What does what you're saying even have to do with the topic at hand?

OKCupid's actions are motivated and validated by Political Correctness.

Do you deny this?

What you're seeing are the social changes that are driving that change.

No, but I'm seeing lots of people like you tell me what you think is true when I see everyday people still interested in biological lives.

It's the freaks and geeks taking over the class, using guilt (political correctness; see above) to manipulate others into allowing them to do it.

In the meantime, the only real minority are those who can actually think, and they want no part of this illusion. The majority are either indifferent to it while planning to avoid it, or outright opposed to it.

You're just flailing about trying to resist it.

Why are so many leftists so sneeringly nasty? Again: it's a mental health condition, not a political philosophy.

PC is designed to invert reality, so that the strong are weak and the weak are strong.

There are many reasons to oppose liberal programs, but liberals want to not only disagree, but make those objections into a moral wrong.

They literally want to censor dissident voices out of existence by prohibiting them in advance of social changes, not wait for social changes to actually drive that change.

In the meantime, no parent ever said, "I'm so glad my child turned out gay!"

How am I supposed to hold both the bong and the iPod at the same time? I've had to stow the MP-5 in the gun rack and it's still difficult to drive.

FFS.

Two blankets and a handkerchief? Sounds experimental, more than anything else.

If they wanted to inundate the native in smallpox, they would have come up with hundreds of blankets or simply dumped a corpse in the water supply.

The biggest historical fact refuting this nonsense is that smallpox spread from the European settlers to the Amerinds without any deliberate attempts, and probably wiped out 90% of them.

The great European genocide of Amerinds myth is just that, a myth. I hadn't heard the high carrot diet one however. Too bad it's a myth, as I like carrots.

Just like those Blankets donated to the Native Americans.

Except that the tale is incorrect.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pl...

What on a practical level is this helping?

They designed the VW bug without this kind of technology.

Something tells me that car quality has more to do with design choices and corner cutting, materials and manufacture, than visualization.

Or am I just a grandpa who should GTFO of technology altogether? Off my lawn...

If they vomited, and the vomitus contained the bacteria, would that account for these findings?

All very true. Thank you for your comment.

However, I think there's another dimension to this, which is the question of "what is speech"?

To me, protected speech is the ability to write and publish political, scientific, social, artistic, etc. ideas of some substance.

It would not include statements made in a crowded theater at all since that's not a public forum.

Regarding obscenity law, it would protect the ability to publish obscene material but perhaps not display it.

The main point as the founding fathers(tm) saw it was to protect political speech from being censored before it was able to reach its audience.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Stalin was not the first and not the only Russian tyrant who was ready to turn the whole nation into âoecamp dust.â You may be interested to know that after the Crimean War of 1854â"56, the government of Tsar Nicholas I sold at auction for fertilizer the bleached bones of 38,000 Russian soldiers who fell in the battle of Sevastopol.

Today the world is threatened with a second Crimean War. The troops under the command of the new tsar of Russia are on alert.

This ruling makes sense when you consider the alternative:

Government would have to police each search engine to make sure it was permitting full free speech.

Then, the potential for abuse is huge. Government could simply drop something -- like, say, far-right information -- off the list and allow it to be censored while claiming it was legally not censorship.

Government could also force search engines to incorporate other information that is favored by government, and penalize them if that information didn't make it high in the rankings.

We don't want government in the business of determining what "free speech" is in legal terms.

Q: How does a Texan know when he's hungry?

A: When his anus stops burning.

"It seems our hive minds were not intelligently designed, but began on a distant moon emerging from strange complex life forms as fecal bacteria from their anus."

Which would lead them to:

http://www.anus.com/

And then they'd know all they need to know about humanity.