Shoutbox

Her wishes were to not be hopelessly kept alive as a vegetable. A real shame she had a couple of Jesus freaks for parents...

The Bills. The ownership situation with them is much worse than with the Sabres.

Ok, but I wouldn’t so casually disregard the strife between Islamic peoples and the Judeo-Christian/secular nations of the West. Same thing with all of the human rights abuses throughout the world made in the name of religion. The problem with religion is that it used as a justification to suspend logic and rationality in ANY public policy debate in order to support ANY cause. In the specific issue of euthanasia, these religious ideas happen to support government authority over an individual’s free choice. Maybe Terri Schiavo court cases don’t affect nearly as much of society as - say – the financial crisis of 2008, but they do legitimize non-analytical ways of thinking that eventually poison the broader public discourse. Yes, invoking an imaginary authority figure to logically support one side of an argument can be highly "inconvenient."

First of all, it's not present in all of us. Many believe in abortion. Many others believe in capital punishment. And of course, there are sociopaths, murderers, etc... But the issue of euthanasia isn't about "human value." It's partly about the freedom of individuals to have control over their own bodies. It's also about human compassion to not see others suffer. And for the purposes of any further euthanasia debate, the pro-euthanasia group like myself is referring to people with obvious terminal illnesses that cause great pain during their final days. Think more of the woman referred to in this thread, not some teenager with depression. Wrong. As a libertarian, I strongly dislike most forms of government force - especially forms that go against our first amendment liberties. But yes, I would love it if religion and all forms of supernatural thought were eventually eradicated throughout the world with the use of verbal persuasion and rational thought. Religion is an assault on human dignity, but it also muddies public policy issues like euthanasia. P.S. Happy Easter, everyone!

It's not just the scumbag politicians. It's the religious freaks who think their imaginary daddy in the sky disapproves of euthanasia.

At LB, the Bills have 1 mediocre starter (Lawson), 1 marginal starter (Bradham), 3 career backups (Sheppard, White, Moats), 1 specialty cover LB (Scott), and 2 specialty pass-rushing OLB's (Mario, Anderson). That's clearly not enough for a team hoping to operate out of both a 3-4 and a 4-3. They still need 1 starting OLB, 1 starting ILB, and depth. Also, keep in mind that this year's draft is loaded with quality and depth at the front 7. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bills use up to 4 of their 6 picks on LB's and hybrid 4-3 DE's/3-4 OLB's. I have no clue what the Bills think about Geno Smith, Barkley, Manuel, Nassib, Wilson, etc... but if they honestly don't like any of these QB's at 8th overall, look for one of the top 3 OLB's with the pick (Ansah, Jordan, or Jarvis Jones).

Nassib in the 2nd isn't so bad, but a guard in the 1st is ridiculous when the Bills already showed their opinion of guard value when they chose not to pay Levitre. I think Dion Jordan, Ezekiel Ansah, or Jarvis Jones is the way to go in the 1st.

But there is very much a strong scientific consensus on the idea that homosexuality is determined in a human before birth, even if the exact mechanism by which sexual preference occurs is still unknown (and by the way, if you read everything I've posted so far, I never stated there was a consensus on the EXACT cause of homosexuality). Of course there are no "facts" for this type of science in the same way that one can prove F = m * a, but once again...like a broken record...please do your own searches of scientific journals if you don't believe me...any post-natal scientific theory for homosexual preference origins gets quickly refuted, rebuked, or plain old ignored (i.e. poorly cited).

A "maybe you're gay" insinuation...how utterly juvenile. It's the off-season. In the absence of interesting Bills talk, I choose to spend my time defending gay people because I know several, and they are good people who didn't choose their sexual orientation, and they deserve defense against ignorance and bigotry like any other human being does. The nature vs. nurture debate - with specific regards to sexual orientation - most definitely does have a scientific consensus in favor of "nature" (which includes the prenatal environment of the mother's womb). Again...don't take it from me. Take it from credible scientists. But if you don't want to search scientific journals or read scientific textbooks or e-mail scientists or even use google/wikipedia, then what else can I say?

If you actually care about this subject and on science in general, then drive down to your local community or university library this weekend and ask the librarians for help. Nature and Science are the gold standard, but any journal that publishes research in evolutionary biology or psychology will suffice. Keywords like "homosexuality in nature" or "origins of sexual selection" might be useful. If you're too lazy for that, try e-mailing professors throughout the country who are experts on this subject. Basically, go do your own !@#$ing homework. I could care less if you don't believe anything I type. Don't listen to me. Listen to scientists. The scientists are on my side, which is the side that believes homosexuality in a human is determined by the time they are born. And the idea that childhood molestation (or narcissism, low self-esteem, the media, etc..) causes homosexuality later in life is !@#$ing comical to a non-Christian scientist or to anyone with an IQ above 100.

Because Rob's House heard it on the radio, and everyone knows that the radio is a much more reliable source than scientific journals.

Can I...can I at least call this guy a bigot?

While I'm not an expert on the subject of homosexuality, there are plenty of social scientists and evolutionary biologists who ARE experts and have dedicated their lives to this subject using logic, reason, and the scientific method. I go by what they say. And NONE of them (or at least the ones from credible, i.e. non-religious, institutions) would agree with D521646's assertion that homosexuality is a conscious choice or that homosexuality is due to narcissism, low self-esteem, child molestation, or the social environment. The overwhelming consensus is that it is due to some still undetermined combination of genetic and prenatal environment factors. But while the exact cause of homosexuality is not settled fact, D521646's explanation was completely nonsensical. Go to a library, e-mail professors, and read scientific journals if you're not a fan of Marc Miller's ideas.

Homosexuality isn't a choice or a product of one's environment any more than is heterosexuality. This entire post is ridiculous and filled with a dangerous mix of factual inaccuracies and bigotry.

RT is mediocre but acceptable with Pears and Hairston. The current status of the QB, G, WR, and LB positions is downright frightening. So overall, I would say that ranking is pretty accurate.