Slashdot Mirror

Here's a reliable source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"Ever since that state approved the Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act in 1998, which prohibited the sale of “any device designed or marketed as useful for the stimulation of human genital organs,” humorists have mocked the statute while many Alabamans with common sense have tried to downplay its significance." ...
"Alabamans who sell sex toys — even inside so-called “adult oriented” businesses — face up to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine. Repeat offenders risk a ten year prison sentence. "

I used to be right about Texas. Since the time I read of it, their dildo-ban law has been overturned in court. Alabama's still stands. The law exists, it just isn't enforced.

... President Donald will ...

Tonight's entertainment is The mad world of Donald Trump and an op-ed.

It's true.

So tell me Einstein, how many animal live worth a human life in your eye?

That's exactly the point. Is an animal life worth any less than a human life? You clearly believe so. Many people believe so. But is it actually true? Does a sheep, cow, or orca really have any less of a right to a happy and healthy life than you or I? That's a good article, written by a man farming animals, and it touches on the struggle that we have with this idea. I highly recommend reading it. If you think it's a "save the animals" fluff piece, it's not.

As to whether or not we should help animals or people first, consider this point: the reason that the animals are suffering is because of us. Shouldn't we end their suffering and let them live the happy lives that they deserve, don't we have a moral obligation to do that based on the fact that we are causing them to suffer in the first place? In many cases the reason why people are suffering is also because of us. Since humans are the cause of so much suffering, that is one reason why there are so many people who want to help the innocent animals instead of the sadistic humans. We are the #1 threat for every animal living on the planet, including ourselves. A lot of people notice that fact and think that they want to help the innocent victims of humans instead of trying to help the humans.

Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.

Are you a fool? oh, nevermind . . .

If you'd have just stopped at the title and not spoken your mind, someone may have agrees.

Common sense is that you ban new housing, make it attractive to move somewhere higher - won't happen.

In principle, there is no need to ban such housing, we just need to stop subsidizing it. Right now, it's subsidized both through government-financed flood insurance programs, as well as through the provision emergency services. That encourages people not only to build in risky places, but also to pay for flood-proofing their homes. If people had to pay for the full cost of insurance and emergency services out of their own pockets, many people who currently build in flood zones would consider it too expensive and build somewhere else, and others would flood proof their homes instead of getting a fresh home every few decades courtesy of the tax payer. Attempts to reform the system have been repeatedly undermined. (I think the reform act was probably too heavy handed. A better and simpler choice might be to limit payouts from government subsidized flood insurance to a one time payment, both per site and per property owner.)

We need better flood maps and risk analysis systems too. Some places have gotten a "100 year flood" several times in the past decade. That indicates to me the risk calculations could use some work. Another problem is new development. New development paves over the earth with nonpermeable concrete and then disposal of rainwater becomes a significant problem. Areas which were once had swampy land to soak up the rain can quickly become areas that generate large volumes of runoff/drain water.

Some places have adequate retention pond regulations, and some places allow developers pass the costs, problems, and risks to the general public. The regulations for flood control are at a local or regional level. There is only so much the federal government can do, even if they were empowered to do something. Flood control in the USA is a very large problem and anyone proposing simple or easy solutions doesn't understand the problem.

Common sense is that you ban new housing, make it attractive to move somewhere higher - won't happen.

In principle, there is no need to ban such housing, we just need to stop subsidizing it. Right now, it's subsidized both through government-financed flood insurance programs, as well as through the provision emergency services. That encourages people not only to build in risky places, but also to pay for flood-proofing their homes. If people had to pay for the full cost of insurance and emergency services out of their own pockets, many people who currently build in flood zones would consider it too expensive and build somewhere else, and others would flood proof their homes instead of getting a fresh home every few decades courtesy of the tax payer. Attempts to reform the system have been repeatedly undermined. (I think the reform act was probably too heavy handed. A better and simpler choice might be to limit payouts from government subsidized flood insurance to a one time payment, both per site and per property owner.)

Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.

If Google AI you can beat Lee Se-dol at Go, can it beat the IRS and Her Majesty's government at Tax Evasion? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.theverge.com/2016/1... http://www.thelocal.it/2016021... http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... http://news.yahoo.com/italy-cl...

I suspect that's his strategy. Despite the media portraying him as a looney out in right field, Trump is actually the most moderate candidate still left in the race. Even you point out he advocates liberal NE policies. His stance on core issues aligns pretty closely with the American mainstream.

How does a moderate candidate get past the primaries to run for President in our polarized two-party system? By highlighting his few extremist views to appeal to extremists in one party during the primaries to win the nomination, then coming back to center in the general election to win over the mainstream.

Cruz really is evil.

Because... ?

You could start here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando (28/Jun/2011)
Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel (02/Nov/2011)
Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church (17/Dez/2012)
Anonymous Declares War on Singapore (06/Nov/2013)

The good old Wild West, where cities and towns banned guns altogether.

You're right, I do wish we went back to a model of allowing people to carry guns only in lawless zones with almost zero population density and threats from bears, wolves, and angry subjugated natives. There might be a ranch or two in Nevada and Montana where that could still apply.

I think it's a toss-up. Hillary has alienated a lot of people too, on both sides, and she's a war hawk. If it comes down to her vs. Trump, I'll have to vote for Trump because he's much less likely to start another war, as stated in this HuffPost article.

When the choice is a) ban all immigration by Muslims, or b) start another war in the middle east, which is just going to strengthen groups like ISIS, I'll pick a).

Actually, the USA seems to go really far out of its way not to ignore the criminality of blacks, in comparison to its willingness to ignore the criminality of whites.

For example, despite similar rates of use of marijuana, blacks are arrested more often for marijuana use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This article in Huffington post claims that we enthusiastically prosecute Blacks for the same crimes that we ignore in whites, and that blacks commit no more crimes than whites:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I am not black so I don't know the black experience, but this sure seems like systematic injustice to blacks to me. Also, it seems to me that it's demonstrably false that blacks can be fairly characterized as "rampantly criminal" as you said. Instead it seems that perception of blacks as rampantly criminal is flatly racial bias if not outright racism.

--PeterM

And also start prosecuting texting while driving, because this is actually causing 9 deaths a day on average in 2014, some places say its as much as 16 a day and causes 1.6 million accidents a year.

Aside from many of the privacy issues (already mentioned here by other) was that fact that you needed an invite in order to initially register for an account. When there was some buzz about google + I thought I'd check it out, but couldn't. This was there for at least 3 months and if you somehow got one, you were limited to sending out 15 invites! I don't think I know a single person on Facebook with less than 15 "friends".

That was the real suicide for G+ in my opinion. Most people generally don't give a crap about their privacy (at least non-tech types); that's why they're on Facebook in the first place; to tell the world what they're up to and see what they're up to. But if the entire point of a social networking site is to get you and your friends using it, then why the hell would you restrict that or limit that? Maybe google thought this would word because Facebook was initially college-exclusive. Or maybe because gmail was initially invite only; they didn't think much of it. But this was the far bigger nail in the coffin in my opinion. They needed to get as many people as possible to jump ship from Facebook (or at least try it out, or have accounts on both) in order to get it to work, but they put in an artificial scarcity on access. Surprise surprise; if you got an invite and did join, you found it was a ghost town after a month and went back to Facebook where all your friends are.

According to HuffPo (take it for what you will) the deadline appears to be May which will be pretty far along in the cycle. What I will be curious to see is if Sanders has enough balls to actually capitalize upon this, not too many voters are gonna want to waste a vote on someone who could be disqualified for a felony conviction and give the election to Trump by default.

There are legal issues about having weapons on a ship. That is, when they transit different national waters, they may, or may not, be allowed to have some, or any, weapons on the ship, regardless if it's stored or not.

