Jump to content


Member Since 18 Oct 2009
Last Active Today, 07:13 PM

#3333190 why are neo-confederates and other varieties of white supremacist so attracte...

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 01:47 PM

That is adorable considering the majority poorest states in our country are traditionally Republican controlled states:

South Carolina
West Virginia

Are all in the bottom 15 in US for poverty rates.


I'm not sure you've heard but CHICAGO CHICAGO CHICAGO?

#3332874 why are neo-confederates and other varieties of white supremacist so attracte...

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 10:41 AM

3:30 into the video if you care to check it out




This is like someone linking Yahoo news comments as evidence that all white men voted for McCain because he's white.

#3332760 why are neo-confederates and other varieties of white supremacist so attracte...

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 09:05 AM

The best part of this is the accusation that it was racism that caused black people to vote for Obama.


Not the possibility that they actually thought he might push policies to improve their lot in life.

#3331529 Hypothetical.... for now

Posted by mav1234 on 23 April 2015 - 08:35 AM

Maybe when a gene/whatever is found, we can put to rest if it's a choice versus environmental impact.  Existence of gene would suggest 100% right?  Just like blue or brown eyes. 


No.  It wouldn't.  Said gene could predispose someone.  It could be a suite of features related to genes and the environment (as it probably is).


edit: there also is not just one gene related to eye color and the environment can alter colors sometimes. 


anyway it is likely to be a set of factors interacting in different ways, likely with multiple pathways, that can end up with what we call homosexuality.  sexuality itself seems to be more of a spectrum than a hard and fast line, and as such, I wouldn't expect a single gene to be responsible.

#3331474 why are neo-confederates and other varieties of white supremacist so attracte...

Posted by mav1234 on 23 April 2015 - 07:35 AM

Obama also lost votes because he was black. He won because he appealed to a lot more voters than his opponents, regardless of his skin color.

#3329864 Hypothetical.... for now

Posted by mav1234 on 22 April 2015 - 09:37 AM

I do not think that that will be the only thing we are able to find out from a genetic standpoint. 


Do we let them abort kids with down syndrome, that red hair, unathletic, hyper, people who want a gay baby instead of a straight baby, etc


But this question doesn't really matter IMHO bc I think that we will at some point be able to predetermine the traits of our children rather than react to their traits in the womb. That is far more scarier as everyone will end up looking and acting like me.


...this is already done.


fwiw I have less of a problem with testing for developmental disabilities than I do with the other things you listed.


I have some major issues with unintended consequences of selection should we become too focused on certain genes in particular.  While I think research there should continue I am really, really hesitant whenever scientists discuss genetics of intelligence and the like.   anyway...

#3329828 Hypothetical.... for now

Posted by mav1234 on 22 April 2015 - 09:09 AM

oh and btw... the idea that "being gay is genetic" Does not mean that there is a single gay gene, nor that we will ever have a test with 100% accuracy related to "being gay."  the studies to date suggest it is far, far more complicated than a single gene, or even a couple mutations in different genes, with epigenetics playing a role etc.  The last I read on the subject suggested some markers were correlated with being gay but that they were not completely predictive.  so, while it may seem simple to test for "The gay gene" conceptually it is much further off.


and fwiw I'm also curious if some of these religious people will change their stance on abortions, or if they'll wonder why God gave them a gay child. 

#3327332 recent study shows that partisan politics has overtaken race as society's...

Posted by mav1234 on 20 April 2015 - 09:05 AM

Don't get me wrong, slavery was definitely an issue, but it was a secondary issue to the larger issues that led to secession.


that is like saying that the gay marriage debate is not about bigotry or discrimination against gay people but state's rights.


yes, there is an argument - in some senses legitimate, and definitely talked about - that states should be able to decide many of their own rules and laws, about the power of the federal government, of economic policies disproportionately impacting different states...


but ultimately had the north not opposed slavery in the least, had there never been a question of it, there never would have been a civil war. there still would have been state-based conflict ofc but there always is and always will be.


you are 100% right that the historical context is far more complex than Lincoln's election, but the Civil War came out of a changing America in which one sociopolitical system was being crushed against the tides of time, and that crushing force lead to a splintering nation.  we can't pretend that slavery wasn't the ultimate motivation for the war, because it was.  that isn't to say the war was to free the slaves; it wasn't, but it was about the central question of what rights do states have... and that question wouldn't have existed in that context without slavery.  There were many reasons for succession, but most of them related directly to the socioeconomic systems of the south.


edit: I see you basically corrected yourself in subsequent posts and I actually think we are largely in agreement, woops

#3319433 New generation

Posted by mav1234 on 12 April 2015 - 08:00 AM

"“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise." - Socrates

This 'kids today' routine has been going on since kids were invented.

That's what kids today always say.

#3318820 Hillary is a go, chances she wins the GE?

Posted by mav1234 on 11 April 2015 - 09:27 AM

For the Jeb fans that cheered for the commercial against Rand.



I want the establishment to loose both for republicans and democrats.

Too bad it's going to be establishment vs establishment, woo.

#3318443 CA cops in trouble now

Posted by mav1234 on 10 April 2015 - 07:17 PM

It's time for all law enforcement to have to wear cameras

#3318292 CA cops in trouble now

Posted by mav1234 on 10 April 2015 - 03:50 PM

Scary to think what might be going unrecorded

#3318244 South Carolina police officer charged with murder (after video evidence)

Posted by mav1234 on 10 April 2015 - 02:41 PM

personal responsibility brigade to the rescue

#3314700 The Rand Paul Smear Campaign

Posted by mav1234 on 07 April 2015 - 01:18 PM

I just don't think he is a social conservative. Some views of his I do disagree with. He would be a face lift for the party.

He defines himself as a social conservative I think his statements back that up.

I think it is ok if you want to support him despite that. You and I just have different priorities. No problem there.

I don't have a strong desire for any of the announced candidates yet. I may not vvote this cycle as I have a hard time feeling enthusiastic about any of the realistic candidates for either side (I don't see Bernie or Warren as options), but it's very early to be definitive there.

#3314606 The Rand Paul Smear Campaign

Posted by mav1234 on 07 April 2015 - 12:00 PM

Rand Paul's positions are just way too socially conservative for me.  He lost a lot of credibility with me on foreign policy when he signed that idiotic letter regarding Iran.  I no longer know where he stands on national defense spending after his recent proposal to increase spending there.


His ideas regarding social issues are just too divergent from my own for me to ever support him.  I find it funny people try to brand him a libertarian, yet he opposes same sex marriage quite strongly, believes that religion has a place in government, and wants to outlaw abortion.  I don't believe he is committed to ending the war on drugs (which he has basically said he is not), and though I approve of him wanting to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences I think his general disagreement with legalized marijuana is rather meh.  I like him leaving it up to the states rather than barring it at a federal level though.


One of my biggest issues is with him on campaign finance reform.  Unsurprisingly, he opposes personal limits on donations for individuals/corporations, which is a big deal to me.  He has made lip service to preventing lobbying by wanting to have promises made by contractors not to lobby etc... which is a nice general idea but I'd rather just get money out of politics.


Ultimately I think Paul is a pretty standard social conservative with a couple more libertarian ideas related to the fed (which I have no opinion on his policies), the NSA, and law enforcement.  


He may be better than other Republican options but I'd never support someone that is such a strong social conservative myself.