What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
Dan
disqusnyih8hzlvx--disqus
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
What I both love and hate about "the average person eats 8 spiders a year while asleep" is that it was an intentionally made up fact. Someone invented it for the sole purpose of seeing whether they could get people to believe a totally bogus claim with no scientific backing. And they did.
That reminds me of Rory McCann's character in Hot Fuzz, who only says, "Yarr." "Yarr." "Yarr." And finally Simon Pegg, while impersonating him on the phone, has to guess how he would answer in the negative, and goes with "Narr."
Knowing how GoT enjoys subverting expectations and angering the audience, he'll probably be executed offscreen in between episodes. Then the entire episode will be George R.R. Martin giving us the finger.
Yes, do you listen to me? You could learn something.
Heh, voted up for Vinklefuck Twins. I didn't even know you could swear here. Heh heh. Fuckfuckfuck.
Well, I think the "force" needed is simply getting gay marriage and legal protections for LGBT people passed in as many states as possible, and at the federal level. Once the country's laws are behind gay rights, then it will make more sense to rely on social pressure to quell homophobia.
Good points, but read the article anyway. This seems to be a different situation from the civil rights movement of the 60s, in that this time, the bigotry and ignorance is based on misconceptions that can be corrected. Depending solely on social stigma and consequences to combat homophobia is saying that we give up on…
I disagree. Read this: http://news.msn.com/politic… Having open, face-to-face discussion about the issue makes a huge difference. Knowing a gay person makes people 65% more likely to support gay marriage. Talking to a gay person about it bumps that up to 80%.
Since you mentioned it, here's some evidence: This Slate article (http://news.msn.com/politic… analyzes how the gay rights movement didn't pick up any real steam until it switched from having a confrontational tone ("we're here, we're queer, get used to it!") to persuading through appeals to humanism and emotion. The…
If they were espousing an obsolete, extreme viewpoint, like "let's bring back slavery", then I agree it wouldn't be worth it to try to debate them. Pro-slavers are hopefully far less than 1% of the population. They're statistically meaningless.
No, rewarding them would have been giving them a show BECAUSE they were racist homophobes. This was never the case.
I can't clearly say that HGTV should have acted differently. I just don't like the fact that they felt this was their only option. As I mention below, my thoughts on this issue are influenced by this essay from The Atlantic that I found very persuasive and interesting: http://www.theatlantic.com/… If you feel like…