Bill Maher criticized Elton John and other liberal celebrities for boycotting Dolce & Gabbana after the designers controversial comments about "synthetic children" born via in-vitro fertilization, reports Rob Shuter of naughtygossip.
In an interview with Panorma magazine Dolce stated, "You are born to a mother and a father — or at least that's how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog."
Maher hit back at the singer and other celebrities who have called for a boycott on his show last Friday night.
“For folks who take such pride in their love of diversity, liberals increasingly seem to tolerate none in their own ranks. I don’t necessarily agree with Dolce and Gabbana, but what is the point of attacking people who are 95 percent on your side?” he questioned.
“It’s easier to get all fake-outraged over the ‘hateful, anti-gay speech’ of two men who bedazzle codpieces for a living,” joked Maher. “Really, you can’t sell handbags now if you only agree with Elton John almost all the time?”
He later wondered, “How deeply stupid has the far left become when gay designers can’t get along with gay musicians?”
You just can't discriminate based on that.
What is discriminate, and why is discrimination selectively criticized but the just the way it is with every thing else in life.
Just a few days ago some kid with down syndrome was told he can't wear a varsity Letter Jacket.
There's discrimination all over the damned place, fat discrimination, beauty, health, age, income, and even education.
Our society has never been more discriminatory since the Dixie south. You couldn't be anymore discrimination than living/hiding behind exclusive gated communities because of the "Good Schools".
Kiss my ass "Discrimination" that's a bigger fucking bunch of bullshit than the most biggest creepiest charleton tent revival evangelical, and you phony cock suckers know it.
Try being fat, broke, white, straight and over 60 are we going sing a sad song for that demographic or they don't rate?
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, friend. Don't inflict them on everyone else.
How is that any different than religious people feeling like there's some sinister Gay Liberal agenda where Gayness is being shoved down their throats, so much so to the point.
That if your grey drabby and proabably the worse choice Bakery or Bridal shop was hand chosen by a activist lawyer/gay wedding planner, to service a gay wedding. Now normally no party invovled would dare go to Ward and June Cleaver's crappy bridal shop and bakery but it will be a lucrative business making people perform services they are morally opposed to doing.
If they don't then they'll be sued and made the poster child for the 2016 typical biggot republian voter.
May the best exceptional rights win. The right for gays to marry and right to be repulsed.
So let me get this straight, why is religious people being "Anti-Gay" an issue, while "Pro-Gay" people make no effort to hide their openingly Anti-Religion policy?
Are you guys saying you would do business with someone who didn't want to business with you?
Especially if they were forced.
Tell the owner you believe Israel should be a democracy separate from the church, and see if you don't get shown the door.
It's silly that it had to come down to this.
This is about people not ever being sued for the quality of a weding cake was made or refused to be made at all.
People should always reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And they do all of the time. I've been in several Latin cafe's around south Florida.
They refuse service to Gringos by flat out just providing the crappiest service or none at all. Then as soon as a regular walks in, they snap to and give that customer red carpet white glove service. I just agree not to eat there, there's plenty of other places, and they have the right to want to keep it all (Insert Carribean Latin American Island here) as they actually discriminate against other Latin nation citizens even worse. Try showing up at a Jewish organization as a Goy and see how far you get. You can be any color you like, you just better be Jewish.
All ethinicities foster cultural community in America. Everyone is encouraged to do so, even right now in this day and age, Muslims are encouraged to as unsimalated as possible.
Everyone can experss freedom of religion in this country but the Cracker Christians.
So the rich are just paying the pentaly too?
I've seen a couple of historical Nordic movies. A few of them deal with Islandic and Norway's brutal penal system. Essentialy desolate foggy islands, with no hope to ever escape.
Until the three strikes law came along, our prison systems had always been a bit of a turnstile. Unless you killed somebody.
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe in a fictional god because a bunch of Bronze Age desert barbarians did.
No you don't, but you do have to be prety stupid to expect everyone to believe it, or NOT believe it.
If we put half as much energy in reversing 1 through 4 as we do in number 5, then number 5 would be a non issue.
Number 5 is the only item on that list that is a man made natural resource.
Global Warming fear mongering that is.
alright if peer review is anything but censorship, then why isn't peer review done on studies after they are punlished?
Reviewers are variables them selves.
It's like the Judge that informed me as a potential jury, during my last jury duty call, that we were not permited to watch the local news or use Google for the extent of the trial.
