David "If you believe today that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, you are a deplorable who is not keeping up with the times. No matter that every woman has two X chromosomes while every man has both an X and Y chromosome."

Well for a start that isn't true, humans can have XXY and XYY as well chromosomes. You can have a XY pair and be female because the SRY gene is not functional or it could have been triggered in a different sequence. You can also have two XX chromosomes and grown testes because you have duplicated SOX9 gene's. I could go on. my point is the world is more complicated then you believe it is.

Finally Ben Carlson is a young earth creationist so he shouldn't be taken to seriously outside of his area of expertise.

//One more thing! Above all, don't forget to laugh.//

Oh, I laugh at you mob all the time. Anti-bullying programs that are secretly radical sexual indoctrination dreamt up by the International Communist Conspiracy? That's frigging hilarious. Attempting to portray yourself as highly knowledgeable when it comes to human biology when you've apparently never heard of Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome etc. Pure comedic gold. How do you guys come up with this stuff?

//So, what can we do as mother and fathers who care for the future of our daughters and our sons, and who want to take a stand against the insanity of political correctness or should I say Cultural Marxism through our society?//

Those of us who watched Monday's Q&A would have been fortunate to see national treasure & author Mem Fox give her views on political correctness, which were pretty much spot on. Essentially, what she said was that 'political correctness' is just new-fangled jargon for the old fashioned virtue of politeness, and what's wrong with that?

It's a good question, although apparently asking it makes one a Marxist even if the closest you've ever come to reading the Communist Manifesto is reading Animal Farm. Not really sure how that works. Maybe one of our resident Tories would like to explain the connexion between politeness and the radical redistribution of wealth? This should be entertaining...

“...the ideas our politicians come up with these days are utterly ridiculous to begin with.”

Never a truer word spoken! Who needs cartoonists and court jesters when we have politicians.

No matter what, Bill Leak's death will always be associated with the Human Rights Commission and the total gutlessness of the Turnbull Coalition Government.

Bill Leak cartoon gallery:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Bill+Leak+cartoon+Science+of+fiction&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMoLuclNzSAhVJW5QKHblRBHwQ7AkILg&biw=1536&bih=726

Unfortunately, some of the best are missing: e.g.

Science Fiction Class: "Write an essay about how Alberta Einstein proved we celebrate Australia day on the wrong day"
Screen shows:
E = M*C^2, where
E = Exclusion
M = Misogyny
C = Capitalism

"Out of of cultural sensitivity to some of our more devout Muslim pupils we have decided to relax the school rule banning the beheading of infidels"

You can see them here (click on "Bleak view":
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cartoons/bleak-gallery/image-gallery/ee8a4ef1032a9da5a37c87ecb7f34c5c

Sadly Bill has met his predetermined date with destiny. But before he got there, used considerable laconic humor and cut through satire, to make some folk just take a good long hard look at themselves?

And follow that often confected outrage, by just owning their own, often antisocial behavior.

The Irish have a saying, life can't be taken too seriously, after all none of us get out of it alive. And on the subject of lunacy, folk who think they need a psychiatrist, ought to have their head examined. I think wherever Bill is now, he'd probably agree with both those sentiments?
Alan B.

For about a millisecond, I thought Toni Lavis had written something intelligent for a change. But no, she thinks the Safe Schools program is about bullying.

No, it's not. If it were it would be about ALL bullying, not just bullying of the 2 per cent who might think they are sexually "different".

No, Safe Schools is a dating service for paedophiles, run with the collusion, in particular, of the Gillard, Turnbull and Andrews governments and the teachers who promote that crap in schools. Plus, of course, Roz Ward and the rest of those who infest the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at LaTrobe University.

http://unsafeschools.org/the-australian-safe-schools-program-la-trobe-university/

If Lavis thinks the Safe Schools program has anything at all to do with bullying, she hasn't been paying attention. Ward openly stated her goal of spreading cultural Marxism via the Safe Schools program, following the American model developed by Kevin Jennings, when she addressed the 2015 Marxism Conference at Melbourne University. There's nothing "secret" about that.

Continuing her inane theme, Lavis says Mem Fox is a "national treasure". Mem Fox, the loyal supporter of her husband, Malcolm, who was convicted of sex crimes he committed in the 1980s with a 17 year old male student. And Mem Fox reckons political correctness is just old fashioned politeness? Apart from the totalitarian silencing of anybody who disagrees, you mean? And the bureaucratic bullying and intimidation from that clown Triggs and her lackeys? That sort of bullying is OK, huh? It's OK to bring the full force of state power against a cartoonist and some students just because they should learn to be "polite".

