It is a means to vent frustration and my mind doesn’t relate it to race at all.

As one example, here is a report from the ADL published just last year which highlights the continued decline of the KKK. Granted, the KKK is not the refuge of every racist in the United States, but they are nothing like as well-subscribed or organized as they were 50 years ago.

If you look at the record of women…

It’s totally true that there are plenty of young people who hold these views - but I am willing to bet that these groups skew to the older end demographically, and I’d also bet that the proportion of sexist, racist pigs in Congress would only increase the further back in time you go.

or something that got these old fucks out of the government faster

Do the fathers of those grown women often comment on how similar their daughters are to them, sexually? Do they speculate about “dating” their daughters?

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what’s really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
…

Maybe that’s because the universe is largely unfulfilling and empty. It doesn’t offer you meaning because there is no meaning. We each have to make fulfillment and purpose ourselves, not rely on the universe to hand it to us. On the one hand, we all have to tell ourselves stories. On the other hand, there are no such…

I think St. Paul was a hateful, unloving piece of shit. He encouraged slaves to serve their masters well. Was he not a Christian?

It’s fine to say that they aren’t representative of the majority of Christians, but it’s not okay to try to claim that they aren’t “real” Christians.

Not that Christians have ever shied away from sectarian conflict, but I think we should be careful about declaring which flavor of Christianity is the “true” Christianity.

I mean this is obviously an oval-jerk, right?

It’d be a circle-jerk, but the shape of the room...

As I understand it, only a little mammary tissue is actually needed for lactation. The rest has developed through natural selection because many men find it sexually attractive.

It’d be ridiculous to include such notes about any other body parts - it is ridiculous in this case as well.

You’ve mistaken consequent behavior for biological function.

One of the most annoying things that the Enlightenment did was slur the boundaries between deism and metaphor. It’s so irritating.

“Hey sorry I forgot your birthday. I wear a coat.”

As long as I am not infringing on the right of another, I have a natural right to do many things.

Guys you don’t understand; he wears a coat.

Locke spends too much time fantasizing about what he’d like the natural world to be. What natural right do you have beyond the right to struggle to live? And in what way can that be said to be inalienable?

Legality or the rule of law is more important than morality because morality depends on the feelings of men. And you are proof that governing based on the feelings of men is dangerous. It is really funny that you reject the very concept of natura rights, but are very concerned with morality. Is morality just short…