Simpler. Say your boat leaves a country where you can legally have Gatling guns. You transit inside another nation's waters where you can't legally have one, such as the Canada, US, or Mexico. You could end up in jail over it. Depending on the rules and policies, it could be the responsible party, captain, or crew. Unmounting the Gatling gun, and placing it in a locker isn't usually good enough.

Cargo ships can be transiting the waters of many nations during their cruise.

I wouldn't really focus on the chance of escalating force. The pirates that are committing most of these crimes are working on a real shoe-string budget. Like, a small boats, where the pirates are armed with knives, rifles, and the (very) occasional RPG. Clicking through the pirate activity map, I couldn't find any reports stating heavier weapons than rifles. Most were unarmed, or armed with knives. If they could afford, or steal, better ships and weapons, they'd be doing it already.

Pirate activity map

Here is a writeup on the issue

http://www.newscientist.com/ar... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The paper from the actual researchers is far more guarded, and suggest that it may be EMI similar to Perytons, which are radio sources that appear to look like a pulsar signature.

From Wikipedia - "In 2015, Perytons were found to be the result of premature opening of microwave oven doors at the Parkes Observatory. The microwave oven releases a frequency-swept radio pulse that mimics an FRB as the magnetron turns off.[2][10]"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0524...

Here is a paper on Perytons, and their possible sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5080...

Here is a link on Pulsar physics, including a very basic back of the envelope derivation of the dispersion medium of pulsars. Apparently two pulses from a pulsar are detected a few milliseconds from one another, and stem from the mass difference between the electron and a proton and their interaction with interstellar space. Still trying to get a handle on this.. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/...

Dispersion measure variations and their effect on precision pulsar timing: http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.a...

Let me know when I can beam myself a beer from my fridge.

That technology exists already. Sort of.

Most places are not religious institutions.

A number of the ones on the list are, though not all.
From the shorter version ( http://www.popecenter.org/comm... ) the ten most oppressive colleges were:
1. Mount St. Mary’s University in Maryland ("recently thrown into turmoil by president Simon Newman’s firing of two faculty members who criticized his idea that the school should reduce its freshman class by “drowning some of the bunnies” (i.e., culling out academically weak students).")
2. Northwestern University,
3. Louisiana State
4. University of California—San Diego
5. Saint Mary’s University in Minnesota
6. University of Oklahoma
7. Marquette University
8. Colorado College
9. University of Tulsa,
10. Wesleyan University

So, the religious universities on that list are Mount St. Mary’s University, Saint Mary’s University, Marquette University, and Wesleyan University. Four out of ten. Doesn't seem too bad, but only 20% of the US Universities are religiously affiliated, so it's about twice what you would expect.

So let's be clear: pretty much all of these situations are completely unacceptable, and most disturbingly they show a tendency for much of these sorts of problems to occur on the left, what essentially amounts to the "illiberal left" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/.

Are they, though? I haven't checked them all, but their number 2 spot regarding Northwestern University and Professor Laura Kipnis actually involves allegations of defamation and retaliation by the professor against a sexual assault victim. Free speech has never included a right to publish libel.

Cult of personality?

There was quite a bit for Obama - initially. Now, it's Trump and Sanders.

We have the author of the movie Idiocracy has turned into a "documentary".

Much of the popularity of Trump and Sanders is backlash against the political class - the career poltiicians and dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons. They have not represented us little people very well. While the World's economy becomes more and more integrated, we little people here in the US do not seem to be getting the benefits; it's mostly going to the top. And when I see companies mostly recruiting in India (GE) or replacing them with H1-bs (Disney); by-passing hardworking qualified Americans, I just have to wonder what is our leadership up to?

But we have a populace that is being distracted by issues like immigration, abortion, gay marriage, teaching Evolution in schools and how our country is losing it's Judeo-Christian values. And while folks are being distracted by things like that, we have a government that is steadily chipping away at our rights because of the fears of terrorism.