Bit of a pattern developing there. At the very least, a pattern of gross ignorance on Lavis's part.

Leaks dead good, he was a weak man used by NEWS CORP to advance there Racist/Fascist agenda,he drew to orders from his editors they would be more responsible for his heart attack than anyone.
Fancy talking about the idiot from the US Ben Carson in the idiot Trumps Govt what an example.
Typical rubbish from the usual Right wright wing BS artists,pedophiles & Safe Schools, better start with the Catholic Church then go through the other religions who are just as bad before starting on Safe schools maybe you would be better cleaning up your own yard first

Mem Fox was the target of vicious politically correct campaigns aimed at silencing her when for instance she observed that children were being baby-sat with technology.

Her comments were blown out of all proportion.

Sadly, science has proved Mem Fox to have been correct, those screens are not good for young children. Generations are being raised by isolating iPads and so on.

Just to say that political correctness goes beyond petty annoyances and seeks to abuse, coerce and ultimately destroy the person who transgresses against it, even mildly, well intentioned and supported by science and good sense.

to think the homosexuals (though few) who were bullied in the 50's and 60's are now among the most intolerant bigotted and violent mob going around. I think they hate the fact that biology just exposes how unnatural the acts they perform are. No changing laws will never change nature. Ever wondered why the so called ' gay ' marriages in US and UK have one girl dressed as a man and the other a woman.

Bill Leake - "The Australian" misses him already. Three Leake cartoons embraced by dear Pauline:

1. hugging a joyous Muslim suicide bomber http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0j1cDrUQAAvZR2.jpg

2. the most famous "What's his name then?" http://quadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/leak-cartoon.jpg and

3. Leake himself "My Bad" in the sequel http://spectator.com.au/content/uploads/2017/03/Snip20170310_7-820x550.png

Just as well appealing to nature is a fallacy then, eh runner?

<<No changing laws will never change nature.>>

Either way, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a naturally evolved trait:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Seriously though, folks. When are we just going to let this bigot die, already? The hate brigade are waving his legacy of small-mindedness around so much it’s starting to look like another Weekend at Burnie’s sequel.

Discussions of 18C without any mention of 18D; fallacious appeals to nature that demonstrate no understanding of biological sex; the baseless assertion that children need a parent of each sex.

Sheesh, how much ignorance can we argue for using one man’s death?

As for Warwick Marsh’s organisation, as both a father and the son of a father, I resent fatherhood being used as a façade for what is ultimately just a religious group out to promote intolerance of gay people and their families.

There was one idiot John Ryan failed to mention - himself.

I've seen a maggot infested pig carcass with more class than John Ryan and AJ Phillips. Contemptible.

The left's unfounded blanket 'accusing, labeling and victimisation' of people who do not agree with them with PC terms such as racist, sexist, mysogynist, climate-denier etc, is certainly no better than if the right were ACTUALLY doing the things they we're being accused of.

The left pay no mind to the other sides issues because they have an open ended long term socialist agenda.

They don't believe in the word 'No'; which is why they banned the word from school teachers vocabularies.

Their strategy is to jump up and down and yell and scream like spoilt children until they have their way, knowing full well that grown adults have more important things to do than spend all day scolding them.

And it will probably work too, if they can fool people with political correct speech to stop them from thinking for themselves.

I'm certainly not opposed to other people sharing their views and opinions, even the ideas I would criticise and disagree with, as long as 'reason' is left free to combat it.

But it is exactly that; 'reason' which the left seeks to undermine.

Phillips:

So the appeal to nature is a fallacy as you have explained to runner. Then in the next sentence you appeal to nature as an argument for homosexuality? "a naturally evolved trait"

Is the appeal fallacious or not?

8.50am saturday morning, just finished slogging through 10 posts on Q+A and 15 often quite vicious posts pertaining to the sad death Of one of our sharpest satirists! Followed by a miserable 3 only on the NDIS!

Well, you lot have certainly got your most important priorities, well and truly sorted haven't you? Little wonder in the face of such well represented apathy, it seems to be possible for a highly intelligent blind and mute lady and potential honors graduate, to be held virtually hostage, by non blood relatives, claiming carer status? While most of you bang away on what really important to you? Regardless if on topic or off?

