How can any aspie be socially conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

Comparing homoerotic art to child pornography is INSULTING to victims of child abuse. Child pornography is WRONG because children are VICTIMIZED. NOBODY was victimized or hurt in making that art. Can you get that through your thick skull?


Why do I even bother? Do you even read?

It's not about Strom Thurmond. It's about Trent Lot using the occasion to take partisan pot-shot and in the process insult all blacks who lived through the segregation era in the south. Most people who lived in that time are still alive today. I think Trent Lot forgot it wasn't the 1950s anymore. It just slipped his mind.

Looks like you side with Autism Speaks on one of their goals that no more people are born whom are on the spectrum. That's the problem with Abortion at what point does a baby become a person. One senator from California doesn't consider a baby to be a person until they come home from the hospital (heard the tape of it a few months back on the radio google it).



Uh people whom are heterosexual are not showering with people whom they are attracted to sexually, nor are they allowed to sleep in the same room. The military does not have female officers showering with male officers for such a reason. It is uncomfortable for people to be in situations where they are naked in front of people that are sexually attracted to them.



DADT should be expanded and some rules be put in place so that attempting to blackmail them wouldn't be advisable. If they are being blackmailed by the fact someone found out about their sexual preference, I do think at that point a superior officer should be brought into the situation. That the individual shouldn't get kicked out, and the guy or gal doing the harassing suddenly ends up getting stuck with toilet duty or something. And if it comes out that it is revealed by someone other than the individual I also feel they shouldn't get in trouble for it. As long as they aren't talking about their sexual preferences I have no problem with someone whom is homosexual serving in the military.

The other thing is that being homosexual is a sin punishable by death according to Islamic Law. It would give the Islamic Extremists yet another recruiting tool.

Juan Williams shouldn't be antisemitic, which is just stupid, however the moral Left hasn't really been in favor of freedom of speech. Not to my memory anyhow. Juan's idiocy in making an antisemitic statement followed by NPR's canning him just further shows that, if it is to their benefit, censorship is more than acceptable theoretically but also in practice.

While he might be part of the "old guard", so to speak, Chomsky is still an icon of the radical Left and has came out against Hate Speech laws (well, he's so extreme that he doesn't even persue libel cases).

When did he make a comment bashing Jewish people?!?!? Anyways, anyone whom makes a living talking as much as people like Rush, Williams, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. is going to say something stupid sometime that may seem racist, anti-semitic, etc. at first glance. That doesn't mean they are racist, anti-semitic, etc.

Still, I have never heard Juan Williams make an anti-semetic comment so source please.

I thought he was canned for saying that people in Muslim garb on a plane make him uncomfortable. Though it seems the real reason he was canned was that he defied NPR and went on Fox News after they told him not to. In any case I don't agree with NPR's decision to fire him. If they don't want their analysts going on opinion shows they should make that rule clear and apply it equally in all cases, which they clearly didn't.

Didn't see that card coming, I was expected you to pull the Nazi card.

That being said, I might be one of the few people on the spectrum that isn't against a cure. I find it kind of difficult being against a cure when I'm autistic myself and have spent time with a low functioning autistic person who will probably never be able to write his own name, read a book, or have any sort independence. Sorry guys, I can't see what's so great about that.

As for when person hood starts, I feel that starts when a fetus is viable outside of the womb. And most abortions occur long before that. You'll probably find many other pro-choice folks with this belief or one similar.


Yes, because us queer folk are attracted to everyone of the same sex and want to have sex with everyone of the same sex.

His ex-boss quite frankly should be fired then for remarks she made then, because what she said was far worse and I think it could constitute as a violation of HIPPA laws (could be thinking of the wrong law) or slander take your pick. (I'm going to let someone else find the video).

Also, why hasn't Nina Totenberg been fired? She said a sitting congressman should get AIDS or one of his Grandkids should get it. She wasn't reprimanded or anything and still works at NPR.

Also Marshall, if they fired him over Fox News they could still end up getting sued and losing because they didn't take any action all the other times he was on Fox News, or against other people for being on other programs. To suddenly take action also opens up grounds for NPR to get sued (and if precidence is actually followed NPR would lose).

there is already a de facto mosque at that site, it is just not widely advertised as such. the muslim owner of the place has the right to build a giant concrete ham sandwich if he wants, so long as it meets local ordinances. nobody else has any right to tell that man he can't build a multicultural community center [of which a formal mosque is just a part] on HIS property, especially when the city fathers have given their repeated approval. conservatives are talking hysterical hypocrisy when they say "property rights!" out of one side of their mouths, and "'cept for muslims" on the other. muslims were killed on 9/11 also, a conveniently forgettable fact for the haters. yet another chapter of "straining at gnats but swallowing camels."