I find that our political trajectory to be more along the lines of the movie 'V for Vendetta". We have quite a few protections in our government to prevent a complete takeover by on individual - at least now - but we can still be tyrannized by a political elite who will hold power by whatever means necessary.

I am quite concerned for the direction of this country.

You may be surprised by Trump. Despite the media trying to portray him as batshit crazy, he's actually the most politically moderate of all the candidates I've seen (Paul and Christie were the others, but they've dropped out). Aside from a huge ego and a few really off-the-wall ideas the media keeps trumping up (no pun intended), his political views actually fall right smack dab in the center of the American mainstream. A lot of my friends on the left can't see this because they think anyone to the right of them is extremist (not a dig at them - many of my friends on the right think anyone to the left of them is extremist also).

I personally don't think Trump would make a good President, but I would not underestimate his appeal to the huge chunk of voters in the center. If he becomes the nominee, I'm actually curious to see if the increasing polarization of the country is real, or just an effect of increasing control by the two parties and polarized media outlets.

Looking at how HuffPo came to that conclusion I'm going to agree with RCP here. Only one of the seven polls taken in February shows a Clinton lead, and that poll is ridiculously out of whack with the rest.

HuffPo's final result seems also to be skewed by a January poll (again, an outlier) showing a 29 point lead for Clinton over Rubio (the other two in January show +5 Clinton, +3 Rubio respectively)

I'd say it's more likely than not that Rubio would win, which makes sense, his main opposition is from Tea Party types, who'll grudgingly vote for him anyway in November. He's not hated by Democrats, whereas Clinton most certainly is hated by Republicans (and some Democrats!)

huffpost disagrees however: http://elections.huffingtonpos...

Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Um your link is an article saying that this is not true? "Data Debunks Claim That Hillary Clinton Paid Women Less Than Men"

Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Looking at median salaries among full-time, year-round employees, the Free Beacon concluded that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.

I am sure that you'll be happy to make excuses or quote methodology (as did HuffPo), but when you're UNWILLING to do the same for studies you agree with then that too is Hypocrisy.

The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.

Is it possible that the men were perhaps able to do a combination of 28% more and or better work to make up for this pay difference?
-------------
Ontopic: The amount of money you make from an ebay auction is related entirely to your ability to make people want to pay for it, what's next, complaining about the horrible atrocity that a woman commission pay based salesman only made 79% as much money as a man salesman, because she sold 79% as many products?

Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Looking at median salaries among full-time, year-round employees, the Free Beacon concluded that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.

I am sure that you'll be happy to make excuses or quote methodology (as did HuffPo), but when you're UNWILLING to do the same for studies you agree with then that too is Hypocrisy.

The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.

I can't wait until November. President Trump will win the election with a landslide victory...

Yeah, about that...

Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An 'Entire Generation' To Democrats

2016 is a repeat from 1992; a billionaire with funny hair vexes the Republican party and hands the election to a Clinton.

Sorry things won't turn out like you hope. Maybe next generation?

Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?

Probably, considering that violating privacy is their primary source of income. Eric Schmidt actually came out against privacy.

Hell, they're not even the party of William Safire or William F. Buckley anymore. As recently as the 1990s, you could disagree with a republican on issues of governance without immediately being accused as a godless communist, closet muslim, anti-american, or spawn of satan and hitler.

Yeah, the irony is much of the tea party thinks they are in the middle class but most of them haven't been for a while now.

The 1% has already taken 14 of the 15 cookies and left them to fight over the last one with everyone else.

If you believe that you've been following too many writers with ulterior religious prejudices. Reparative therapy (pushed by both religious groups and discredited (mostly gay) psychiatrists who see transsexuals as just "gay men in dresses" who can be "cured") has been banned in many places because it not only doesn't work, but causes a LOT of harm. Get real - it's people standing in the way of medical treatment, and people like you who continue to spread uninformed lies, who are the problem.

the overall mortality rate was only significantly increased for the group operated on before 1989. However, the latter might also be explained by improved health care for transsexual persons during 1990s, along with altered societal attitudes towards persons with different gender expressions.

