Shoutbox
-
Posts
257 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shoutbox
-
-
The Bills. The ownership situation with them is much worse than with the Sabres.
-
Personally I'm not religious but I don't see religion as the main problem to societies ills Mr Maher.
Ok, but I wouldn’t so casually disregard the strife between Islamic peoples and the Judeo-Christian/secular nations of the West. Same thing with all of the human rights abuses throughout the world made in the name of religion.
The problem with religion is that it used as a justification to suspend logic and rationality in ANY public policy debate in order to support ANY cause. In the specific issue of euthanasia, these religious ideas happen to support government authority over an individual’s free choice. Maybe Terri Schiavo court cases don’t affect nearly as much of society as - say – the financial crisis of 2008, but they do legitimize non-analytical ways of thinking that eventually poison the broader public discourse.
it doesn't muddy the issue at all....it brings an inconvenient point of view into the arguement with which you do not agree.
Yes, invoking an imaginary authority figure to logically support one side of an argument can be highly "inconvenient."
-
or its just the common sense idea, present in all of us, that ALL human life has value.
First of all, it's not present in all of us. Many believe in abortion. Many others believe in capital punishment. And of course, there are sociopaths, murderers, etc...
But the issue of euthanasia isn't about "human value." It's partly about the freedom of individuals to have control over their own bodies. It's also about human compassion to not see others suffer.
And for the purposes of any further euthanasia debate, the pro-euthanasia group like myself is referring to people with obvious terminal illnesses that cause great pain during their final days. Think more of the woman referred to in this thread, not some teenager with depression.
What we need is the federal government to do away with any religion. Make it against the law to believe in a god other than the government
Makes you smile just thinking about it, doesn't it? Imagine. Only the government to rule the world.
Oh, well, a man can dream, eh?
Wrong. As a libertarian, I strongly dislike most forms of government force - especially forms that go against our first amendment liberties.
But yes, I would love it if religion and all forms of supernatural thought were eventually eradicated throughout the world with the use of verbal persuasion and rational thought. Religion is an assault on human dignity, but it also muddies public policy issues like euthanasia.
P.S. Happy Easter, everyone!
-
If the power-mad scumbags who run our gubmint didn't have such a hard on to abolish any type of reasonable euthanasia, people wouldn't need to resort to gunshots to the head.
It's not just the scumbag politicians. It's the religious freaks who think their imaginary daddy in the sky disapproves of euthanasia.
-
At LB, the Bills have 1 mediocre starter (Lawson), 1 marginal starter (Bradham), 3 career backups (Sheppard, White, Moats), 1 specialty cover LB (Scott), and 2 specialty pass-rushing OLB's (Mario, Anderson). That's clearly not enough for a team hoping to operate out of both a 3-4 and a 4-3. They still need 1 starting OLB, 1 starting ILB, and depth.
Also, keep in mind that this year's draft is loaded with quality and depth at the front 7. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bills use up to 4 of their 6 picks on LB's and hybrid 4-3 DE's/3-4 OLB's. I have no clue what the Bills think about Geno Smith, Barkley, Manuel, Nassib, Wilson, etc... but if they honestly don't like any of these QB's at 8th overall, look for one of the top 3 OLB's with the pick (Ansah, Jordan, or Jarvis Jones).
-
Nassib in the 2nd isn't so bad, but a guard in the 1st is ridiculous when the Bills already showed their opinion of guard value when they chose not to pay Levitre.
I think Dion Jordan, Ezekiel Ansah, or Jarvis Jones is the way to go in the 1st.
-
There is no scientific consensus on the causal nature of homosexuality, period. And that is a fact! Admirable that you feel strongly enough about the issue and decided to offer opinions based off your own experiences with gays. I too know some gay people and they are friends, people I would trust with my children with, but it does not negate the fact that both sides on this issue deserve an equal opportunity to voice their concerns. Social issues are important, and their ramifications cannot be measured or predicted until much later, but who better to discuss them than we the people!!! As much as possible it’s important that we get making major changes to society, correct. Even if it turns out that normalizing homosexual behavior produces no measurable difference or negative outcome, the debate was one worthy of having.
Cheers!
Tim-
But there is very much a strong scientific consensus on the idea that homosexuality is determined in a human before birth, even if the exact mechanism by which sexual preference occurs is still unknown (and by the way, if you read everything I've posted so far, I never stated there was a consensus on the EXACT cause of homosexuality).
