I think it's obvious that the kid didn't even know what he was saying. I doubt he has any emotions behind what he was saying, other than pride for the attention he received.

I agree with everything but the bold part. Many people carry genes that make them xenophobic. It's a survival trait, just like sickle cell is a survival trait or dark skin or facial hair.

I agree with that completely. Xenophobia helped us to get where we are, but it is counter to the society that we are trying to build today. I'm just making a point that xenophobia is genetic to people whose ancestors lived in areas where outsiders sometimes visited. We shouldn't be too hard on the xenophobic, as those survival traits helped us build society today.

Science cannot prove a theory to be absolutely true, but it can prove theories to be false. The evidence shows that children naturally mistrust and are fearful of people (particularly men) of other races. Children don't have to be raised to be xenophobic, they just have to be human.



Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to play the "maturity card" and then offer a flower? If it didn't matter to you and if you did have philia or agape for me, wouldn't you have ended your post without the last three lines? I think so.

I'm not saying I'm right (although I am saying you are wrong), just that I'm more correct, because I'm on the side of the research.

50% of black babies conceived in the USA are aborted. Some of the eugenics programs of the 20's, 30's and 40's were never shut down, they just keep chugging along.

That's the nurture side and nobody is refuting that. My point is that most children don't have to be taught to reject "outsiders". Seriously, did you and Ladylid2012 go to the nicest grammar and high schools in the world? There were no cliches? There were no "outsiders" who were mistreated or avoided by most other students? Do you guys honestly think that all of that originates from the parents?

Unfortunately, yes. When the facts refute a hypothesis, those who hold to that theory are simply wrong. It's nothing personal about it, everyone is wrong from time to time. The research done in this field clearly refutes the belief that you have to be taught to hate those who aren't like you.

Respectfully, you are both wrong. Xenophobia, racism, fear of the unknown are all genetic survival traits. You can believe as you will, you can dismiss xenophobia's past benefits to society if you want.

Hate, closed mindedness and xenophobia are major contributing factors to the survival of our species. Our societies may have outgrow their usefulness, but our genetics still make many of us naturally hate the unknown.

Not so long ago, strangers brought only new diseases or war. Most of our ancestors developed a natural closed mindedness and an aversion to strangers in order to protect our tribes. Additionally, our brains are only wired to manage close relationships with around 100 people. Another factor that limited primitive tribes in size and ensured that outsiders rarely found a warm welcome.

People who are open to strangers lack the necessary genes to protect the tribe from outsiders. Maybe you would have jeopardized the tribes survival, because you are so open to new things. Thankfully, the closed minded tribe members kept civilization alive, so that today, the norm is to be more accepting of different people and cultures.

Do you hate black people for being black? Tall people for being tall? If not, then why reject as simply wrong the naturally xenophobic people, without whom, we may not even exist today.

I'm not saying that we, as a society, need to hold onto xenophobia. I'm just saying that we need to see it for what it is, a survival trait that helped us get to this point, but is no longer as useful, rather than thinking of the xenophobic as purely wrong headed.

Hate comes natural, it doesn't have to be taught.

I abhor the message and behavior of the people, but I fall on the side of freedom.

The way I see it is this: It's always better to know how people really feel, so that you can be more selective about who you associate with.

How do you know that those verse you quoted aren't "corrupted"?

The Bible is replete with examples of loving God fearing couples have sex for pleasure. You really need to stop preaching and read your Bible. I won't respond to you any further, you are wrong and that is all there is to it.

EDIT: I see that your position has evolved to allowing sex for pleasure between married couples.

Isn't it interesting that the "born" get to decide that we can do with fewer of the "unborn". It's a one sided argument, the unborn has a life, but no say in what is done with it.

Reminds me of Dred Scott. Instead of "No person of African descent can be a citizen of the United States", we get "No fetus can be a citizen of the United States".

Basically, abortion supporters insist that the unborn human belongs to the mother. It has no rights beyond what she grants it, including the right to life.

The article has inaccurate information. The two women in the picture are wearing BDUs, which you are allowed to eat, drink and basically live in.

I see nothing wrong with it, but I do think the woman with the twins could cover up a bit.

EDIT: I really think that the author of the article is trying to create drama, rather than just tell the facts. As stated above, the women didn't break any rules by breast feeding in their BDUs. The article is very vague about who is disturbed by this. I call shenanigans.

Abortion would first have to be made legal. Correction: The Constitution would have to be Amended to give the Federal Government the authority to write laws on abortion, then they would have to make it legal, then they could make it illegal again.

As the current US Code stands, abortion is left up to the states to decide, except for a 7-2 ruling in Roe v Wade, which universally legalized abortion.

So your position is that women should be able to murder their unborn children, but only for reasons of which you approve? Am I understanding that correctly?

Planned Parenthood provides abortions. Taxpayers should not be forced to help pay for abortions. What is hard to understand?



Murder is never justified. Opposing forces killing each other in war is not murder. Innocents being killed accidentally in war is not murder.

One of the only valid functions of Government is to go to war. The Government has no valid function in murdering unborn children.

I don't support Government funding for any organizations. The money that the Government spends came from and the taxpayers. No tax payer should have to support any program that violates their personal or religious beliefs.

What makes an unborn child a human being? At what point does that happen?