Slashdot Mirror

distill
: to make (a liquid) pure by heating it until it becomes a gas and then cooling it until it is a liquid again : to purify (a liquid) by distillation

"Republic" is not defined as "not a monarchy" in the US

Let's look at the actual definition. This is the first one listed:

a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

There are other definitions which do fit your opinion more or less, but they aren't the only definitions of "republic" - in the US.

Your state level issue is largely handled by the Federal Preemption clause in Article VI, clause 2. So no, the states can't preempt the constitution, by joining the union they signed on to agreeing. Fun fact, "Congress" in this usage almost certainly includes state legislatures, just as it includes the house and senate. It's a generic term meaning a gathering of the people's representatives.

Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).

I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

It is in fact possible to "correctly" limit someone else's rights. Oddly enough, most people understand this in a first amendment context, where the "no laws" prohibition makes it more dicy. Yell "fire" in a crowed movie theatre and you can be prosecuted for "inciting a panic" or "causing a disturbance". As a society we recognize that while you have a right to free speech, that right is only absolute in so much as it does not infringe on others rights, in this case not being trampled as people panic trying to leave the not on fire theater. Most people find this relatively uncontroversial.

Apply the same logic to the second though, for instance that you have to take a gun safety class before being allowed a fire arm so you don't accidentally shoot someone else and people go bonkers. It's the same logic, an individuals rights are only absolute to the point where they do not trample another's rights. Your right to a gun does not allow you to (accidentally) take the life of another person.

No; GP was right, should have looked it up:

to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Taco Cowboy is expressing skepticism about this, a core tenant of science.

Meanwhile, you're making an assertion without providing any evidence to back up your reasoning, a core tenant not of science, but of religion.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'll give a pass on voila/viola, and rogue/rouge, since those might just be typos, but I gotta draw the line somewhere. It really detaches from your argument when you use the wrong word.

-- A tenant of a tenement who knows the difference between "tenant" and "tenet".

Taco Cowboy is expressing skepticism about this, a core tenant of science.

Meanwhile, you're making an assertion without providing any evidence to back up your reasoning, a core tenant not of science, but of religion.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'll give a pass on voila/viola, and rogue/rouge, since those might just be typos, but I gotta draw the line somewhere. It really detaches from your argument when you use the wrong word.

-- A tenant of a tenement who knows the difference between "tenant" and "tenet".

I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.

From bigotry & bigot respectively:

1: the state of mind of a bigot

2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:

HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.

But then... this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!" ... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.

Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.

I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.

From bigotry & bigot respectively:

1: the state of mind of a bigot

2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:

HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.

But then... this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!" ... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.

Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.

I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.

From bigotry & bigot respectively:

1: the state of mind of a bigot

2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:

HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.

But then... this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!" ... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.

Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.

By definition, conspiracy includes secrecy:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now if the climate change "conspiracy" isn't a conspiracy, then all your claims about its "true" intentions are available from some public sources. Not conspiracy theorists, but the actual people in charge, just like we have quotes from our former prime minister, for example, about the creation of a new low-income sector.

So post those sources, then.

You would have a point if corporation didn't have legal rights like a person.
But they do, and he can use his position to influence actual politics. That's why it matters.

"But you're going to excoriate this guy because his opinion differs from the one you consider "right"?"
when their opinion is to take rights away from other human beings? yes.

"Shrug off the shit that doesn't matter "
denying people rights doesn't matter?

"focus on the stuff that actually means something. T"
if basic human rights doesn't matter, then what does?

"Second, how are YOU being any more tolerant than the so-called "bigot" you're trying to hate on?"
How come no one on this site seems to know what intolarance means?
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Since the context is human rights, number 2 applies
a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

You are rather short sighted and small minded.

Do you even see the irony in you post? at all? It's just information OKCupid is giving people. People can make up their own ,minds. You are advocating OKCupid should not share information.