Of course there are no "facts" for this type of science in the same way that one can prove F = m * a, but once again...like a broken record...please do your own searches of scientific journals if you don't believe me...any post-natal scientific theory for homosexual preference origins gets quickly refuted, rebuked, or plain old ignored (i.e. poorly cited).
-
Thanks for the tip, but I just don't care enough about the subject to spend that much time on it. You seem to be really interested and really passionate about this topic. Seems a little strange coming from the one poster who professes to romance the ladies more than all others, but I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that. And thanks for clearing up the whole nature v nurture debate for us. I didn't realize the consensus was in on that one, but then my IQ is a bit lacking. But hey, that's why I have guys like you to defer to.
A "maybe you're gay" insinuation...how utterly juvenile.
It's the off-season. In the absence of interesting Bills talk, I choose to spend my time defending gay people because I know several, and they are good people who didn't choose their sexual orientation, and they deserve defense against ignorance and bigotry like any other human being does.
The nature vs. nurture debate - with specific regards to sexual orientation - most definitely does have a scientific consensus in favor of "nature" (which includes the prenatal environment of the mother's womb).
Again...don't take it from me. Take it from credible scientists. But if you don't want to search scientific journals or read scientific textbooks or e-mail scientists or even use google/wikipedia, then what else can I say?
-
Funny how this so offends you two. I even qualified it by stating that it was unconfirmed and just something I heard, yet you decide to give a snide response anyway. I'll remember not to waste my time conversing with you.
BTW, can you provide a link to these exclusive scientific journals you've cited, Dr. Miller? Thanks in advance dude.
If you actually care about this subject and on science in general, then drive down to your local community or university library this weekend and ask the librarians for help. Nature and Science are the gold standard, but any journal that publishes research in evolutionary biology or psychology will suffice. Keywords like "homosexuality in nature" or "origins of sexual selection" might be useful. If you're too lazy for that, try e-mailing professors throughout the country who are experts on this subject.
Basically, go do your own !@#$ing homework. I could care less if you don't believe anything I type. Don't listen to me. Listen to scientists. The scientists are on my side, which is the side that believes homosexuality in a human is determined by the time they are born. And the idea that childhood molestation (or narcissism, low self-esteem, the media, etc..) causes homosexuality later in life is !@#$ing comical to a non-Christian scientist or to anyone with an IQ above 100.
-
Why on earth should anyone believe that that number is true?
Because Rob's House heard it on the radio, and everyone knows that the radio is a much more reliable source than scientific journals.
-
So, the gay parade marches on.
So all you gay lovers, if your child is a homosexual and gets married to his / her lover, you'd be totally comfortable at the wedding reception then?
I know you'll all say no problem...He'd make me proud, move on society, I raised him right etc....BUT you cant tell me you wouldn't be a little uncomfortable. Sure, you will say you are fine with it.....but me thinx not.
jb
Can I...can I at least call this guy a bigot?
-
Oh, Marc. Oh, Marc. What you don't know on the subject is a lot.
While I'm not an expert on the subject of homosexuality, there are plenty of social scientists and evolutionary biologists who ARE experts and have dedicated their lives to this subject using logic, reason, and the scientific method. I go by what they say.
And NONE of them (or at least the ones from credible, i.e. non-religious, institutions) would agree with D521646's assertion that homosexuality is a conscious choice or that homosexuality is due to narcissism, low self-esteem, child molestation, or the social environment.
The overwhelming consensus is that it is due to some still undetermined combination of genetic and prenatal environment factors. But while the exact cause of homosexuality is not settled fact, D521646's explanation was completely nonsensical.
Go to a library, e-mail professors, and read scientific journals if you're not a fan of Marc Miller's ideas.
-
wow, 7 pages on the gay... I mean, I know it's the offseason and all, but really? As for me and my opinion. I'm not religious, nor am I a self-declared intellectual social scientist with scholars adorning my office walls, but homosexuality to me seems mostly a product of ones environment. I know, I know, lots of useless ill-conceived studies from these same social scientists say otherwise, but they're worth about as much as the paper on which they're written. To me, and almost all (But not all) gay people I've met all suffer from the same personality type, and that's both men and women. They're self-loathing, narcissists, even if they don't themselves realize it. Most (but not all) gays I've met also have some issue from their childhood that raises questions about their now adult affliction with homosexuality. Mommy issues, Daddy issues, molestation, self-esteem issues, you name it. You wanna be gay, fine, go be gay power to you and all, but stop for the love of Buddy Nix, with the in-your-face BS. Being gay shouldn't reflect in any way on how someone plays football, so why even make it an issue unless you're "seeking" attention, and somehow trying to tie your predilection for the gay to your football ability. New flash, being gay doesn't have anything to do with your athleticism or football intelligence, NOTHING at all to do with it. Wise up, and just go play football!
