Ah, the Hypocrisy

[woodensunshine]

Our favorite VP hopeful's daughter is at it again.

Link

Bristol Palin is absolutely up in arms, because Obama is supporting gay marriage.

"In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview."

Isn't this the same girl that got knocked up, engaged, broke up with the baby daddy, got engaged and broke up again? (In that order no less).

I'm sure her son is very happy growing up in a mother/fa...oh, wait, he's not...

I'm not against single mothers, by the way. I think that single mothers/fathers are the most fantastic people, because they do the jobs of two parents and work and I think they have to be the most patient of people to do that. I have seen a lot of people flourish in single parent homes. I'm just commenting in regards to the hypocrisy of Miss Palin and how she needs to think before she speaks.

[Rageaholic]

What? I thought Bristol Palin was more liberal than her parents? Last I heard she was rebelling against their outdated views.

Damn, I had hope for her.

[Andara Bledin]

"In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview."

She's throwing out the same ignorant rhetoric that most of that side throws out.

All evidence points to the fact that the sex of the parents is completely irrelevant to a child's well-being while being raised. Two males, one male and one female, or two females - all of those combinations give the same results when all other factors are equal.

Plus, the idea of marriage being between a male and female only isn't nearly as old or as Biblical as people think. Turns out that a couple of saints apparently were married. And at least one depiction of Christ shows him performing a wedding for two men.

^-.-^

[Jaden]

I am so pissed off about North Carolina, it's not even funny.

This is the main quarrel I have with my party, their treatment of homosexuals. It's just disgusting. Thousands of years of thinking about marriage? Even if that was true - it's not, but hypothetically speaking, even if it was - how is that a justification for anything? When we gave black people equal rights to white people, weren't we going against a few hundred years of racism and intolerance? Just because people have been thinking about something a certain way for a long time doesn't mean they're right.

The Reformation went against, oh, 1500 years or so of thinking about Christianity. You don't see any of the people complaining about gay marriage flying in the face of tradition complaining about that

[Nekojin]

Jaden: You don't even have to go into that much exposition to explain it. Appeal to Tradition is simply a logical fallacy.

[HYHYBT]

A logical fallacy, but there are times when "we already know this way works; the other is unproven" is a reasonable approach. I'd far rather fly in a 747 than in a totally new design, no matter how improved it's supposed to be, until it's been around long enough to prove it's reliable in the real world.

But that reasonableness depends on a lot of things which don't apply anymore in this case, to the extent they ever did if any.

[Nekojin]

A logical fallacy, but there are times when "we already know this way works; the other is unproven" is a reasonable approach. I'd far rather fly in a 747 than in a totally new design, no matter how improved it's supposed to be, until it's been around long enough to prove it's reliable in the real world.

Sure, but that's backed up with testable scientific theories that can be investigated and disproven, if it's wrong. Appeals to Tradition are a fallacy when the only claim is, "we've always done it that way," or words to that effect.

In your airplane example, I wouldn't choose to ride a prototype, but I'd be absolutely fine with boarding the latest mass-produced commercial airliner. By the time it's reached the point of being used commercially, it's already undergone strenuous tests.

[Seifer]

"In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview."

"Oh honey, they're not really people. They might look similar to us, but they're not like us. You can be their friend, but don't listen to any of their drivel - it doesn't pertain to us."

Seriously, Bristol Paline is an imbecile. You'd think a hypocritical whore would understand how it feels to be persecuted by others, what with how everyone in America reamed her for having a child out of wedlock. OH WAIT, she's heterosexual, so she's still better than those dirty homosexuals. Got it.

Face it, Bristol, marriage has changed drastically since the dawn of time. It's a contract - simple as that. People married for cattle and land 300 years ago, and still do today. People have arranged marriages in order to gain leverage in the community, NOT because "God approved."

Maybe we should ban Bristol Palin from having more bastard children? Maybe then she'll understand how fucking stupid it is to stop a group of people from having rights based solely on someone else's opinions or religious views.

[HYHYBT]

Sure, but that's backed up with testable scientific theories that can be investigated and disproven, if it's wrong. Appeals to Tradition are a fallacy when the only claim is, "we've always done it that way," or words to that effect.

In your airplane example, I wouldn't choose to ride a prototype, but I'd be absolutely fine with boarding the latest mass-produced commercial airliner. By the time it's reached the point of being used commercially, it's already undergone strenuous tests.

That depends. Many products turn out to have flaws that don't show up in testing. (For an extreme and aircraft-related example, see the de Havilland Comet. Early jet airliner; worked beautifully except for the inconvenient habit of exploding on about the thousandth flight.)

But yes, it's a different matter, which I believe I said in the first place

[blas87]

People listen to the babble that comes out of that little girl's mouth?

[Rageaholic]

Here's what gets me with her.

Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking. In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.

I doubt she'd be saying this if the kids convinced him that gay marriage is wrong.

[wolfie]

In your airplane example, I wouldn't choose to ride a prototype, but I'd be absolutely fine with boarding the latest mass-produced commercial airliner. By the time it's reached the point of being used commercially, it's already undergone strenuous tests.

Don't be too sure about that. While the anti-ice system on the Airbus A380 can cope with moderate icing, under severe icing conditions the ice will build up faster than the system can get rid of it. Also, the F-35 (fighter jet that a number of countries, including Canada, are buying) can't pass a "performance under degraded power output" test that Charles Lindbergh established for (if memory serves me correctly) American Airlines (or one of their predecessor companies) back in the 1930s to determine whether a given aircraft type was suitable to be added to the fleet. The plane it's meant to replace (CF-18) can easily pass that test.

[s_stabeler]

Wolfie, the A380 is designed for use between national Hub Airports. AKA, the largest airports in the world. I cannot think of one of those that would regularly get heavy icing, so it's possible they thought the moderate icing- only de-icing system was sufficient.

There IS, however, no excuse for the F-35 to fail the reduced-power test.

[HYHYBT]

Flights sometimes have to divert for any number of reasons, and there's no particular reason it *can't* get icy at those airports.

[s_stabeler]

I looked it up. what i found out with a quick google search is that the anti-ice system lets ice build up on mots of the wing because the ice doesn't actually affect the plane, and it would be tooo difficult to install an anti-ice system that covered the whole wing. (anti-ice systems work by blasting the ice with bleed air from the engines. If they installed a whole-wing system, they would need to reinforce the wing.)