The mental health quality of life of trans women without surgical intervention was significantly lower compared to the general population, while those transwomen who received FFS, GRS, or both had mental health quality of life scores not significantly different from the general female population.

In any right society, the people who lie to transsexuals and discourage them from seeking treatment would be in jail for willful endangerment. That includes you.

>Republicans want for us all.

And Democrat presidents passed TPP and NAFTA ... Google outsources and uses contractors that outsource, and Google isn't right wing, not even close.

http://www.alternet.org/labor/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

How about we stop spreading lies that is a republican issue when both parties are fucking everyone over for profits. Voting for a democrat or republican isn't going to fix the corporate cronies who own both parties. Lets not excuse corruption and bad behavior for whatever party you belong too, because they are your party.

Until we start holding our own accountable, nothing will ever change.

Ironically, the rise of the Christian Right over the course of the past three decades may well end up being the catalyst for Christianity’s rapid decline. From the moment Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, evangelical Christians, who account for roughly 30 percent of the U.S. population, identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. Michael Spencer, a writer who describes himself as a post-evangelical reform Christian, says, “Evangelicals fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith. Evangelicals will be seen increasingly as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.”

In light of the recent backlash against Republicans who supported the right-to-discriminate bills across 11 states, Spencer’s words seem prophetic. Republican lawmakers had expected evangelicals to mobilize in the aftermath of Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s veto of SB1062. Instead, legislatures in states like Mississippi, Kansas, and Oklahoma have largely backed down from attempts to protect “religious freedom” after a national outcry branded the proposed bills discriminatory.

Every denomination in the U.S. is losing both affiliation and church attendance. In some ways the country is a half-generation behind the declining rate of Christianity in other western countries like the U.K., Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, and the Netherlands. In those countries, what were once churches are now art galleries, cafes and pubs. In Germany more than 50 percent say they do not believe in any god, and this number is declining rapidly. In the U.K., church attendances have halved since the 1970s.

or as the bible would put it - "sowing the seeds of their own destruction" ...

A recent study into the beliefs of people living in 137 countries concludes that religious people will be a minority in many developed countries by 2041. Nigel Barber, an Irish bio-psychologist, based his book, Why Atheism Will Replace Religion, on the findings. His book also debunks the popular belief that religious groups will dominate atheistic ones because they collectively have more children. “Noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve,” writes Barber.

and

Research has shown that religion declines not just with rising national wealth but with all plausible measures of the quality of life, including length of life, decline of infectious diseases, education, the rise of the welfare state, and more equal distribution of income. Clearly there is less of a market for religion in societies where ordinary people feel secure in their daily lives. In the most developed countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the quality of life is so good that the majority is already secular.

In my book I asked how long it would take for the average country in the world to reach a similar level of development as countries that already have secular majorities. This transition was measured either as a minority believing in God or a minority seeing religion as important. The average rate of economic development was assessed both in terms of GDP (corrected for local prices, PPP) and the human development index (HDI), which includes health and education as well as GDP. So I calculated four estimates of when the average country in the world is likely to transition to a secular majority, and the average estimate was 2041. The more reliable HDI method predicts an earlier transition than does GDP alone.

Religious people will become the new "red shirts".

Except the Christian extremist do tend to get their way in places like Uganda, with encouragement from American evangelicals. Exporting hate is a growth industry.

The evidence is clear but rarely recognized by North American policymakers who would rather expand NAFTAâ(TM)s most destructive trade rules through transpacific and transatlantic negotiations that will make environmental protection even more difficult.

That conclusion is backed up by dozens of references.