That's not in and of itself an indictment of the policy.


This is not nearly as clear as the antiporn politicians would have you believe.

For example, I know some parents who have posted pictures of their babies taking a bath or otherwise naked on their blogs, that being how they make family news and pictures available to others in their families.

Now, at some point taking a picture of your naked child and posting it on the internet becomes "child porn". But, what point? How can it be such a clear case of child abuse to take a picture of a naked child who is X years old, but not for a naked child who is X years minus one day?


Iamnotaparakeet may be using the broader sense of the word "antisemitic", as Arabs are also Semites.

What you said didn't warrant the Nazism Card so to speak. Anyways, I would prefer research be done on how to deal with the lower functioning form of Autism in the womb, so that when they are born they don't have the issues of being low functioning.

There is another possibility that for some people on the spectrum the fact they are low functioning could be the result of sensory issues screwing up their development during key points where there is rapid brain growth.



Not saying that, I'm saying it's the perception that some straight folk would be thinking people like you would be thinking. It is better for people in a military situation to simply not know your sexual orientation for that reason.

So you're saying we should cave to the moral values of Islamic fundamentalists to appease them? Why the hell should we care what our enemies think of us? They're already pissed at us for our unconditional support of Israel and our habit of treating their backyards like chessboards. Do you honestly believe keeping our gay soldiers from being open and honest with the people with whom they serve is going to make one lick of difference in the propaganda war the fundamentalists are waging against us? If it's not that, it's just going to be something else.

What the terrorists want is for us to be so frightened of them that we engineer our own demise, slowly, gradually, by trading away freedoms one by one for the illusion of security. Here's a chance for us to be bold, to say to them, "You won't break us. We are Americans, and we give everyone--regardless of who they are--the opportunity to live the life they want to live, with the respect they deserve. We treat our own with dignity, and don't force them to live a lie to survive. That's why we have the moral high ground against fundamentalists who want to violently force repression on others. We stand for something honorable, and we will fight to defend it. And yes, a portion of our fighting force is gay--but you'll be sorely regretting your mistake if you underestimate their competence, because they, like all our other soldiers, are part of the best military on earth." Go ahead, tell me you don't want to stand up to the fundamentalists like that.

You've already admitted that you've got nothing against homosexuals serving in the first place, which is a respectable first step. The polls have already shown that most soldiers believe openness would not only not effect unit cohesion or morale negatively, but would actually be a positive reinforcement of the honor code values of trust and honesty. Don't you think our armed forces personnel deserve that? Should a veteran soldier of twenty years be forced out of service for being forcibly outed as gay, after having spent all that time forced to deny the truth about himself to the people who are closest to him, just to be able to protect his country? Just from the standpoint of the resources, the military training and experience and manpower we're needlessly wasting, it makes no sense.

@ Chevand

Just cause I have nothing against homosexuals doesn't mean I would want to be naked in front another guy that is attracted to other guys. I'm not a telepath so I wouldn't know if he were sexually interested in me or not. That is the issue because people in the military generally do not have private showers for each soldier.

Ah, now we get to the root of the issue. It's not about the principled stance a repeal of DADT would be, nor is it really about possibly upsetting a group of already easily upset Islamic radicals. This is about what you personally find disgusting. What you're essentially saying, though, is that you don't believe, even with the training we give our soldiers, that our gay servicemen are capable of maintaining the same kind of professionalism and discipline that everyone else is expected to display. Are you in the military? Because I'm inclined to believe the polled soldiers who said it wouldn't matter to them, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who also wants the policy repealed), are far more qualified to make that judgment than you are.

@ Chevand

The point remains that is the issue, I think DADT should be modified so for instances like harassment to be taken into account. However, I don't think they should be telling people their sexual orientation. Additionally, we shouldn't be making changes while fighting two wars.

I think social conservatism is BS. I don't give a f**k about Christian or family values, and it gets on my nerves when people wanna push those on everyone. However, fiscal conservatism does appeal to me since less government is the way to go.