It seems to me you screed is based on the fact that you know you wrong to keep using the browser, you just too much of a coward to admit it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
  not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights

That is the context of the discussion. If you can't grok this, well then you are a useless human being.

Strange reactions here on Slashdot. Some "insightful" comments here were about freedom of believe, freedom of speech, intolerance, separation of work and personal believes. Let me first explain that same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The point of the debate of same-sex marriage are not some pagan rituals from aeons ago, long assimilated by the Christian church, that involves a priest and some blessings. The point of same-sex marriage is the recognition of a partnership of two people by the government on the state and the federal level. In the USA there are currently 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. That are 1,138 benefits, right and privileges that gay couples currently cannot benefit from, because they were born like they were born!

Nobody is talking to force the church or any priest to marry same sex couples. It is only about the recognition of the union between two people so they can enjoy the same benefits, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy!

Brendan Eich have all right to exercise his freedom of speech and freedom of believes by his donation to Prop 8. But you have also give the same right to the employees of Mozilla who opposes his bigotry. The definition of a bigot is someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas" [2]. Nobody except Brendan Eich can know if he have this feelings against gay couples, but his actions are very clearly the actions of a bigot. How can somebody who does not strongly and unfairly dislikes same sex couples to marry donates for a law that would prohibit same sex couples to marry? (keep in mind that by marrying I mean that the state recognizes the union)

How would you feel if tomorrow a Prop 9. would be introduced that would prohibit inter-racial marriage? And if Brendan Eich would donate from his private bank account to Prop 9? Would you still be comfortable that he represents Mozilla as the new CEO? There is no difference here. Two people are forbidden to form a union only because they were born like they were born.

Again, Brendan Eich have all his rights of freedom of speech. But he represents as the CEO Mozilla, and his actions, also his private actions, are tied to Mozilla.

[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The plural of anecdote is data: http://blog.revolutionanalytic...

No, it's anecdotes

There is no need to abandon ICEs to achieve carbon neutrality. The answer is biofuels.

Agreed.

We already know how to make 1:1 replacements for both diesel and gasoline out of any organic material.

But can we do it efficiently? Last I looked in on the subject, ethanol in the US (which is a biofuel that you didn't mention, which is OK) barely breaks even (at best) once corn subsidies and other agricultural props are accounted for.

The benefits of growing ethanol as a fuel are drowned by the farm/transportation/refining/transportation (yes, twice -- at least twice) equipment which powered by fossils.

But our government is literally complicit in oil company conspiracies to prevent us from having them.

Is that "literally" in the "literal" sense, or "literally" in way in which "literally" literally means virtually?

Either way, [[citation needed]].

Making biodiesel in a carbon-neutral (actually carbon-negative) way depends on being permitted to use BLM lands, which you can do for coal or oil but just try getting green energy permits

Carbon-negative? The only "carbon negative" processes I'm aware of involve the cutting of trees, and lashing them to the ocean floor, or the moral equivalent thereof ....and even -that- is time-limited (albeit on a grand scale).

Can you explain?

Butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline that we've known how to make since the 1800s, which we could buy right now if not for lawsuits by Butamax, a shell company owned by BP and DuPont.

Interesting. I've never heard of either Butanol or Butamax. Further research is required on my part on these latter subjects.

Cars must move on from fossil fuels, all of them. And yet, nothing need be lost but oil company profits.

Eek. My opinion here is something that is tempered by my stated lack of knowledge of Butanol, but: It occurs to me immediately that there are still some ICEs which require fossil fuels to operate properly, just as there are historic engines that require TEL gasoline to perform properly.

(Case in point: An antique fire engine that I've seen, and talked to the people who maintain it.. It is used only for parades and publicity and never for fighting fires, in a small town in Ohio. It has never seen any real engine work, and indeed has very low operating hours. It lives in a spotless, dedicated, newly-built, and well-lit garage all to itself at a volunteer fire department there. They fill it with aviation gas (with lead!) from a nearby airport, because that's the closest thing to the fuel that it was made for that they can get their hands on easily. No, it's not a "useful" vehicle, but it is living history which ought to be preserved in functional state for even more future generations.)

