Well Argentina puts Many Societies to Shame

Post Reply New Topic

Falkland islands =.= Aren't those in the Pacific anyways? ... What does the UK have to do in those parts of the world? Heh, even Australia's claim to them would make more sense! :p

Edit: Ok, not in the Pacific, but rather near the tip of the south American continent... Disregard whatever i previously said. It's still odd that the UK would want that territory so faaar away from its own. <.<

"Irredentist Obsessed?" What does that mean?

The British were keen to give up Hong Kong, probably because it was on the other side of the world, the people were Chinese, and China has a very big army.

The Falklands are closer, and the people are mostly of British descent.

The original interest in the Falklands has to do with the Clipper route. Back in the days of sailing ships, the best way to circumnavigate the globe was to sail west to east around Antarctica. Very powerful winds sped things up considerably. They got themselves colonies at the Cape of Good Hope, and in Australia and New Zealand, and this route helped get them to India. This only changed after the Suez was opened and steam ships used. The Falklands were a British outpost on this route along with South Georgia.

Right now, the main interest has been that the people in the Falklands are British. There's also South Georgia nearby though it's no longer used for whaling as that has been banned.

Thank you for adding evidence to my original statement, I don't know how old you are or if you were around during the Falklands War, a war that had nothing to do with the wishes of the Falkland Islanders but rather the ability to allow the UK to lay claim to vast tracks of the Antarctic Continent. A claim considered worthy the deaths of over 2500 people, and a period of disgusting jingoism, racism and and nationalism.

People should know that the budget-cutting Thatcher removed most of the military presence from the Falklands leading the Argentine authorities to believe that they were being abandoned. It should be better-known that she invited them in.

Apples and oranges.

The issue in the USA has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with silencing those who don't agree with it.

The agenda of the American Gay Rights Movement is not just to have "equality" (a loose concept to start with), but they really want zero tolerance for anyone who does not approve of the lifestyle.

Well, in most every other nation in the world, speaking against homosexuality is a criminal offense now. It's okay to put a person in jail for NOT accepting it as normal and natural. How is this a free society. If the state can mandate that you must accept another person's values as correct and punish you for not agreeing with it, that is not a free society.

In the USA, the agenda isn't for the freedom to marry...it's about being able to demand total acceptance from everyone and everything regardless of legitimate beliefs to the contrary. It's not about the freedom to marry, it's about denying others the right to disagree with you. They like to argue that gay marriage (or civil unions) won't result in any hassle for churches that teach otherwise, but I will bet $1,000 right now that if it ever came to pass in the USA, it will just be a question of WHEN (I don't even give it 10 years) before churches that refuse to admit new members who are in a gay marriage or refuse to perform gay marriage will be sued (and likely lose) for discrimination...even though their beliefs teach that it is sin.

This is about freedom of thought and the right to choose who you associate with. It's not about the right to get married. It never has been.

Bunch of baloney. People said the same thing in Canada.

Then just give them the right to get married so the "real" issue can be adressed.

Not that you have any say in it.

And as I understand Canadian law, people are being arrested and fined for "hate crimes" for just talking about what the Bible actually says on the issue.

Don't tell me it won't happen here. It's already happening there.

You want to believe what you want? Fine. But you have no right to ram it down my throat.

My lack of acquiescence with your view point constitutes ramming? Some sort of verbal buggery? My aren't you a victim.

Considering what the bible advocates for gays, bigots being locked up is somewhat less punitive.

...and the Catholic Church opposed it. What a surprise. Dicks.

There was a thread on WP a few weeks ago asking why conservatives are so obsessed with homosexuality.

I think a more apt question would be to ask why liberal/libertarian aspies are so obsessed with homosexuality, since you normally can't go more than a few days in here without seeing yet another gay marriage thread where about 90% of the contributors have the same liberal opinions on the subject.

I think likely reasons are:

1. Aspies are likely to identify with homosexuals since both groups are marginalised and have difficulty forming normal relationships
2. Aspies are similar to homosexuals in that the members of both groups are, on average, more likely than others to be individualistic, and to feel they have been put on this earth to seek their own self-gratification, owing no debt to the past and having no duty to future generations.
3. Aspies are often inclined to dismiss common sense and traditional wisdom if it's never been explained to them "logically" (which if taken to its "logical" conclusion is a recipe for nihilism).

Or you are are the type of person we are rallying about. One who cannot see the wrong that is perpetrated against a group of people on the basis of their genetics, or even worse quite possibly carries on with this type of bigotry. I am opposed to homophobia in the same way as I am opposed to racism especially that which is based solely upon colour. Your comments make it fairly obvious that you have zero idea of the nature of homosexuality or the complex nature of evolution.

How so? You probably have some caricature in your mind of a Bible-thumper, and you want to believe I conform to that image because those are the sort of people you are more comfortable arguing with. I notice in another thread you said that you thought homosexuality was almost certainly genetic, and I would probably agree that it is (in most cases). So what?

I might also ask why you, as someone who accepts evolution, seem so unwilling to accept its implications for human biodiversity, but perhaps that's a subject for another thread.

You're not going to "cure" homosexuality, so what do you propose? Why not just treat them as anyone else? Why does their sexual preference even matter? They're not going to be having a whole bunch of homosexual babies, that's for sure, so your argument seems to rest on the idea that more homosexuals means the loss of gene lines due to lack of mating. But if those genes carry with them a tendancy for homosexuality, then this is natural selection at work anyway.

Anyway, if homosexuality had no place in nature, it wouldn't have survived as a phenotype. Odds are homosexuality performs some societal function (such as help with childcare or protection of the tribe), and it therefore survived via kin selection.

When I wrote of Dent's unwillingness to accept evolution's implications for human biodiversity, I was talking about racial differences, not about sexual orientation. Sorry if that was not clear.