What’s the next right? Bestiality? I’ll go for that! Barney Fwank trying to talk a bear into a BJ.

“I would like an Actor in Hollywood to try a really despicable character, in their eyes. Play a conservative christian in a positive light. Something that is nonexistent in modern movies.”

I just saw the well-made thriller “Trans-Siberian”, which does indeed show a conservative Christian character in a positive light (played by Woody Harrelson, no less – in an ironic return to his wholesome breakout role in “Cheers”, after years of playing deranged, violent psychopaths). You can take this, if you like, as the pendulum turning the other way, although it might also be the exception which proves the rule.

For my part, I am still waiting to see a film where an average suburban teen is embarrassed by, and longs to escape from, the antics of his morally dissolute left-wing parents. Naturally, we’ve all seen thousands of versions of the story where the youth’s mom and dad are repressed, distant conservative religious fanatics who don’t understand their offspring’s nonconformist, creative instincts. I understand why Hollywood types love THAT story so much – after all, for most of them, it’s autobiographical. But if you just ask yourself for one second: why is the repressed-liberal narrative favored by a factor of 1000 to 1 over the repressed-conservative story? Is it because the repressed-liberal version is 1000 times more common IN REALITY? Give me a break. In the real world, I suspect that the true ratio is 50-50 or close to it, and this simple observation shows the Hollywood ideological bias as clearly as anything ever can.

A line of argument and cogent reasoning is what you call that? Well, you know what Lincoln said about dogs with 5 legs. It was not a line of argument and cogent reasoning; it was an attempt to use the Fallacy of Composition to slander the homasekshul movement and allege they have a conspiracy to make us all accept pederasty.

Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder. Does that mean anyone who believes in “that which governs least, governs best” wants to be free to own slaves?

I have no idea what you are quoting from in your last post, but why does it have credibility to you? Or, more importantly, why should it to us?

I have no idea what Ginsberg was into, although I don’t recall him having been convicted of any such thing. My gut tells me it’s an urban legend, but the real point is that it’s irrelevant. It’s like saying that the social conservative movement is as flaming and desperate in their water closets as Larry Craig. It’s like saying that if a racist votes for McCain, anyone who votes for McCain is a racist. It’s as illogical as claiming that the conservative movement is all about harboring drug addicts because of Limbaugh (brought to you by the makers of Oxycontin — Oxycontin, for that Megadittoes Rush.) It’s called the Fallacy of Composition. Read it, learn it, eschew it, at all costs.

Yes, Thomas, you inability to follow a line of argument and cogent reasoning is quite evident. Yes, too, the RCC has an inner contradiction – discouraging both heterosexual and homosexual attractions, amongst it’s priests, at least. (My Catholic father had no prob with the hetro part, as myself and all my siblings can attest to.)

“Gay culture does not grant the pedophile movement general acceptance. It does, however, offer a peripheral credibility to this movement which pedophilia has never been granted in the culture at large. Members of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) march in some gay pride parades.

Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer–Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that “the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way.” (p.5)”