1 - 10 Next
In response to:

How to Fight Sexual Assault

inkling_revival Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 7:54 PM
Please read that research more carefully. Crime has been dropping...since rising through the end of the 1990s. Teen pregnancy is declining... after rising to astronomical heights. STDs are epidemic in the US, with fully 1/4 of citizens in some cities carrying incurable, viral STDs like genital herpes or HPV. Sure, they're not fatal, but they're serious enough. Divorce, also, is epidemic. Yes, there are ways in which some things are getting better, but irresponsible sex and its consequences is not among them. We in the US have managed to create what is arguably the most irresponsible, profligate sex culture in the history of the planet. That has consequences. It's resulting in a huge percentage of young people raised by a single parent, which means a whole generation of serious attention needs and behavior problems. Hiding from it behind happy-talk horse droppings is not the way to address a serious problems created by the Sexual Revolution and its modern proponents.
In response to:

How to Fight Sexual Assault

inkling_revival Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 12:16 PM
Man who are morally sound will treat women with respect, and use their strength and drive to protect and provide, not to coerce. Women who are morally sound will treat men with respect, and use their allure to produce and build up, not to entertain themselves, get stuff, or manipulate. Men using their strength to coerce women are brutal. Women using their skills to entice and manipulate men are vicious and unkind.
In response to:

How to Fight Sexual Assault

inkling_revival Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 12:11 PM
You do have to be careful how you voice this. Rape is wrong--always. It doesn't matter how stupidly the girl acted, rape is wrong. But just because rape is wrong is no excuse for young girls to put themselves in the path of it. She acted stupidly and paid a price for her stupidity. Young women need to be taught that there are consequences for behaving in an alluring manner, and some of the consequences may not be under their control. Also, women need to be taught to be KIND to men (and vice versa). Saying "Come get me" with your clothes and your body when you don't intend to be gotten is just... cruel. Men are wired to respond to visual stimuli; it's innate and involuntary. They are responsible to behave honorably regardless, but it's a lot more difficult to do that when the stimulus is so strong and the hormones are so insistent. So ladies, please... don't act like you want it until you really do, just out of kindness for strangers. Alright?
In response to:

How to Fight Sexual Assault

inkling_revival Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 12:04 PM
I don't blame the victims; I blame the Progressives for their "protect licentious sex at all costs" policy prescriptions. No, it is NOT normal for college students to behave promiscuously on weekends. No, we should NOT expect them to do it. No, they are NOT incapable of behaving like civilized human beings. Sexual misconduct is common, even understandable, but in an environment where such behavior is properly seen as immoral and unacceptable, where sexes are housed separately, and where precautions are taken to minimize incidents, there are far fewer crimes... not to mention far fewer educations interrupted by pregnancy, abortions, transmissions of STDs, bad relationships, and broken hearts. The common denominator of the Progressives' mish-mash of opinions surrounding sex is "My own sexual (mis)conduct is sacrosanct." We need to recognize that at the root of it all is an infant in an adult body simply trying to get some without consequences. All the noise about abortion, campus rape, gay sex, male privilege, and the rest... it all boils down to this.
The true nature of the Democrats appears when they address a woman (or a person from a minority group) who belongs to the opposition party. They don't just disagree; they heap vicious language on them like was used by the very worst violators of civic decency in the past. Women become "sluts" who "paste on makeup with a trowel" and look like "a mashed-up bag of meat." Blacks become "Uncle Tom" and get represented as lawn jockeys or Aunt Jemima. And of course, neither can accomplish anything except for the cooperation of the ruling white men, so Republican women always get represented as subservients happy to be kept barefoot and pregnant. It's not Republicans who use this language, it's Democrats. Republicans never use that sort of talk, and never have. So which party is the home of racism and sexism? The one in which it occurs, of course. The Democratic party.
Wow, talk about inaccuracy. 1882 to 1968? Well, maybe, but 1935 was the last year that there were more than 10 lynchings NATIONWIDE in the US. In 1945, there was 1 lynching in the entire US. In 1952, there were 0. Lynching was a serious threat from the 1880s through the mid-1930s. And a lot of them were not carried out by the Klan. The Klan waned in popularity due to laws passed against them after about 1870, and only revived for a short while in the 1920s; so the Klan was on the outs during the period when lynchings were the most numerous. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
"Yet in Hebraic tradition the laws of their land were the laws of YHWH as well " You're committing anachronism. The Jewish jurisprudence to which you're referring is from the Middle Ages when Jews were guests in whatever nation they lived. When Jesus spoke his words during the 2nd Temple period, the Jews were less than 200 years removed from having their own, independent nation, and were still in part a temple-based religion centered on Jerusalem, and writing their own laws for their own land based on Torah.
"More than one Tea Partier has a Hispanic gardener, or goes by Lowe's to pick up a day laborer. etc. etc." I'm betting that you made this up out of whole cloth, Alan. I'll wager that you can't produce evidence of a single instance.
"Taker" state is a figment of the left's imagination. It's a bogus statistic drawn produced by artificially allocating government spending not requested by anybody across all the individuals in a state where that spending occurs, then blames higher numbers on the need or greed of the residents. Mostly, it's an artifact of the low population density of the western states, which are all "red" states. Leftists pretend that this proves that conservatives are hypocrites, and that the "red" states couldn't survive without the "generosity" of the blue states. It's a statistical game, and it means absolutely nothing.
In response to:

The Ghost of John Edwards

inkling_revival Wrote: Jun 17, 2014 8:25 AM
Please indulge my pet peeve against people who invoke "reason and logic" and demonstrate to me that you're better than the usual culprit: List for me here a few of the laws of logic, just so I know that you have an idea what you're talking about. For starters, do you happen to recall what the law that demands that "A = A" is called? Most of the people who crow about how they use "reason and logic" are really just saying "I'm so, SO much smarter than everybody else here." And it's usually bunk. They're not smarter at all, just arrogant. But they have truly have no idea how logic works, or what it's good for.
1 - 10 Next