Like i.e., that climate change is a giant hoax, dreamt up in communist china and or, there is no such thing as naturally occurring homosexuality, manifesting as a natural aberration? Just the product of perverted choice?

And let's not allow the establish facts to get in the way of quite blatant confirmation bias! Du ma.

Moreover, such sentiments/conspiracy theories/abysmal ignorance, just wouldn't look entirely out of place, in Mr Hitler's prewar Germany? Jawohl? Da? Si?
Alan B.

Calwest,

If you have a rational argument against anything I’ve said, then I’d love to hear it. Unforutnately, as it stands, it doesn’t appear that you do.

--

phanto,

Yes, the appeal to nature is indeed fallacious.

<<So the appeal to nature is a fallacy as you have explained to runner.>>

You and I have discussed the fact a couple of times now.

<<Then in the next sentence you appeal to nature as an argument for homosexuality? "a naturally evolved trait">>

No, I didn’t “appeal” to it at all. That little fact was inserted as an aside to correct runner’s false assumption. I even preceded it with an, “Either way”, to emphasise the fact.

You thought you finally had me there, didn’t you?

Oh well. Perhaps another time?

<<Is the appeal fallacious or not?>>

I said it was, didn’t I?

You’re not very good with this sort of thing, are you? The whole debating bit, I mean. You get yourself into such a right mess, tripping over your own obtuseness and what not.

AJ Philips,

Bill Leak has been dead barely a week. His wife and family are surely still grieving, as are his many, many friends and admirers.

Yet the best you can contribute is:

"Seriously though, folks. When are we just going to let this bigot die, already? The hate brigade are waving his legacy of small-mindedness around so much it’s starting to look like another Weekend at Burnie’s sequel."

Monumentally crass.

Did you ever meet Bill Leak? On what basis do you call him a bigot? The precious and deliberate misinterpretation of his Aboriginal cop cartoon? What?

Don't bother answering. It won't improve my opinion of you. Nor others' opinions of you, I'll bet. They'll know the real bigot.

I'd have thought all of that was pretty obvious, but since you asked for an explanation...

Pretty disgusting, AJ.

As an ex-Communist, I wasn't aware that Marx or Lenin valued politeness. So clearly, the retrogressives of today are not Marxist or Leninist.

That's strange, in my misspent youth, it was the thing to be impolite, to swear, to shock, anything which would upset people's sensibilities. The radical sixties was kicked off by the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley campus (in 1965?), opening up the vast field of shock, obnoxiousness, and general great fun for uni students.

Of course, the current retrogressive movement has nothing to do with Marxism or Leninism: more to do with Gramscianism (if they were sophisticated enough to know it), the more open and honest philosophy of the disaffected educated classes, disillusioned after the workers and peasants failed to die for them on the battlements after 1917, who saw the 'revolutionary' role - of anybody who hated the system, it didn't matter who - as that of tearing down the institutions of society, any society, that didn't matter either. Hence, Gramsci's call to 'march through the institutions' of bourgeois society, attack every one of its pillars, bring them all down, on the basis that if we can't have it, i.e. power, then nobody can.

But on reflection if he had lived long enough, even Gramsci would have noticed that that call would have attracted even many fascists and ratbags or people inclined that way. After all, even socialist society has to have some pillars, some institutions, even if they are invariably subverted by their own rulers.

I suspect that Marx, a product of the Enlightenment, pulled back from its implications and devised a scheme which had its roots more in a distant and mythical Golden Past than in the future. He must have known, before his death, that the jig was already up: there would be no genuine proletarian revolution anywhere.

Politeness ? Offending no-one ? Where's the 'freedom' in that ? Nothing should be criticised ? No evil should ever be exposed ? Really ?

Joe

Phillips:

I still don’t understand. You seem to be saying that nature is irrelevant to any argument for or against homosexuality and then you say that there is plenty of evidence to show that it is a naturally occurring trait.

Why would it be relevant that it is ‘naturally’ occurring?

“You thought you finally had me there, didn’t you?”

No don’t worry, you win.

Calwest,

I couldn't care if Leak had barely been dead for an hour. The world is better off without toxic people.

<<Bill Leak has been dead barely a week.>>

But that's not why I said what I said. Nor is it because I'm a nasty and heartless that I'm sure you're going to ride this little bit of outrage for all it's worth just to portray me as. No, what I wanted to do was demonstrate that you righties really only care about your own free speech.

