Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Homosexuality does make sense. Evidence is mounting in studies of humans and non-human animals that homosexuals perform care-giving roles in social units and thus benefit the survival of the population as a whole.Thus, in some cases, "Male and Male" and "Female and Female" are also reasonable fits in nature. It is only pointless by your simple logic: no direct reproduction = unproductive/pointless. However, an examination of evidence suggests a scenario where homosexuals essentially engage in "indirect" reproduction by aiding the survival of their young kin.Just because you don't immediately see a "point" doesn't make it "pointless".

Humans can help humans in a general sense, but that is no refutation of the evidence. An individual without the capacity to "directly" reproduce has a greater biological drive to aid in the survival of their nieces and nephews, or an adopted child. Quite a distinct scenario from what your are attempting to generalize. No, it isn't. Again, your simple comebacks only work if you take a very simplistic view of things.In some species/situations, the total number of surviving offspring per generation in a social unit is higher when some members are homosexual than in comparable social units without homosexual members.As a word of advice, I suggest you actually read and take a moment to digest the posts you reply to - your replies are often off-base and simplistic in a way that suggests you haven't actually considered what you're responding to...

Even such things as shitting, eating, sleeping, breathing, etc.?Is your shit divinely separate from that of all other animals?Does it smell like roses?Face it, you are part of nature. Simply the fact that you eat and shit makes you part of nature and the animal kingdom.

So rather reply incorrectly than not reply? Are you actually interested in a genuine discussion here?It is better to take time and write decent, well-thought out posts in reply to posts you have taken time to digest and ponder. The very reason "the masses are here to take you on" is because you are writing crappy posts that are easily countered, and deserve to be. But that isn't reality, and it appears you should go back and read my explanation again. But here's an example to try to help explain:Ten potential male-female mating pairs exist in a small social group. In one group, all pair heterosexually, mate, and produce three progeny, for a total of thirty children. In a second group, because of some homosexual pairing, only seven matings occur, producing twenty-one progeny.At this point it would seem the purely heterosexual group has produced more children, but let's examine how many children actually survive to adulthood.In "group heterosexual" there are 1.5 children per adult caregiver, and a total of fifty mouths to feed.In "group part-homosexual" there is 1 child per adult caregiver, and a total of forty mouths to feed.Due to predation on the group (reduced by small child/adult ratio) and competition for scarce resources (compensated for by fewer mouths to feed), half of the children in "group heterosexual" die before adulthood, while only one child dies in "group part homosexual".So, the final tally:
"group heterosexual" - 15 children
"group part homosexual" - 20 childrenWhich group was more successful? Did homosexuality serve a biological purpose? In paired isolation, obviously male-female pairs would produce more kids than same-sex pairs. However, in some social species it appears that homosexual group members increase the number of surviving children for the group.If you aren't interested in looking at holistic effects on social groups across generations, you're not interested in looking at reality, and thus stuck in your hole of simplicity. Thanks for the intelligent response.

I don't think you made any choice at that point.You simply were heterosexual, just as your friend simply is homosexual.

Hey Phat,I realize I'm not admin, but I just thought I'd let you know that your "infantile/pagan" post and particularly the "prissy lifestyle" comment jumped out at me as being out-of-line (particularly for you). Not only were the comments insulting, they came off as quite arrogant and presumptive (I couldn't figure out for the life of me how you knew that Rrhain's lifestyle was or was not prissy). It doesn't surprise me that he responded with similar personal attacks. And though I saw no need whatsoever for Rrhain's posted hunk gallery, your response with a photo of the recently deceased Pope was bizarre and disgusting when taken within the context of the thread - I gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intent with that post, but as a response to Rrhain's post it did seem to claim you had sexual attraction for the now dead Pope.I'm not excusing some of Rrhain's comments in the thread - you two definitely spiralled into the bizarre, losing what I think was an important point about choice (berberry reworded it at one point in a more civilized tone).Hopefully you will take this for the neutral constructive criticism that it is meant to be...

I'm glad you took it as it was meant. Good idea - One issue I've been turning over in my head lately is Bush's stance on "life". Over the recent hub-bub regarding Terry Schiavo many right-wing conservatives (I include W. in this group) stated their allegiance to the "culture of life". Bush specifically said something along the lines of ~"regarding life and death decisions we should always err on the side of life".- However, this is the same man who refused to place a moratorium on executions in Texas after it was announced that following DNA evidence analysis, about half of death row inmates were wrongly incarcerated in other states. Bush simply stated "Texas didn't make any mistakes".Definitely not "erring on the side of life".- W. Bush is also the same man who signed a bill that permits removal of life support from people in PVS who can't afford life support, even at their family's objections, spiritual or otherwise.Sounds like "erring on the side of life unless you don't have any money."These are two specific examples that point out Bush's (and other right-wingers') hypocrisy on matters of "life", however I feel that other less documentable situations exist - including the underfunding of medical research and social services, reticience at donating funds to the recent tsunami disaster, ignoring genocide in countries that don't have oil, pillaging wilderness reserves, fighting regulation of firearms in any manner, etc....I don't want to get into deep arguments on the specifics of these, I simply feel they point out the facetious nature of most right-wingers.That is, not only do Bush and other right-wingers lie, they lie on a spiritual level when they portray themselves as following certain morals, and then do either the opposite or only practice them in a selective manner.This may not qualify them as "evil", but it gets them pretty close.