I'm from Canada (so in North America) and while I've heard this construction before, I do find it awkward and "rustic" and have to think about what anymore is supposed to mean. It holds similar associations to me as "ain't", which is a word I never use outside of quotations, but understand perfectly well and has become semi-standard in some dialects. Likewise, I would never spontaneously speak a sentence that used "anymore" in that manner. A similar informal word that I would use in those situations is "nowadays".

The usage discussion at merriam-webster suggests that the positive statement usage is a phenomenon through most of the US, and mostly within the US: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... Like it says, I tend to reserve anymore for negative constructions or questions. I can't assign a good reason for why I do it like that, but it's the case.

The essence of theocracy is not an appeal to a divine being.

You're making up your own definitions. A dictionary reference:

"1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided"

Really? A D list celebrity has personal experience with a human condition that is exhausting and draining, then makes it a her cause to educate base on the teaching of a respected, peer reviewed journal that evenually retracts their claims and eventually silencing herself and she's the dumb bitch?

Yes. She is too stupid to realize that her arguments hold no water. One of the definitions of stupid : being unable to learn or understand things.

Unless you've experienced it you don't understand the dangers of things, and even then you tend to forget. On top of that we have several generations now that have never, in their lifetime, known someone that has ever had one of these diseases.

Yeah, that's the problem. Vaccines have been too effective. Thanks for proving that point.

Then you say that you have to go out of your way and take your kid to get a vaccien several times for the first few years, and deal with going to the doctor, dealing with the crying kids, etc, etc.

Awwww.....Your kid cries because you were a good parent and did something in their best interest?!?!?!?! Oh the humanity, you should be thrown in jail and left to rot. Oh, wait, that is the definition of a good parent....never-mind.

She could be a dumb bitch, but you're just an AC douchebag.

And yes, you are correct, she might not be a dumb bitch, her mouth is too god-damn big! She is stupid tho. She is someone who fails to take personal responsibility for her screwed up child. Never-mind the drugs and alcohol she did. No, those things could not have possibly affected her child at all...it was the vaccines that must have done it.

"catch as catch can.": using any available means or method : hit-or-miss

Life of Solon by Plutarch

XVII. First of all, then, he repealed all the laws of Drakon, except those relating to murder, because of their harshness and the excessive punishments which they awarded. For death was the punishment for almost every offence, so that even men convicted of idleness were executed, and those who stole pot-herbs or fruits suffered just like sacrilegious robbers and murderers. So that Demades afterwards made the joke that Drakon's laws were not written with ink, but with blood. It is said that Drakon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones.

(emphasis mine)

Coulda is slang; -'ve is far from

could've
've

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Pick your dictionary. Do any not list it as a verb?

The kibitz? Well, yes, we do like to chat about scientific advancement around here.

Dispose of my stuff in the proscribed manner at the municipal dump.

It's probably not smart to brag about your illegal activities on the Internet :)

Your cited definition is lacking, and actually highlights it by the some of the associated topics: "bona fide occupant, illegal occupancy, lawful occupant".

Merriam-Webster has a better one:

: a person who is using or living in a particular building, apartment, or room

: a person who is in a room, vehicle, etc., at a particular time

Ownership and even tenancy involve a higher level of formalization which would rise to the level of 'resident'... simple occupancy does not.

You do note a key differentiator... occasional vs regular occupancy.

While a visitor would be considered an occupant and not a resident (residency requiring either a pre-existing time spent, or a clear plan to (lease))... at what point does occupancy become residency (assuming we accept the premise that residency is required to be able to consent)?

You invite a girl back to your house for a night... she's an occupant.

She eventually moves in with you... she's a resident.

At what point in between did that status change and she inherited the legal authority to consent to a search of the resident?