<<His wife and family are surely still grieving ...>>

And I'm sure they're very worried about what li’l ol’ me had to say. You obviously haven't read some of what's out there. You can quit the exaggerated outrage, though. I'll believe your sincerity when I see you defend the honor of a recently-decreased lefty the next time they're attacked on OLO.

<<Yet the best you can contribute is: …>>

Now I KNOW you're insincere. That was by far the worst part of my contribution. It is, however, the only part you can become outraged over. I guess the rest was just too hard to respond to.

<<Did you ever meet Bill Leak?>>

No.

<<On what basis do you call him a bigot?>>

Because of some of his cartoons.

<<The precious and deliberate misinterpretation of his Aboriginal cop cartoon?>>

Among several others, yes. I'd be fascinated as to what you feel the misinterpretation was, how it was “deliberate”, and why it was “precious”?

<<... since you asked for an explanation…>>

I didn't ask for an explanation for anything. I asked for a rational response to my post and received nothing but an emotive and exaggerated outrage expressed over one small part of it.

--

Joe,

I have no idea what Marxism, Leninism, or communism have to do with anything. Your post just read like something that had been spat out by a random word generator, so I'm just going to have to take your word for it that it's disgusting.

--

phanto,

You'll find the answers to your last post in my last post.

So no one else is going to have a go? Go on, tell me what a nasty, nasty person I am. Let that feigned outrage overflow, Godammit!

Oh well, it was an interesting experiment while it lasted, anyway.

I lobbed four grenades in that first post of mine (I refer to it as ‘grenade lobbing’ because of just how overwhelmingly conservative this place is):

1. I showed no sorrow for the death of a conservative hero (I didn’t actually express glee at first, in case any of you missed that in all your rage);

2. I raised s 18C of the of the Racial Discrimination Act without being disparaging of it (I didn’t actually endorse it either, by the way, in case any of you missed that in all your rage);

3. I raised the already-mentioned misunderstanding of the extent to which biological sex is a binary concept, and;

4. I referred to the assumption that children need a parent of both sexes as “baseless”.

All points that are sure to get the knickers of most conservatives in a twist.

The first thing that surprised me was the fact that I only got two bites (At least I think I did. I’m still not sure of what the meaning behind of Joe’s strange Reds-under-the-bed rant was. (As for phanto, he’s simply trying to wrap his head around the difference between a fact presented as a supporting argument, and a fact presented as a sidenote and a point of interest.))

The second thing that surprised me was that, of the two bites which I did get, both took the more pontificating and moralising route (by only choosing to take issue with independent variable 1) which I would have thought was an approach to coping with cognitive dissonance more typical of the left.

Fascinating.

Nah, I’m gonna need a bigger sample size than OLO. Preferably one with a few less wets too.

Thanks anyway, guys.

AJ Philips,

Nothing I have written was prompted by outrage. Nausea and disgust are closer to the mark.

Left wing creeps like you are a dime a dozen and beneath contempt.

You have no idea or attitude of any value. You are of no value. And all you offer is vague and imprecise assertions that you claim he was a bigot "because of his cartoons". That's pretty rich. He produced thousands of cartoons and was revered for his skill and insight. You, though, consider yourself superior, fit and qualified to judge them en masse. Here's something that's no secret: you're not; you're just a creep.

You are a self-regarding narcissist with nothing of interest to say and you've confirmed it. And, need it be said, you are the typical little mind desperately trying to attract attention.

If I were you, I'd just shut up.

Phillips:

You are a legend! It stands to reason that you have to tell us that you are but that does not diminish you star in any way.

We truly are not worthy of your presence!

calwest,

So you’re just going to offer more insults then? Nothing of any real substance, perchance? Just a quick hit and run, eh?

Why am I not surprised?

By the way, going by the timestamps on our last two posts, it appears that there may have been a little overlap there. So, in case you missed it, I’m pretty much done here now. However, thank you for your contribution.

I suggest you read up on narcissism. You don’t seem to have a very good grasp of what it is.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568

Narcissists predominantly feed of the admiration of others (there is one person here who suffers from a classic and extreme case of NPD, and he can’t stop talking about just how much he thinks others are admiring him), and given just how overwhelmingly conservative this forum is, I’d be in the wrong place if admiration is what I was after. I’d also be a mental and emotional wreck.

No, most people here hate me, but I’m not here for their love or admiration. I’m here because I enjoy debating, and because having so many people here to disagree with me helps me to better refine my opinions.

On a final note, may I suggest you do something about that anger of yours? That’s not healthy.

