Cynic

4chan is one of the worst places on the internet, though it's gotten better (or worse, in their eyes) in the past few years. They do stuff like that for fun.

But then I would never understand what's going on.

Ok, that's overkill.

It's a Dugtrio, actually.

^ Hey, that happens a lot with my brother. I hate it.

Am I a new[bleep]?

Oh my goodness, a guest!

You'll never get my name.

I wish I had something meaningful to post, but I don't.

No, all you were saying is that education would sway the test. But its not about the magnitude of his score on one subject, its about the pattern his scores display across all subjects. And I would say that women, regardless of experience and education, will display a trend in their results on this test. That doesnt mean that each individual woman should be expected to produce the results, it just means that women, as a whole, will have a dominating trend in their results on this test. And I dont think every gay man is going to fall inside the "woman" profile. And I know a lot of straight men who have no mathematical skills, lots of language skills and would probably be a "woman" on that test. But theres no real reason for you to start refuting the legitimacy of this test they did. There are still trends, and these trends are important to the field of psychology. The "errors" you speak of are accounted for in the graphs. They don't just throw out data that doesnt support their hypothesis I'm gay, and I've taken that test multiple times before. Every time, I fell right in the middle; I have neither a dominantly masculine nor dominantly feminine brain. This was the same for my straight friend, who is much more intelligent than me.

Zoophilia and Objectum: The other party cannot think freely, and therefore cannot legally consent to the marriage. Polygamy: I guess this is fine, so long as the rights of the more numerous gender do not get ignored. Pedophilia: Honestly, I'd have to say no (to most ages, anyway). As a fourteen-year-old going through puberty, I can attest to the fact that I'm extremely reckless and impulsive, even though I am considered thoughtful and intelligent when compared to my peers. I'd say that up until about 17, everything going on in your life doesn't really allow you to make choices that you have to seriously consider. Besides that, a very few amount of kids 15 and under would even consider dating anyone out of high school (except the reeeeally promiscuous ones), and from 16-17, it depends on the person. The age of consent can be considered high, but think back to when you were a teenager; Did you really think how things would affect the rest of your life?

I had a state test today. It was simple.

Should black parents not be allowed to adopt a white child? That could cause confusion in other students because of the difference in races. Maybe the kid could explain to others that their family is just like everyone elses. Link in the OP, http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html , studies have shown that children of lesbians tend to have fewer behavioral problems. So for someone to have two mommies might even be better off than someone with heterosexual parents. Would children with no parents, stuck in the orphanage because they weren't allowed to go with the gay couple, be better off? You're literally saying that a child with no parents should continue to have no parents because you don't agree with certain lifestyles. Maybe the child can learn that having two parents of the same sex is okay, they're as good of a family as any other. I've known Caucasian / black students adopted by Asian parents throughout elementary, middle, and high school. We never treated them any different at all. In most communities today, race is no longer treated as a big issue, and in fact,, I didn't even really acknowledge people of other races were different from myself for a while. This is what I meant by current state. Let's rewind to within the year after the Civil War ended. Would I allow black parents to adopt a white child? I would strongly suggest against this too. The wounds would simply be too raw at this point, and it'll create more tension among both parties and in the life of the child. I never said that the children would be worse or better off. I'm not surprised that there's a correlation between good behavior and homosexual parents. But that doesn't change the fact that homosexual is still seen as "strange" in the eyes of many people, and thus in many kids. I've seen kids bullied for various mental or physical defections and to kids who don't understand homosexuality and who are taught differently by their parents, it would seem the children will experience a more challenging childhood. Are they better for it? Maybe. Correlation is not causation. But is it more trying? Logically, yes. And from narratives by those who grew up in those conditions, yes. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with their life style. It has to do with the fact that I don't think a student should have to deal with all the negative feelings surrounding homosexuals (whether or not these feelings are warranted - I don't feel they are at all, but you can't force people to think differently), and yes, I realize remaining in an orphanage is also a similarly trying lifestyle but I'm not ready to believe that being adopted with gay parents isn't worse. Especially in communities where gays are still openly rejected (such as states that still fight against gay marriage). You suggest having no parents at all is better than having gay/lesbian parents? No, he's suggesting that having no parents at all is easier from a social standpoint a lot of the time. Of course it's better from other standpoints to have parents. [/hide] But do you really think that a gay couple would live in an area where they would be discriminated against? I realize that economic restrictions can prevent a person from moving, but most people wouldn't stay in a place that could endanger them. It would depends on whether the benefits of living there outweighs the risk fo being discriminated against. There are more factors than money and discrimination to be taken into account. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of reasonable people wouldn't stay where they're hated. All it takes is common sense, really. Yeah. Especially because if they hate you, they're probably going to do something about it.

[hide] Should black parents not be allowed to adopt a white child? That could cause confusion in other students because of the difference in races. Maybe the kid could explain to others that their family is just like everyone elses. Link in the OP, http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html , studies have shown that children of lesbians tend to have fewer behavioral problems. So for someone to have two mommies might even be better off than someone with heterosexual parents. Would children with no parents, stuck in the orphanage because they weren't allowed to go with the gay couple, be better off? You're literally saying that a child with no parents should continue to have no parents because you don't agree with certain lifestyles. Maybe the child can learn that having two parents of the same sex is okay, they're as good of a family as any other. I've known Caucasian / black students adopted by Asian parents throughout elementary, middle, and high school. We never treated them any different at all. In most communities today, race is no longer treated as a big issue, and in fact,, I didn't even really acknowledge people of other races were different from myself for a while. This is what I meant by current state. Let's rewind to within the year after the Civil War ended. Would I allow black parents to adopt a white child? I would strongly suggest against this too. The wounds would simply be too raw at this point, and it'll create more tension among both parties and in the life of the child. I never said that the children would be worse or better off. I'm not surprised that there's a correlation between good behavior and homosexual parents. But that doesn't change the fact that homosexual is still seen as "strange" in the eyes of many people, and thus in many kids. I've seen kids bullied for various mental or physical defections and to kids who don't understand homosexuality and who are taught differently by their parents, it would seem the children will experience a more challenging childhood. Are they better for it? Maybe. Correlation is not causation. But is it more trying? Logically, yes. And from narratives by those who grew up in those conditions, yes. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with their life style. It has to do with the fact that I don't think a student should have to deal with all the negative feelings surrounding homosexuals (whether or not these feelings are warranted - I don't feel they are at all, but you can't force people to think differently), and yes, I realize remaining in an orphanage is also a similarly trying lifestyle but I'm not ready to believe that being adopted with gay parents isn't worse. Especially in communities where gays are still openly rejected (such as states that still fight against gay marriage). You suggest having no parents at all is better than having gay/lesbian parents? No, he's suggesting that having no parents at all is easier from a social standpoint a lot of the time. Of course it's better from other standpoints to have parents. [/hide] But do you really think that a gay couple would live in an area where they would be discriminated against? I realize that economic restrictions can prevent a person from moving, but most people wouldn't stay in a place that could endanger them.

http://www.survivingtheworld.net Anyone else read it?

Spam? Us? Never.

This is awesome.

Those stories are pretty good.

I don't know either, but I don't watch sports.

Ya got me. Thanks!

If you can correctly guess which one I am, you win 5 interwebz.

Nice. Anyone else? Edit: [bleep] YEAH A PAGE.

Who wants to see a picture of me from my dinner-dance last night?

Possibly.