Homosexuality isn't a choice or a product of one's environment any more than is heterosexuality. This entire post is ridiculous and filled with a dangerous mix of factual inaccuracies and bigotry.
-
Buffalo is listed as number 4 of the 5 weakest rosters going into the draft. They list (1) Jacksonville, (2) Oakland, (3) New Jersey Jets behind us; and (5)San Diego ahead of us. The article pointed out the deficiencies at LB, CB, and WR which I agree with. But I don't feel we're in need of a RT. Your thoughts?
RT is mediocre but acceptable with Pears and Hairston. The current status of the QB, G, WR, and LB positions is downright frightening. So overall, I would say that ranking is pretty accurate.
-
That is the worst looking white trophy wife I have ever seen with a rich black man.
-
We have PLENTY of cap room to sign anyone we want. Our salary cap status was among the healthiest in the league BEFORE we decided not to re-sign Levitre.
-
There are 5 starting positions that need to be addressed: QB, WR, LG, OLB, ILB.
The rest of the roster holes can easily be filled with mid-/late-round draft picks and inexpensive free agents.
I am going to give the front office up through the draft before I start panicking and whining....though admittedly after 13 years, they probably don't deserve such a grace period.
-
Only if they truly feel like he's a guy who can be a high-quality NFL QB for 10+ years.
Otherwise, just go with "best player available" philosophy. There are just too many roster holes right now and only 6 picks in the draft.
-
Yes but Skelton - not Kolb - is the Cardinals QB that we want, even if it means trading Mario to make it happen.
-
that's a big oops by the original doctor saying had spinal stenosis instead ;
"Brigham concluded that Jones either had a
very mild incident of spinal cord concussion or merely a stinger
that has long since resolved. If another similar injury occurs, Brigham concludes it would not be a career ending issue."
every year we have to fix the defense, it's long past due that the offense gets some players.
We didn't get to all those Superbowls because of our Defense.
I know it needs work but other than LB we have solid guys on D that can Pettine can unleash. There are other pass rushers in this draft or FA and we would do well to get a big, explosive WR like Patterson. Although I wont be upset if we draft Jones but we had better get some WRs in here or we will go nowhere again.
That's quite an understatement. Bradham is the only LB on the roster with starting-caliber talent (and even that's up for debate).
-
The Bills are drafting 8th this year, so last season they were most definitely among the 10 worst. Depending on how the offseason goes, maybe they can consider themselves not among the 10 worst anymore. But I'm not holding my breath.... Looking a bit long term, the Bills have not only been among the 10 worst this century but are probably considered THE WORST. I give you the past 13 seasons, listed in order of crappiness:
9-7
8-8
8-8
7-9
7-9
7-9
6-10
6-10
6-10
6-10
5-11
4-12
3-13
7 last place finishes in the division, 5 second to last place finishes, 1 second place finish, and 0 division titles.
Yep. Worst NFL team of the 21st century.
-
Let's be clear on this. Andy Levitre is a goner from Buffalo. He will make much more hitting the FA market. He would be the #1 target for OL in FA.
He actually would be foolish $ wise to stay in Buffalo.
Now let me - Marc Miller - be clear on this: if Levitre doesn't get re-signed, there will be a massive ticket boycott from an already very angry fanbase.
The guy's wife is from Buffalo. He wants to be here. Pay the man and move forward. Stop creating new holes while trying to fill current ones.
-
I don't know. They are always being played off as blackmail to the current teams. What would have been ideal is somehow they get their teams in in the next few years, before the 7 years on our new lease.
Agreed. If the LA market gets their 2 teams (Raiders, Chargers, Rams?) before Ralph dies, the bidding price for the Bills franchise goes WAY down.
-
Wow...Milliner, Moore, and now Lotulelei dropping...seems like Joeckel and Werner are the only players guaranteed to be gone by #8.
86 year old man shoots wife in head...
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Her wishes were to not be hopelessly kept alive as a vegetable. A real shame she had a couple of Jesus freaks for parents...