--

phanto,

Thanks for your kinds, but I’m just an ordinary person like anyone else. I think you’d do a lot better, though, if you actually addressed what others said instead of being obtuse in order to extract meaning from the words of others that simply isn’t there. That’s your biggest problem, in my opinion. Stop doing that, and communication with you may actually become really enjoyable.

The issues underlying political correctness are not 'insane'. It's only when they are used to silence debate and discussion that they become sinister. On that point, I agree with many of the arguments here.

However, the Right also has its own arsenal of political correctness - try criticising Anzac Day and the sacredness of the soldier, or US exceptionalism, or the West's wars on Islamic countries, or Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (or Israel in general), or global free trade, or the war on terror, or the rights of the unborn, or domestic and gender violence, or that 'there's no alternative' to austerity ... and so on.

Try defending feminism, or Putin, or welfare, or Aboriginal self-determination (as opposed to white benevolence), or socialism, or the anti-war movement ...

If you do, you get thumped and bashed with every 'stupid lefty bigot' pejorative that a right-winger can throw at you.

Hey AJ Phillips,
Though I support your free speech, I also support Bill Leaks.
I myself probably wouldn't be speaking ill of the dead unless they had done something really bad to me personally, however if news came out today that George Soros was no longer with us, I just might be celebrating.

I wanted to respond to your earlier comment:
"Either way, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a naturally evolved trait"

I watched a video today that shows a different side of that argument; homosexuality in nature which is not natural, but caused by humans.
I really suggest you all watch it, especially the 'Sargon of Akkad' segment around 13:00
http://youtu.be/FWNPi2B2Pvk

I've mentioned before that Mercury causes birds to act homosexual, but I wasn't aware of Atrizine and the frogs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homosexual-birds-mercury-science/
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-do-gay-frogs-tell-us-about-our-water-and-ourselves.html

"After being exposed in a laboratory environment to EPA approved levels of atrazine – the second most commonly used herbicide in the U.S., as well as a fairly common endocrine disruptor found in water supplies – these male frogs underwent a significant change in behavior. The frogs exposed to the atrazine, as opposed to the control group who weren’t, started exhibiting distinct homosexual behavior. Not only did they engage in homosexual sex with one another, as the attending scientist, Tyrone Hayes PHD, said of the frogs, their behavior became “feminized.” To be clear, they didn’t just behave like females, but they actually started producing eggs, which when fertilized by “normal” male frogs produced male offspring."

Hey Killarney,
Well I've criticised all of those issues you mentioned right here on the forum at one time or another.
I've criticised our leaders ingratiating themselves on Anzac Day, criticised soldiers in the modern era as paid mercenaries the second they step off our continent, I've certainly criticised Zibignew Brzezinski's 'American Exceptionalism' and the Neoconservative regime change foreign policies of the US as well as the 'War on Terror'. I've opposed unjust US wars on M/E countries, criticised Israel's treatment of the Palestinians; and Israel in general. As well, I've argued the Pro's and Con's of Global Free Trade and the rights of the unborn, domestic and gender violence and the idea that we will yet have a dictator in Australia named 'Austerity'.

I won't defend feminism, though I consider some of their arguments 'at base level, not exaggerated levels' to have 'some' merit.
Until such a time as they get real and stop misrepresenting issues, I will continue to treat theirs and other George Soros co-opted causes with disdain.
I will defend Putin, over the craziness of US foreign policy.
I criticise and argue for changes within much of Australia's welfare policies.
And I will also certainly stand up for the indigenous, though I accept some of the criticism is not unreasonable.

Socialism, again Pro's and Con's but I prefer Capitalism and to live by your own choices (but must accept these choices), but do have respect for the socialist base levels of education and healthcare we have.

"If you do, you get thumped and bashed with every 'stupid lefty bigot' pejorative that a right-winger can throw at you."

My feet are planted more firmly on the conservative side of things rather than the progressive side (as you may be aware), but this does not mean I'm against liberty or freedom.
All I can suggest is try to stay away from the gang mentality, and just try to stick to arguing the merits of any individual argument, in the hope that truth and reason will win out in the end.

Now, I'm no Bill Leakes, but think he would have had a field day with these salient facts? We are set to become the largest LNG exporter in the world? Yet we don't seem to have enough gas to keep the lights on here at home?

We export lots of this gas to Japan who impose an import tax, yet pay less as domestic consumers of our gas than we do?

Some of the petroleum exporting nations of the world earn far more in actual LNG royalties than we do?