You'll want to review the meaning of "censoring". Non-government entities can censor. No where in the definition does it state that it has to be a government that censors.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring?show=0&t=1393353280

censor noun \sen(t)-sr\

: a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

" On judges make people go to AA or NA meetings."

Let's not get started on the illegality of a judge sentencing a person to attend regular (.i.e religious) spirtituality based meetings. Clearly they've never heaqrd of Separation of Church and State.

It looks more like a Tally Board for stock keeping to me.

A very thin valley? Huh? that makes no sense whatever!

Now, if you'd said veil... are you from reddit or 4chan perchance? Used to be there were educated people who actually read books who came here.

I've had to bale out a couple of friends

Er, I don't think Baling people is legal. Hay or straw only! Or did you mean Bail?

That, sir, is the reason to stay away from the Free Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary. They're written by people who can't read or spell. Use Webster's or the OED, which were actually written by people who know what they're writing about and not semiliterate high school dropouts like with TFD abd TUD (and slashdot).

humanity goes batshit crazy when starvation is eminent.

imminent: about to happen

eminent: well-known

humanity goes batshit crazy when starvation is eminent.

imminent: about to happen

eminent: well-known

Which it doesnt.

However, it does abet infringement.

Exactly!

The word of the day is: Abet

And precedent has been set, several times, that abetting infringement is not tolerated by the court. Gawker will lose and Tarrentino will make bank on an unpublished manuscript!

I'm sure the freetards will be beside themselves with confusion as their psychotic hero acts against their favorite "cause".

Moron, that was a typo that stupid spell check missed. Conjugation is a real word with a real meaning. Saying "Fred stole my stapler" when you really meant Mary rather than Fred isn't evolution, it's a brain fart.

Likewise, you morons who spell "lose" with two Os. Both lose and loose are verbs, with completely different meanings. If you write "loose" when you mean "lose" you completely changed the meaning of the sentence and didn't say what you thought you said. Same with confusing conjunction with conjugation. The GP wasn't being a pedant, he was clarifying a really confusingly meaningless sentence; "in conjugation with" is completely meaningless.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

That stupid "we're a republic, not a democracy" meme is annoying and it must die.Seriously.

democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.

Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

It's time to update your dictionary, because you're using an 18th century definition of democracy. Back then democracy meant what we now call direct democracy. Nowadays the word has become more general, to the point where it includes both direct democracies and representative democracies. My apologies if the English language changes. I have trouble reading Chaucer too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Hello, Tu quoque fallacy.

One does not need to operate completely in adherence or consistency with a concept or argument they're promoting in order for that concept or argument to be valid. Thus: nor is it valid to challenge someone's argument because they have failed to do so.

Argument pro tip: if you're focusing on the person (ad hominem) you're Doing It Wrong.

Hello, Hypocrite:

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Don't expect someone to listen to your message if you choose not to follow the message yourself. Being a hypocrite may not necessarily mean that your message is not valid, but most people are not going to stop smoking when their doctor tells them to stop smoking while he smokes a cigarette. Do as I say, not as I do might work when you're a parent (and not often even then), but it's not going to win over people to your cause.

Argument pro tip 2: If you resort to quoting Latin to show why you're winning the argument, you've already lost the argument.

They want their mushrooms back.

You're conflating two different things. Multiculturalism is loosely defined as the tolerance and acceptance of cultural diversity in society, and getting the best of all worlds. Without multiculturalism, the United States would never have existed, survived, or become successful. If you are against it, then yes, you are a bigot by simple dictionary definition. Mass immigration, in contrast, is an issue of immigration laws and pressures. It is a much more difficult subject, which potential economic advantages and disadvantages depending on a lot of factors.

And we're not even talking about free trade, as dragged into the discussion by Hairyfeet above, which is completely unrelated (with a good dose of hyperbole, one could even state that ultimate free trade and mass immigration are mutually exclusive) and even more complex. My opinion is that too much free trade is about as harmful as (or possibly slightly more than) too little of it.