Then asked if anyone had a problem with that. I raised my hand and said I did. He then said "Well don't you understand that it is wrong because the lawyers wont be there to debate my interpretaion of the news presented?". I even see this pattern in Enterprise software development. Where there's scrum and peer review. For years trillions of dollars have been squandered on refactoring code because of popular concensus and opinion masquerading as scientific law. Just a few weeks ago they released a study saying that there is no benefit of computer performance for refactoring functioning code on modern computers. Citing things like inline verbrose code, not separating business and data layers, to use inheritance, interfaces and base classes. The study also concluded that often the refactored code performed more poorly than the previous code. Due to over use of more encapsalation, inheritence, and lamda expressions.
John L. Baird (television camera)
When the first television system was demonstrated to the Royal Society (British scientists,) they scoffed and ridiculed, calling Baird a swindler.
C.J. Doppler (Doppler effect)
Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues.
George S. Ohm (Ohm's Law)
Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal; called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. twenty years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance. See M. Schagrin, "Resistance to Ohm's Law," American Journal of Physics, #31 pp536-547 1963.
Stanford R. Ovshinsky (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Physicists "knew" that chips and transistors could only be made from expensive slices of ultra-pure single-crystal semiconductor. Ovshinsky's breakthrough invention of glasslike semiconductors was attacked by physicists and then ignored for more than a decade. (When evidence contradicts consensus belief, inspecting that evidence somehow becomes a waste of time.) Ovshinsky was bankrupt and near destitute when finally the Japanese took interest and funded his work. The result: the new science of amorphous semiconductor physics, as well as inexpensive thin-film semiconductor technology (in particular the amorphous solar cell, photocopier components, and writeable CDROMS sold by Sharp Inc.) made millions for Japan rather than for the US.
Warren S. Warren (flaws in MRI theory)
Warren and his team at Princeton tracked down a Magnetic Resonance anomaly and found a new facet to MRI theory: spin interactions between distant molecules, including deterministic Chaos effects. Colleagues knew he was wrong, and warned him that his crazy results were endangering his career. Princeton held a "roast", a mean-spirited bogus presentation mocking his work. Warren then began encountering funding cancellations. After approx. seven years, the tide of ridicule turned and Warren was vindicated. His discoveries are even leading to new MRI techniques. See: SCIENCE NEWS, Jan 20 2001, V159 N3
These last two is how Tyson makes a living. Yet he riles against anyone that questions his Gold standard. Without considering he almost didn't have a job getting Federal money to study Gobbeleygook.
George Zweig (quark theory)
Zweig published quark theory at CERN in 1964 (calling them 'aces'), but everyone knows that no particle can have 1/3 electric charge. Rather than receiving recognition, he encountered stiff barriers and was accused of being a charlatan.
Fritz Zwicky (Dark Matter)
Known in the astro research community as "Crazy Fritz," Zwicky investigated orbit statistics of galactic clusters in 1933 and concluded that the majority of mass had an invisible unknown source. He was ignored, dismissed as an eccentric.
Sometimes all it takes is just a regime change.
Well guess what? It never changed.
Ya'll actlike Liberals have been on their hands and knees with bleach and mop buckets for the last 6 years.
are you trying to say that that somehow invalidates tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles?
No just the process. OH and I liked your post by accident trying to hit quote, so I disliked it to restore balance.
Well she's as retarded as a Liberal that want's mandatory Athiest Libinars.
Really? Look at marriage. Marriage is the ultimate small business. These days, women think that marriage consist of "managing" their husbands and collecting the profits of his labor. (Actually, they probably always thought so, but they were much smarter about keeping quiet about it, and did more of their part to support their husbands.) Anyway, are the women "leaders" of marriage "more collaborative" than their husbands, on the average? i don't think so. I see a lot of passive/aggressive behavior later followed by aggressive/aggressive behavior whenever the first method does not garner the desired result. Does that make women better leaders than men? I think not.
For some guys it's a symbiotic relationship as well. Some men are not driven until a woman gets involved in their lives. Whether they realize it or not at the time of their transformation.
It can be subtle or indirect or it can be direct manipulation. Either a man just wanting to be all he can be and pressing his career potentials, or a Woman constantly beating a guys ear to take opportunities.
But who knows perhaps the days of women's vicarious greatness through men proxy is over. These days all they need for mortal self gratification is approval and likes for posting Selfies with a duck face on Instagram. Mere Men are no match for that kind of glory.
The Marriage business has worked for me and my wife for 21 years. She lives a comfortable lifestyle and my brand can afford me more than I would care to earn if I were single and had never married in the first place. All of my single friends that never pursued a family life. Are all living the exact same lifestyle paycheck to paycheck that they were 20 + years ago. I would be living in off season efficiencies and still slinging carpet had I stayed single.
