as “doing your own research?” Just asking questions.
  5. Exactly what I was thinking. Hell, just on a personal level, my ancestors who moved to Virginia from Scotland back in the late 1600’s did it to escape British violence and oppression. So they thought the “red savages” of North America were less violent than the English. But sure, whoever that moron guest of Rogan’s was; go ahead and believe in some make believe and pretend bullshit about Europeans being less violent because “farmers and stuff.”
  6. Oh and as far as the origins of Nickelback hate: Not an endorsement, just putting it out there
  7. Accurate assessment. Seriously. "Legitimate political discourse" are just three words which they have absolutely no idea what any of them mean individually, much less in conjunction with each other. That's like Mitch "Blood Green" giving a lecture on particle physics.
  8. This needed to be the collective response.
  9. But but but those guys committed minor crimes like 5-7 years before the cops shot them so that makes it ok
  10. So if he tells the whole story, what's the Over/Under on how many times you call the TT a liar?
  11. It was going to be either us who went there or Skyline since DISD throws a fit whenever we’re paired with their teams.
  12. I absolutely loathe that term because there’s hardly anything intellectual about them.
  13. So which season could you verifiably say the CFP was more intriguing/competitive than the NFL playoffs going back to 2014? I can find some years where the NFL was better and other years where it was essentially a push, but that’s it. Parity tends to do that. When all things are damn near equal, random shit plays like that decide games. It’s not like when LSU played OU in the CFP and LSU could have had 7 turnovers and it still wouldn’t have mattered.
  14. Yeah and he kills it, butchers it and cooks it himself in his own ground pit which holds wood he personally cut and he lights the fire with flint and steel.
  15. I heard that in Stewie’s voice from this clip
  16. As someone who’s married to a first generation American, I can tell you that’s not an uncommon conversation that’s being had.
  17. Miseducation’s been around a long time. The only thing that’s changed is that it’s gotten more and more bizarre. It used to be that “Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, the Pilgrims sailed in 1620, had a nice meal with the Indians which we now call Thanksgiving, America won its independence from England in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris and George Washington was elected President in 1789 because he couldn’t tell a lie and admitted to cutting down the cherry tree as a boy.” A few generations later? “Christopher Columbus discovered Ohio in 1942, the Pilgrims defeated the Indians in the annual thanksgiving football game and the Indians acted like asses about it so we had to kill them, then Paul Revere started the Revolutionary War because the British Parliament wouldn’t grant us the right to bear arms, Ben Franklin was chosen as President by wowing Thomas Jefferson with the kite holding the key to Washington DC, then Jesus and Moses hand delivered the Constitution to James Madison on the Capitol steps.” Exaggeration? Only slightly.
  18. Not only is it made by Merck, but a year ago, Merck put out a statement and the overall theme was “do not give us your money to take our product for the purposes of treating COVID.” And yet these same motherfuckers ignored all of that. So they hate big Pharma so much that they’ll give them money to buy one of their products, but they don’t heed their advice not to take it for that purpose because “Big Pharma is full of shit, man.” There’s a word for that kind of tortured logic and we have a poster who bears the exact name of that condition: incredulity. I would wager all the money I have that if Merck had not released that statement, especially if it turned out that ivermectin does in fact have therapeutic value, and instead turned out a statement that read “send us your money and we will treat your COVID with this product,” they wouldn’t do it and they would find some other magical potion to deal with a very real illness.
  19. I think that’s a more narrow pinning down of a larger problem, which is the confirmation bias. To them, everything proves them correct no matter what the report is. Numbers going down? We don’t need masks, don’t need vaccinations. Numbers going up? Masks and vaccinations aren’t working. Old variants going away? Had to have been the ivermectin New variants coming in? Masks and vaccinations aren’t working, bring in the ivermectin. No new variants? See, I told you we didn’t need all these masks and vaccines. They don’t work and they didn’t do anything. Among the other isms, yes. Well yeah that’s kinda what I meant by shouting “I win!!! I’m king!!!” from the bottom of the hill.
  20. Taint dick, taint ass
  21. And of course, they said no such thing. They did say it had an “antiviral effect,” but that does not mean “effective against Omicron.” https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/japans-kowa-says-ivermectin-effective-against-omicron-phase-iii-trial-2022-01-31/ The original Reuters story misstated that ivermectin was "effective" against Omicron in Phase III clinical trials, which are conducted in humans. I doubt Rogan will acknowledge the correction, though.
  22. When you say "the early church," to which one are you referring? You make it sound as if it was a monolithic enterprise in earlier years, and that's not at all accurate.
  23. They may as well have used Ecclesiastes 3:19, for all the good that would have done them. But that's really the point, isn't it? That they have to twist themselves into such dishonest...errr "apologetic" pretzels that they have to do that practice of "reading between the lines without reading the lines" and perform these pitiful displays of mental gymnastics instead of just reading simple texts for what they are...like Yevamot 69b: "And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being” Or Sanhedrin 80b: "the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother’s thigh, i.e., a part of its body." Then of course the really hardcore liars...errr "apologists" are gonna shoot back with "that's from the Talmud; that's not Christianity." See, it's just a series of cans of worms that those people keep opening. Ok, so New Testament only, right? Matthew 5:18-19: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So Jewish law is very much relevant, according to their own savior, so I do not consent to that condition of "New Testament only." One of those laws is found in Numbers 5: 11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband" "Oh but they don't know she's pregnant," the apologist will mislead. Yeah, but they do know that if the suspicion is correct, this water will cause her to have a miscarriage. Abortion is, by definition, a forced miscarriage. Of course every thinking person knows this whole thing about curses and potions is pure bullshit, but that's not the point. The point is what's in that freakin' Bible they thump so loudly when women's reproductive rights are at issue. So according to Jewish Law, which is the foundation of the aforementioned Jesus passage in Matthew: 1. From day 0-40 of gestation, the being isn't even a being. It is "mere water." 2. From day 41 until live birth, the being is still not a being. It's a "part of a mother's body," most commonly referred to as a "thigh." * 3. If at any point prior to the live birth the woman's husband suspects that she's been unfaithful (and let's be realistic, what better reason would he have to suspect that than when she's pregnant when she should not be?), God not only endorses abortion, he participates in it. And notice, this forced miscarriage is to take place whether the woman wants it or not. She is to say "amen, so be it." *=Some of your Bibles will translate the Numbers passage as something to the effect of "the woman's thigh will rot and fall away" instead of "the womb miscarries." This is why. Yeah, again, those are just mental back-flips that you're witnessing. Some of them actually do. Some actually do know the passages I quoted. They just don't care. For them, religion isn't a life philosophy or a life discipline. It's simply a bat that they use to crack the skulls of anyone they do not like.
×
×
  • Create New...