If one was a Rand Paul supporter, it makes sense to switch to Ted Cruz, whose stances are not too different.

I'm not sure Rand ever dreamed of world domination (or simply Google: cruz world domination):

A video posted to YouTube Saturday shows an 18-year-old Ted Cruz sarcastically joking about world domination.

“Take over the world, world domination, you know, rule everything,” Cruz says when asked about his aspirations. "Rich, powerful, that sort of stuff." The footage was taken in 1988, according to the video's YouTube description, while Cruz was attending Second Baptist School in Houston.

But, I could be wrong. I haven't read all of Rand's position papers. :-)

"Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays."

http://big.assets.huffingtonpo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think the hate flows both ways.

If Apple is not paying US taxes because they are parking revenue in Ireland, why should they care what the US dollar does? Or are they admitting that they are repatriating that money to the US? In that case, why aren't they paying tax on it?

Invalid argument.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...

Everyone is wrong occasionally.

I seriously doubt a major 15 minute segment would be wrong in any central and fundamental facts. And in this case, it's not.

You'd need to show the areas he said charge for public defenders actually do not charge for public defenders. Which you did not do.

Put it this way... you were wrong sometime in the past year about something, so your current argument is invalid.

It's just as invalid a technique when I do it to you as when you did it with john oliver.

In order to be considered a player, you have to actually *play*.

Nationwide, this is what billions in subsidies bought us: via Gizmodo.

Huffington Post has some numbers for New York specifically... they aren't even at 50% (as of mid last year).

Fox News Identifies Mark Sanford as a Democrat

IIRC they did the same thing with Larry Craig when he was busted looking for sex in a restroom.

Yes, and I know of some cases where the punishment was a warning and a note on file. No prison term or burning at the stake...

And in some cases it wasn't.

And judges have this thing called discretion. Look it up.

1. they don't always use discretion
2. People hace discretion too (look it up).

Sometimes yes sometimes no.

How the fuck is a teenager taking naked selfies causing harm to others?

Here's an example of people using discretion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Just because it could have been worse doens't mean it wasn't bad.

And here's a lawyers take on it
https://www.isba.org/ibj/2010/...

If *you* report a minor like that and thy wind up in prison because a judge does not use discretion, you are just as culpable as the judge.

No - not if you've been following the twists and turns of businesses trying to work in India, where if you don't grease every palm you run into exponentially increasing bureaucratic delays. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a country with an ingrained culture of corruption. Add in that the caste system is still alive and well (just ask any of the 160 million "untouchables") and nobody should be surprised. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean anything - law in India is in many cases not worth the paper it's written on.

Then again, what do you expect from a country where it is perfectly legal to rape your wife and where female genital mutilation is an open secret?

If the numbers really are that nearly 90 percent of people killed in drone strikes "were not the intended targets" of the attacks then I think the US should stop using them. Failure in use is the next best thing I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
https://theintercept.com/drone...

Whoa, Ted Cruz is posting on Slashdot! And once again, he's channeling Dr. Seuss.

"as far as I am aware even the old testament doesnt tell Christians to torture unbelievers or to treat women like cattle.

As I pointed out, this was a totally ignorant comment to make, since there were no christians at that time.

then you say Christians are bad because what the old testament says.

Paul (new testament writer, see 1 Cor.21-24) continued to condone slavery. His words were used to justify slavery for centuries. You can't ignore the last 2,000 years either.

And I notice you have no response to my remark about Christian leaders persecution of gays and lesbians, which called for the death penalty in places as diverse as Uganda and the United States. Ted Cruz doesn't mind it, and neither do Huckabee or Jindal.

Also, when you write "As to bringing up support for repealing gay sex or whatever, thats an obvious emotional strawman that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument.", you seem to have missed that Paul also attacked gays (Romans 1:26-27). Certainly it's relevant when showing that Christians aren't all sweetness and light, and never have been since the earliest days of Christianity. Also, you have no reply