Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Jul 18, 2011.
Well at least we know now right?
Snicker, giggle, guffaw, and other sounds of enjoyment.
and this is the type of study you can get behind AMIRITE? *high five*
Govt again pissing away those tax dollars. Right next to studying cow farts and the bridge to no where.
If it's FoxNews, then the article's subject matter is not true - there are no homosexuals, and there are no penises, small or Kavika-size. (Is that the plural of "penis?" Penis'? Peni? Penae? I've just never found myself in a situation where I was talking about multiple peniseseses at the same time.)
Did I miss the part where the value/ usefulness of the study was mentioned?
You would think the one with the small penis would be more likely to be the top. Less painful that way.
Penises is conventionally acceptable. Penes is technically correct.
Likely this is because condom manufacturers offer few or terrible options in that market segment.
So you've heard.
This is the problem. To many people make a judgment based on the books cover. Cow farts are a pretty big deal, well their burps are more so. Science has to study a lot of seemingly unimportant things to get a well rounded over all picture.
I imagine the penis study was a small part of a larger study around mental health but no one wants to hear that. We want sensational misleading shock value tabloid trash.
Reminds me of a quote:
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
Cow fart link:
Easy, killer. By that logic/analysis/defense, there is no study that can be critiqued, seriously or in good-humor. You could argue that any study is part of a "rounded over all picture." If people who have fun and raise one question about a freakin' government funded study concerning penis size, are "anti-intelletuals" and have a "false notion of democracy" then... Jeez, I don't even know how to finish that sentence.
They have established a specific peckering order.
Whose watch did this occur on? Oh, that's right... and he was on his second term too.
Until I see how this study took place and the funding for it, it's just fox propaganda.
Wouldn't have pegged you as being someone who would condemn Bush for allowing such a study. Oh, well.
You heard wrong. Small ones HURT. It's like being poked with a sharp pencil. Length is also not important, girth is. It doesn't matter if it's 5 inches, if it's fat, it's OK. Hey, I'm being honest. BTW, I'm a bottom, and I don't have a small penis, as a few of our members know.
Some people will do anything to crap on us. After all, anything studying gay people is a waste of money. I would think you'd get that, of all people.
Par for the course in a fox news article.
From the title of the paper and abstract one would cone to the conclusion it is looking at penis size as a determinant of health. Pretty useful if one is looking at interventions to decrease disease.
Doesn't stop dog whistle politics from trashy tabloid sources and anti-gay groups however. It's got tax money, gays, and penises. Easy to spin that in a way to rile up an audience that lacks critical thinking skills. And to put people's health in danger.
Off topic, but as someone who's recently taken to correcting other posters' use of idiomatic expressions, I'm surprised you don't know that the correct term is "par for the course".
That seems to be normal mostly for the right. They take a study that might be a little weird, but useful and decry it as government waste when it really isn't.
But can you answer the question without deflecting?
Whoops thanks CC. I can assure you I know the phrase and this was a error of predictive text. Although if I am being cynical "cause" might even be more appropriate in this context. Fixed.
I thought scem0 was a bottom. How do two bottoms have a relationship?
scem0 is exceptional. Just ask Lee.
I don't bother with homophobes who have no desire to learn about gay people, just s*** on them. No thanks. It's pointless. You've proven that over the years. You're just like the rest of the homophobes. You won't listen to reason. You want to hate us. There is no question I could answer that would change that.
He's versatile. BTW- why did you assume I was only talking about him?
I was only responding to Merkava.
I never assume you are talking about any single individual, you rake.
I know. Merkava was the one who made the assumption.