The whole gay thing.

[hugo]

OK.. how's this for statistical studies.

 

I don't need a link to evidence. I am the link.

 

Yep...the missing link.

[Jhony5]

Yep...the missing link.

We shall call her Lucy.

[RoyalOrleans]

OK.. how's this for statistical studies.

 

Based on the Neilson Ratings.

[ClassyMissFancy]

As I suspected, no evidence beyond Will and Grace episodes.

 

Oh.. I see.. You mean evidence.. as in articles written by people who are reporting what the professionals say... rather than the words of an actual professional without the middle man involved....

 

[sarcasm]That's probably a good idea. I mean everyone knows you can't trust the people who have actually been educated, trained, and have a wealth of experience in dealing with things first-hand. Not nearly as well as you can trust the words of people who write about other people's opinions and may be biased .[/sarcasm]

 

Yes.. when your opinion is accepted by the courts as an "expert opinion" I will give a fuck what you think about mine.

 

Of course, her stupid assumption that I would take being referred to as a homosexual as an insult reveals her prejudices.

 

I swear.. You can't tell the difference between an insult and a serious statement. The "Will and Grace" thing was an insult. The homosexual thing was serious.

 

Why would I think you would be offended by being referred to as a homosexual? You ARE a homosexual. Maybe you chose it or maybe it chose you. Maybe you are in the closet or maybe you are out. I don't really care. You are a homosexual and we both know it. It isn't anything to feel insulted about.

 

It's a big world, dude. There is room for all kinds of people.

 

I feel sorry for the children she is allowed to abuse.

 

Well aren't you all touchy-feely now? Hands you hanky . Dry your eyes there Sally Struthers.

 

Social workers and counselors..the dumbest fucking people on the planet.

 

OK... Did you see the letters LCSW behind my name? I am neither a social worker nor a counselor. Believe it or not, Dr. Mom, there are professions in psychology that exist outside of the realm of your bad experience with the system when you were 5 and the child-abuse people took you away from your mother.

 

I notice, in most of your replies to my posts, you do not talk TO me... You talk ABOUT me. That's a definite sign of a weak-tit pussy if I have ever seen one. Why don't you grow a fucking spine and try to find enough testicular fortitude to actually make an attempt to participate in a debate rather than trying to talk to the crowd like a fucking coward.

 

I won't beat you up and take your milk money. I promise.

[Ctrl]

Told you ya didn't want her in here. She isn't sweet like me.

[hugo]

She's a fucking social worker.

[Ctrl]

Perhaps if one had taken you from your parents earlier you would have better reading skills. She has explained to you what she is and isn't.

 

In case you are having difficulty, she ISN'T a social worker.

 

Can you guess what she is?

[hugo]

Regardless of what she is (she's a social worker) her lone wolf opinion that gays are incapable of emotional attachments to the opposite sex is simply that... a lone wolf opinion with only Will and Grace episodes to back her up.

 

Who Will Cast a Longer Shadow on the 21st Century: Friedman or Galbraith?

Published: May 1, 2006

Author: James Heskett

 

With the death of John Kenneth Galbraith on April 29, it is perhaps appropriate to reflect about the influence of two economists, Galbraith and Milton Friedman, described by Time magazine in 1975 as the modern world's most important economists along with John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith. There were remarkable similarities between them. Both strongly influenced government policy. Both wrote prolifically, and for a broader audience than just theoretical economists. Both, of course, lived to see the age of ninety and then some. And despite their sharply contrasting views of political economics (Friedman regarded Galbraith as a socialist), the Friedman's occasionally vacationed with the Galbraith's at the latter's Vermont farm, according to biographer Richard Parker.

 

Galbraith, in his book The Affluent Society, argued for the importance of fiscal policy in influencing the allocation of resources between rich and poor. This was to be done through the maintenance of a progressive tax system to insure that the wealthy provided their proportionate share of funding to enable government to channel funds to such endeavors as the environment, support for the poor, and the development of the arts. The objective was to create a society that would provide a better standard of living for all.

 

Friedman, on the other hand, in a book Free to Choose, advocated a minimalist role for government, relying instead on lower tax rates to provide the wherewithal for Americans to decide for themselves how they wished to live and spend their increased take-home pay. In another work coauthored with Anna Jacobson Schwartz, The Monetary History of the United States, he had earlier argued, however, for a significant government role in managing monetary policy to guard against the booms and busts that characterized the early part of the twentieth century. According to this thesis, by regulating the supply of money, governments could have an immediate and important impact on such things as interest rates, inflation, and general economic prosperity.

