Re: "partisan liberal pieces"

From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 09:23:51 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Do non-U.S. Christians say "God Bless America?""

    In a message dated 5/30/03 5:52:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lfreeman@mbc.edu
    writes:

    > The liberal press is quick to praise the "biological basis for
    > homosexuality" as support for the view that the orientation is "natural" therefore "good"
    > (or at least "not bad") and quick to critcize the "biological basis for
    > behavioral and cognitive sex differences" as a dangerous plot by right wing
    > conspirators to keep women subordinate to men.
    >
    > My point is, the theories inspiring the research and the methodologies by
    > which it is conducted are largely the same. And one type is no more
    > "partisan" and no less "science" than the other.
    >

    The liberal press is quick to praise the "biological basis for homosexuality"
    because it weakens indigenous populations, feminizing the male population and
    lowering birth rates. The neo-cons (liberals in disguise, wolves in sheep's
    clothing) are mostly red diaper babies.

    The liberals are of course quick to criticize the "biological basis for
    behavioral and cognitive sex differences" because that makes all races equally
    capable. By doing that the liberals disguise the efficacy of eugenics to advance
    the interests of specific populations who alone remain to practice eugenics
    giving them a singular advantage by militating against their being "spewed out of
    the land."

    In orthodox Jewish communities eugenics is the norm and women are still
    chattel.

    The liberal press should be studiously ignored except to guage how much
    damage they are doing.

    rich



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 31 2003 - 09:24:24 EDT