Something connected to the natural price, no doubt?

The PM has rolled out a "reinflated" pumped up snowy scheme and is pumping it up, blowing big on it, for all the political capital he can get from it? And now owns it?

Bill would likely present him as an over inflated balloon going into a coal fired orbit when just let go and deflating with ejectile force and depictions of loud raspberry flavoured raucous noise?

Others have noted many of our coal fired power stations are drawing near the end of their fifty year life cycle.

While others want them replaced with renewables coupled to pump up hydro. And use wind power blowing big at night to pump water uphill, then run it back down when peak demand forces prices higher?

And absolutely dependant, as are also profitable, high gas prices in our domestic market, on avoiding peaceful safer clean CHEAP nuclear energy rolled out as molten salt thorium.

Which if it ever gets a foothold, able to make the 70 billions invested in LNG facilities at Port Curtis, virtually worthless!

And for sure and certain foreign investors interests are much much more important than a resuscitated manufacturing sector or affordable energy here at home?

Now if you want to know what real insanity looks like? Take a butchers at our energy policy and our management of it?

And don't worry if your understandable WTF reaction (#@&%) isn't "politically correct"! Alan B.

I consider it political correctness insanity that genuine coral scientists fear losing their livelihood if they speak out about government-dumped sewage nutrient overload carried by the Australian sediment transport system into GBR waters.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park associated science is not acknowledging any southern city point source sewage nutrient entering GBR waters.

Political correctness is destroying GBR coral and associated fisheries and tourism, including national tourism associated with the GBR international tourism icon drawcard.

More here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18903&page=5

AJ Philips, you say: "The world is better off without toxic people."

Agreed.

Go jump.

Dear calwest,

You first!

Armchair Critic,

I did slightly regret what I wrote after I posted it. But the sheer orgy of grief around here was getting a bit much for me. And the longer it went on, the bigger the elephant in the room grew.

Who knows? If the feigned and hypocritical outrage didn’t ensue, I might have even taken back what I said. But after it did, I thought, “Phuket, now that’s a place I’d like to go. I’ll dig my heels in instead.”

Speaking of hypocrisy, I had a look back at some of the comments on the articles discussing Gough Whitlam around the time he died, and sure enough, there were several there cheering on his death. Worse still, not one righty got in there and gave the gloaters a dressing down. So I don’t accept any criticism for what I said, and I’ll be keeping an eye out for the responses that follow the inevitable deaths of prominent lefties in the future.

Thanks for the links on the evolution of homosexuality. I’ll have a look at what they say and then check their sources, and their sources, and their sources… I hope you do the same. If my need to defend my actions dies down, I’ll probably even get back to you at some point on what I think of them.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t really make a difference if homosexuality is natural or not (assuming we could even agree on a definition of ‘natural’), because it says nothing about the rightness or goodness of a given phenomenon. It could be argued that even rape is natural, but that doesn’t make it a good thing. Hence the fallaciousness of appealing to nature.

By the way, I’m still annoyed about you leaving me here somewhere in the mountains of India alone with old Sandeep. It’s really awkward. He just sits there on his bed staring blankly at the wall, with those flies buzzing around his head. I wave my hand in front of his face and he doesn’t even flinch. I hope he’s not dead.

Hey AJ Philips,

Quote>>Who knows? If the feigned and hypocritical outrage didn’t ensue, I might have even taken back what I said. But after it did, I thought, “Phuket, now that’s a place I’d like to go. I’ll dig my heels in instead.”<<

Fair enough, I probably do the same thing at times..

I didn't check the source before I commented earlier, but it seems the 'gay frog' study goes back to Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Hayes
Some info on Wikipedia, I didn't read it all, just checked he was a real person.

I get most of my info from radio talk shows, youtube channels and some alternative media websites.
When I hear about a new story I usually look up the online article and check it out, often I try to look for the source of the article, but not always; sometimes I just rely on the infomation I'm given by the talk show hosts I mostly trust.
Some I trust more than others, and occasionally they do get it wrong.

I think that article actually states homosexuality occurs naturally in 450 species, and I wasn't making a comment for or against homosexuality but simply out point that there are known ways to 'chemically' turn gay and feminise male animals; and quite possibly humans as well.

And I did actually check the flights to Mumbai, Lol.
I couldn't find any flight 'two-zero-niner' stopping in Singapore departing at 4:45;
Only a Emirates flight at 4:30 stopping in Dubai.
I tried to think up something smart to say but I couldn't think of anything...