 

Galbraith advocated the state's involvement in insuring the defense of the country, education for all, a just society, support for the arts and environment, and most important, a minimum standard of living. Friedman, on the other hand, while advocating a strong government role in maintaining a strong defense and the enforcement of antitrust laws, placed his primary bets on the individual. According to a friend, Ben Stein, "Professor Friedman and his wife stood up for the glory of the rights and choices of the individual. From the individual, not from the state, came creativity, progress, freedom, prosperity. From the state came oppression and stagnation." One illustration of this philosophy was contained in an article written for the New York Times Magazine in which Friedman opposed corporate philanthropy, arguing that corporations should let individual investors choose how to spend or give away their money.

 

One can argue that both of these economists had an important influence on the political economics of the twentieth century. But what of this century? Which set of views will most shape the policies of governments and our way of life? Or have both served their purpose, only to be forgotten? If so, will we have to relearn them at a later time? What do you think?

[hugo]

( Grunts, groans, barking like sounds and the sounds of ass scratching)

 

Dr. Leakey: Look. Tonto, the missing link. I believe that it has rudimentary language skills. I have made a great discovery. I will be the most famous man alive.

 

Tonto: You're dead, Doc,

 

Dr. Leakey: Shit

 

Desi Arnez: Loooceeee, is that you loooceee?

 

Tonto: Wrong Lucy, dipshit.

 

Sherlock Holmes: That Lucy is kinda short.

 

Dr. Watson: No shit, Sherlock.

[Ctrl]

I took the Will and Grace comment to be an extention of the "fat crayons" comment, to bring the argument to a level you could understand. I doubt the two of you know the same butt pirates so as to set up an example for you. It should have been taken tongue and cheek. I think you are clinging to it, because you don't have an argument.

 

 

For the record, she made a claim.

You asked her to support her claim.

She supported her claim by expert witness as recognized by the US DOJ.

The onus is now on you to refute her evidence.

 

In short, YOU must find a source that disagrees with HER. That is how debate works.... as you don't seem to get it.

[hugo]

I'm afraid the reponsibility is on her to back up her claim as something besides a lone wolf opinion. Did you understand why I posted the Friedman/Galbraith article?

 

I hardly find someone who married a child, as she admits, an expert on the human psyche.

[Ctrl]

No, I did not understand it at all. However, your opinion as to whether or not someone is an expert only matters if your opinion is recognized as expert by some accredited source.

 

You do not get to dismiss her expert opinion, because you want to believe that you are right. As she said,

Yes.. when your opinion is accepted by the courts as an "expert opinion" I will give a fuck what you think about mine.

 

So you must either debunk the notion that she is an expert, or that the US government is capable of determining an expert... or come up with some criteria by which expertise can be agreed on... or find other experts who disagree with her. I can find experts who disagree with someone who marries a child being an expert on the human psyche for example... probably... in fact...

 

 

ClassyMissFancy... do you think that someone who marries a child can be an expert on the human psyche?

[hugo]

Since you did not understand my Galbraith/ Friedman reference let me explain it. Friedman and Galbraith were arguably the two most prominent economists of the 20th Century. They were both men of genius, PhD's in Economics and had strong resumes. Their opinion on the proper role of government in the economic sphere differed greatly. Neither based their well conceived arguments on the initials after their last name or TV sitcom episodes.

 

I'll bet I can find a "expert" who supports creationism.

 

On this forum ya ain't gonna convince a lot of people with "Because I said so."

 

Of course, my opinion ain't in play here. I did not claim she was wrong. I politely asker her how she came to her conclusions. Her answer was Will and Grace.

[Ctrl]

Oh I see... it was distraction from the topic at hand... I wish you had just handled it better. SO... these guys were debating in a flaming and country bashing forum, and managed to engage in civil discourse without referencing pop culture?

 

Your obscure reference is completely and utterly unrelated to the discussion here. Yes I get it now, do not attempt to tell me I don't understand your point, your point is simply invalid as you are relating the unrelatable MEDIUM by which the evidence is given. When testifying in court, she would not likely bring up any pop iconic evidence. When expounding on the subject for documentary reasons she will not likely reference Bert and Ernie.

 

 

How about we stay on course instead.

 

There is a recognized difference between an expert witness (her) and a character witness (you). Who do you suppose carries more weight with a jury (us)?

 

How she evidences her point in a coy and offhand manner to bring you to understand it has little to do with the fact that her opinion is an expert one, and you were asking for JUST such an opinion.

[hugo]

First, her claim to be an expert is unsubstantiated. Secondly, this expert in the human psyche married a child, Thirdly, do I need to bring out the crayons?, expert opinions diverge. Fourthly, if she is such an expert in the field she should have no problem citing other experts that agree with her; unless her opinion is a lone wolf opinion. Conclusion: She is an overeducated bimbo. A social worker.