Do you understand what peer-reviewed means?
Let's see... For this study we'll use Wiki will that do? That's the Patnet ulitmate sayso just after Snopes.
The first recorded editorial pre-publication peer-review process was at the Royal Society of London in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg.
The Salem Witch Trials were in 1690, and Henry Oldenburg was a good ole German Puritan
Born in Bremen, Germany, he trained in theology and received his degree on 2 November 1639. His movements during the 1640s are unclear, but he is thought to have worked as a tutor in England for much of the decade. In 1648 he left England and travelled, returning in the end to Bremen.
Science threatened the Crown as well as the Church he started peer review to keep Science and the publications in check, without it offending the ruling hirarchy. He also used it as a means to spy for England as the Secretary of the Royal Society.
Secretary of the Royal Society
After the Restoration he became an early member (original fellow) of the Royal Society (founded in 1660), and served as its first secretary along with John Wilkins, maintaining an extensive network of scientific contacts through Europe. He also became the founding editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Oldenburg began the practice of sending submitted manuscripts to experts who could judge their quality before publication. This was the beginning of both the modern scientific journal and the practice of peer review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society continues today and is the longest running scientific journal in the world.
He was briefly imprisoned as a suspected spy, in 1667, during the Second Anglo-Dutch War.
Oldenburg's correspondence was linked to support from the politician Sir Joseph Williamson; in part Oldenburg supplied Williamson with intelligence information.
Though peer review did not become common place for the rest of the world until this crazy fuck a patent clerk nobody self taught physicist came along and threatened the establishment with his wild ideas. So we needed a peer review so once again these crazy people with ideas that could be used to destroy the world. They should be discredited and their ideas stolen or suppressed.
In the 20th century, peer review became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review. See a competing viewpoint of the history of peer review using a social science approach in Gaudet, that builds on historical research by Gould,Biagioli, Spier, and Rip. Using a social science approach means carefully tending to what is under investigation, here peer review, and not only looking at superficial or self-evident commonalities among inquisition, censorship, and journal peer review.
The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process, and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century
Criticism of peer review
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarked:
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said:
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
What do you think scientists reputations are built on?
Though verbatim will be accepted by most institutions.
Don't forget the only Scientist working in the US are doing so on Federal grant funds.
You don't get grants proving that reversing deforestiazation would have a far greater inpact on any manmade malady effect on our weather, than trying to fatshame people into giving up hamburgers because Cows are dooming us all. That's after we cleaned up the cars and cut exhuast emmisions substantially. If we were to put a cork in every cow's ass, or even all went vegiterian. Then the Left would be fully commited in claiming we need to cull the human herd due to Global warming. Then they alone would start picking and chosing candidates.
They are pre Columbian South Ameircan's practicing shaman voodoo, and you fall in line and chant along or risk global ridducule.
This sham wont persist for much longer. Even in the face of trends reversion, the Greenies still claim warmest or driest victory. They'll just find the place on the other side of the earth that had 100 year heat record, to off set the fact that ever state in the US had snow but two this past Winter. Here it is now 3/28 and it's in the 60's here in South Florida. At the most southern point with out going down the keys.
There's a lot of ailing things we could fix about the Environment, but the Global Warming scam is not a "Let's fix shit" initiative. It is just the new way to extort and seek rent.
Any change in realty vs the global warming rag, then it all changes and becomes Climate Change. A sane person should never argue against and argument, that the parameters are willing to change to support the other possition.
Oh, OK, and what about all those scientists in the related fields?
The internet created Global warming. Careers can be destroyed instantly in real time if your ideas, vary the slightest from the establishment.
All you are I tweet.
Obama is a Necon now?
Well next years premium increase will have to be 37%, they need at least 3% YOY growth or the whole thing just aint worth it. Why it would put all of the Sutter execs in the poor house.
Nancy wouldn't want that, why then she wouldn't get her monthly envelope.
If I got paid what Neil De Grasse Tyson get's paid to sing chicken little, I would say the moon is going to crash into the earth and it's all because people smoke ciggarettes.
Nothing for you to in the meantime but rag on the Democrats full time, reciting every GOP talking point:
"Both sides are the same - here are 18 evil things the Democrats just did!"
Liberals are the meanest nastiest evil motherfuckers there ever was. And more over right now they are the ones running shit around here fucking shit up even more than Bush left it.
I'm glad we had this talk you are confused, well not that you're not predisposed to it, what being a Liberal and all.