Did I say ALL? No. I am trying to have a decent discussion here - perhaps rather than just complaining about potential generalization you could address some of my points. (You seem so riled up in this thread...)Also, I think it is fair on my part to discuss "right-wing conservatives" who are running the country and determining the "right-wing conservative" agenda rather than those who consider themselves such but are less visible and active - that is, if you claim to be a right-wing conservative, you are choosing to align yourself with the people I am referring to.To start, perhaps you can give some input on the following statement, which I am not claiming is true and merely throwing out there for discussion: Right-wing conservatives are against abortion ("pro-life") and are for the death penalty ("anti-life").Does this statement apply to most right-wing conservatives in the US? If so, isn't there a serious spiritual/moral hypocrisy inherent in the stance? Is that "bad" or "evil"?

Thanks for your personal input; not too far off from my own views.But I my real question -
How accurate is my statement in characterizing "right-wing conservatives" who are the most highly visible, have the most power, and have the most influence over determining the nature of right-wing conservatism?And is the hypocrisy within the statement of the nature that brings to question the morality of people who stand by it?

But the impact of the death penalty is the core concept.If a society knows that the death penalty often results in the death of innocent suspects, AND provides no deterrant to heinous crimes by others - then that society is indeed practicing an "anti-life" method.(If I recall there have been studies showing that life imprisonment is more of a deterrant to crime than the death penalty.) Death row is solitary confinement. Those enacting such things events as the Salem witchcraft trials and the Holocaust thought the same damn thing. They were committing some of the most anti-life acts in history - but hey, if it was all for the good of society, it must have been pro-life, right?Ignorance doesn't right wrongs.

Well, the current rate of executions in the US is about sixty per year. The Illinois investigation you mentioned found that just over half of death row inmates were actually innocent, and they were exonerated. If I recall there was no reason to believe that Illinois' system was different from any other states' systems.If you make a few simple assumptions and do some quick math, you'll find it likely that a couple dozen people are wrongly executed each year (especially in places like Texas, where Bush did not institute the moratorium). A couple innocent people a month is not a "rarity". I would be interested to see the evidence you have correlating the presence of the death penalty in a state with a reduction in crime within prison. Until you show such evidence, your claim is "abstract". Our court system is, in part, capricious and resting on fear and ignorance. I would argue that is why black men are disproportionately executed in this country - fear and ignorance.Besides, I wasn't specifically referring to the US court system when I made my statement regarding Salem and the Holocaust. I was referring specifically to your apparently hypothetical ("a society") statement: See what you stated there? It doesn't matter what the evidence is, or if deterrance is achieved, essentially as long as a society thinks they are doing the right thing for society, they are "pro-life", even if it means executing people based on "nothing more than superstition, fear, ignorance, evil and megalomania." After all, you yourself excluded "the weight of the evidence" from your argument.Don't accuse me of hyperbole when I demonstrate that your argument of a "core concept" that is "pro-life" has been the basis of some of the most horrific atrocities of human history. Absurd. And in specifically what cases is it legitimate, since you claim it is in "some cases"? What is the specific cut-off or criteria for when one is sentenced to death instead of life?

Again, the key issue: You've claimed that the death penalty is "pro-life" because, even though it involves taking a life, it benefits the "life" of the rest of society.The problem is, I haven't seen any evidence showing that the death penalty does benefit society at large; and there may be evidence showing the opposite, that the pratice of execution degrades society through "official" cheapening of life (in this case it would be anti-life in both individual and societal terms).Without such evidence it difficult to say if the practice is "pro-life" or "anti-life"; simply because society thinks that a barbaric practice benefits it as a whole does not make it "pro-life". If that was the case, sacrificing virgins would be a great "pro-life" practice in some cultural contexts...

Thanks - that's very compelling...Now to see where I can poke holes in it... hmmmm...

This reminds me of one of the most frightening things I think I've ever seen on the news. A local newsperson was interviewing people congregating outside of a prison in the days leading up to an execution - some were protesting the execution, others were supporting it.The execution was particularly controversial because the public defender later admitted that he was drunk through much of the trial, and others had noted that he had fallen asleep several times during the trial - by all accounts it should have been a mistrial, but it was not.The newsperson asked one of the execution supporters how they felt about the fact that the man in all likelihood had a grossly inadequate defense. The pro-execution demonstrator, looking like an average middle-aged middle-income American woman, stated: "Look, a cop was killed in our community. Somebody has to pay."Justice wasn't important to these execution supporters - they simply wanted a sacrifice.Like I said, one of the scariest things I've seen on the news; and I think it is telling of the misguided reasons that people support and use the death penalty.