[Ctrl]

First, that is the FIRST step you have made towards making an actual argument... asking her to substantiate that she is an expert witness. I am not sure how you would like that substantiated, but am willing to entertain some ideas. I can tell you that I know for a fact... but you dont know me, and have no reason to believe me. Are you honestly challenging her as a court recognized expert on abnormal psychosis (amongst other things)?

 

Second, what you see as obvious is just that... to you. You are not an expert, however, even if I agree with you. The larger point here is that even though we agree some "experts" are wrong, neither you nor I have the authority to discredit them... it would take ANOTHER RECOGNIZED EXPERT to do this. That is why a court will not entertain YOUR opinion leveredged against HERS.

 

Thirdly, yes they diverge. You have been asked to source one that diverges from the expert opinion given here. You keep wanting yours to be, and it simply isn't.

 

Fourth, if she is an overeducated bimbo social worker, you should have no trouble siting experts that disagree with her, as she has fulfilled her obligation in the debate. It is not her responsibility to do your homework for you. Either substantiate YOUR opinion with experts, or accept hers. "I don't think so" doesn't cut it.

[hugo]

Wrong, again. I have never argued she is wrong. I have simply asked her to back up her argument. A true expert should have no problem finding another expert who agrees with her. Her inability to find a concurring opinion tells me her opinion is in the extreme minority. The evidence she is unable to produce is quite telling.

[Ctrl]

Again... that isn't how debate works. She has given expert opionion, the onus is now on you to attempt to discredit that expert testimony with that of other experts. It is an issue of principal, not an inability to find agreeable experts.

 

What is telling is your refusal to follow the rules of debate, or your inability to find an EXPERT to try and discredit her EXPERT opinion.

 

(for the record, she is on vacation, that is why I am arguing on her behalf on principal)

[hugo]

Wrong, again. I am not debating her opinion. I am asking her for evidence to back up her opinion. Sorry, true experts would have it.

[Ctrl]

Ok... what you don't seem to understand is the term expert opinion.

 

She has given you an EXPERT OPINION. THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO DISCREDIT IT.

 

I realize that this differs from the debates you normally have, because normal idiots like you and I are required to back up our opinions with that of experts, whereas you are now engaged in a debate WITH an expert. It is an uphill battle for you... you are at a disadvantage in this specific debate on this specific topic with this specific expert.

 

The US government has deemed that her opinion IS THE SOURCE of truth and understanding of a given subject, you must now address her EXPERT opinion with that of conflicting EXPERTS.

 

If you were in court, for instance, the opposing legal force would not be within reason in asking for the expert witness to bring in experts that agree with her. SHE IS THE FUCKING EXPERT. The only recourse would be to have your OWN expert who disagrees with her.

[hugo]

The boy can't read. Let's give her stupid opinion again.

 

You want to know who the real homosexuals are? They are the ones for whom same sex individuals aren't only their lovers or partners ... same sex individuals are also all of their closest friends and all of the non-familial opposite sex individuals in their social circles are also homosexuals. Real lesbians do not have male best friends and real homosexual males do not have female best friends because, while those relationships do not require romance, they DO require intimacy.

 

I guess the opposite of real homosexuals is fake homosexuals. I guess if we see a homosexual male who does bond with the opposite sex we have to label him as a fake homosexual. If she's an expert, she's a stupid one. There are idiotic experts everywhere.

 

The fact is her opinion is so fuckin' juvenile that no real expert would address it.

[Ctrl]

The boy can't read. Let's give her stupid opinion again.

 

 

 

I guess the opposite of real homosexuals is fake homosexuals. I guess if we see a homosexual male who does bond with the opposite sex we have to label him as a fake homosexual. If she's an expert, she's a stupid one. There are idiotic experts everywhere.

 

That is your remarkably impotent laymans opinion. Unfortunately it is not an argument.

 

 

Thank you for playing. (You also got it backwards... u think u read gooder thin me?)

[hugo]

What is sadder is a woefully impotent opinion by a so-called expert.

[Ctrl]

This is hugo arguing protocal.

 

I have never argued she is wrong. I have simply asked her to back up her argument.

 

I am not debating her opinion. I am asking her for evidence to back up her opinion. Sorry, true experts would have it.

 

See hugo arguing protocal?

 

Let's give her stupid opinion again. If she's an expert, she's a stupid one. There are idiotic experts everywhere.

 

Here is hugo growing the balls to completely reverse the protocal argument to do exactly what he just said he wasn't doing.

 

The fact is her opinion is so fuckin' juvenile that no real expert would address it.

 

Here is hugo unable to follow protocal and find expert opinion in conflict with her.

 

Flail hugo flail.

Good boy.

[Ctrl]

Impotent means "not potent" or "without power".

 

Her opinion carries power with the department of justice.

 

Would you like me to find an expert to explain that to you?