Re: Shitter and Middiot get stupider by the day....



Spare the rod, spoil the child. LOL!

Sorry, I'm not interested in anyone's rod.

;-)

An interesting excerpt:


<<snip>> "As with any other large collection of people, numerous
fault lines divide homosexuals, but the most remarkable is the one
separating gay men from lesbians. (I use "gay" to refer only to male
homosexuals. The media's habit of applying the word to female
homosexuals is male chauvinism at its most blatant: "gay" is just
about the last term lesbians would have invented to describe
themselves. As one lesbian activist succinctly put it, "We're not gay,
we're angry!") The current fashion of lumping together as "gays"
everybody from Liberacé to Martina Navratilova does something less
than justice to the individuals so categorized, to one's own
intellectual curiosity, and to the productiveness of public discourse.

This handy table of tendencies will of course be denounced as
reflecting stereotypes. In the through the looking glass world of
contemporary social comment, the more true a statement, the more
meticulous its delineation, the more people from the more societies
who have observed it to be a fact, then the more automatic the cries
of "Stereotype!" Many journalists today write as if they are unable to
distinguish between perceptive observations about the average traits
of a group and blanket assertions about each and every group member.
Thus, even carefully worded summations of the obvious like, "Men tend
to be more aggressive than women," are triumphantly refuted with, "So,
you think Mister Rogers is more aggressive than Mrs. Thatcher? Huh?
Huh?"

Conspicuously missing from current debates is that most useful of all
conceptual tools for thinking about both the similarity and the
diversity of human beings: the probability distribution (more roughly
known as the bell-shaped curve). Rather than help educate the public
to think in terms of bell-shaped curves and individual variances, the
press instead warns us to abstain altogether from noticing average
differences between groups. Such knowledge, according to the media's
theory, might bias our treatment of individuals. Of course, these
proponents of unsullied individualism are so often the same people
who, for their own professional or political ends, rhetorically clump
humans into the grossest possible stereotypical categories (e.g.,
Gays, People of Color, Minorities, Third Worlders, Anglos, Homophobes,
the Marginalized, the White Male Power Structure, etcetera etcetera).
Worse, this taboo endorses ignorance. Now, benightedness certainly
makes life more surprising (in the words of Homer Simpson, "Life is
just a bunch of things that happen"), but know-nothingness does have
its drawbacks, as has been pointed out on various occasions stretching
back to the Ice Ages. Of course, few "social critics" actually try to
practice this idealistic ignorance in their private lives. They merely
publicly urge it on others.

Since the media spend so much time telling us to be oblivious to
facts, it's not surprising that they themselves are suckers for
frauds, like that long-lasting media cliche, "10% of all men and women
are homosexual." This canard has been based on little more than gay
erotic daydreams. One defender of the 10% number, the gay critic Bruce
Bawer, has written of how he can know from momentary eye contact that
a young father pushing a baby carriage past him on the street is
"living a lie." If the 10% concoction were true, there would be four
to five times as many homosexuals as Jews!

Are homosexuals fairly common, like, say, tax-cheaters, lefthanders,
or tithe-givers? Or are they fairly rare, like prison inmates,
identical twins, or clergy? This is certainly an interesting topic,
but why this purely empirical question is thought to possess such
moral consequence that many people feel compelled to lie about it is
beyond me. Of course, there is much in modern media morals that I am
not sensitive enough to understand. On the other hand, the fact that
there are relatively few homosexuals answers a common type of
objection to my table of tendencies: e.g., "You claim lesbians like
softball, but most of the women softball players I know are straight."
In response, let's assume lesbians are, say, ten times as likely as
heterosexual women to play in an all-woman adult softball league. If
10% of the population was actually lesbian, then a majority of the
players would be lesbians. More realistically, however, if only 2.5%
of women were lesbians, then straight softball players would outnumber
lesbians about 4 to 1.

One of the cruelest effects of ignorance about homosexuals'
propensities is the heartbreak it causes both a homosexual and his or
her parents when the adult child finally reveals the Surprising Truth.
We are told that if only the parents hadn't been socialized to hold
outdated prejudices, the surprise would not be disappointing.
Disappointment, however, is inevitable: the desire to pass on your
genes to grandchildren is bedrock human nature. What is far more
avoidable, though, is the surprise. A more worldly awareness of those
enduring likes and dislikes that tend to correlate with sexual
orientation, and which so often manifest themselves early in
childhood, could quite frequently allow the parents of children who
turn out to be homosexual to have already spent years slowly getting
used to the likelihood that this child won't ever make them
grandparents, but can still make them proud and happy in many other
ways. "<<snip>>


http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

.