Anyhow, if you guys can't tell these issues apart, then you make it tempting to conclude you are xenophobes, in the narrow definition of being afraid of everything foreign. :-P

"curtsey of the federal government."
Was it a bad pun or just an error?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtsey
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/courtesy

You are hereby dishonorably discharged from Grammar Police (see definition 2).

Merriam-Webster states that it is "probably short for gypsy." I trust Merriam-Webster over wikipedia in this case.

So if we *don't* worry about anything, that provides evolutionary advantage? You seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that our evolutionary advantage that allows us to dominate the planet is our ability to think. Although unpleasant, worrying is a form of thinking. In fact, most of our most profound advances in the past century are outgrowths of worry over conflicts.

There's a word for people who don't worry when they should. It's blithe.

If you take the philosphy of "don't worry about it" to its logical conclusion, we'd already be extinct.

Actually, it's correct grammar. Benefit is also a verb.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benefit

(scroll down)

I'm guessing that you agree that we do have proven science, so your initial assertion that everything is hypothesis is wrong so you dropped that argument.

I said things start out as a hypothesis, and graduate to the status of Theory when they get enough supporting evidence. That's true. nothing to drop. don't know what you mean. My initial post pointed out there is a so-called "Law" (Newton's) that is over-ridden by a mere Theory (Einstein's) How could this happen if "Laws" are so much stronger than "Theories"? You didn't choose to deal with that. Newton's laws are presumably what you call "proven science." what do you do if it is proven wrong? Why does NASA demote Newton's Laws to mere Theories? http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm ?

I have no idea why you then point to an OP-ED piece to describe "Theory" instead of using the definition we have in dictionaries and defined by a couple thousand years of science. Are you trying to redefine the word, or do you accept that a theory is not proven?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory -

1. 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2. 2 : abstract thought : speculation
3. 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4. 4 : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
5. 5 : an ideal or hypothetical set of fact

I take definitions 1, 3, 4, and 5 into account. You are oddly obsessed with meaning 2 to the exclusion of all others.

Until I have proof preaching my belief as better than theirs is foolish because nobody can win the argument.

If you will not accept any proof offerred, then it is unfalsifiable, and by definition, not science. If no-one can win an argument, that doesn't mean both sides are justified. It is possible that one side is simply unreasonable.

Well spoken, but one minor correction: Agnosticism is actually the belief that God (or gods) cannot be proven or disproven. I am an agnostic who believes in God. I also have a friend who is agnostic, but he does not believe in God.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hero
Hero: a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities

What GP is saying is that they admire the OP for his bravery and courage in managing this disease.

I'm bitching that you hae no actual arguments to present

Oh my! Well then. Allow me to point out my past arguments:

[bitching about how little roads cost and how grandparent has a bad argument

ARGUMENT #1) The government does quite a lot. "He drove on public roads" is a metaphor for all the things the government does for the public good. It includes providing safety, law, a fair system that keeps Walmart from enslaving you, regulators that keep Monsanto from dooming us all in plagues, the FDA keeps factories from dumping toxic sludge into rivers, and it keeps the banks from simply stealing all your money.

[Bitching about how thin a slice of the pie "all that other stuff" accounts for]

ARGUMENT #2) Well if you look at it that way, the feds also take a very thin slice of your income. Taxes aren't that bad.

[Bububut that seems unfair! We rich dicks are a MINORITY!]

ARGUMENT #3) Yeah, dude. It's a progressive tax. Name me a place that doesn't have a progressive tax?
ARGUMENT #4) Our constitution specifically states that the government has the power to do this.
ARGUMENT #5) If you're unhappy with being the wealthy group of people in the most powerful nation, you're never going to be happy, no matter how you're taxed.
ARGUMENT #6) The method in which the wealthy make their wealth is often (but not always) at the detriment of those less wealthy than them. They got that money from somewhere. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Gini index is rising.
ARGUMENT #7) There seems to be no way to justify the income of the super-wealthy. They can not possibly have helped or advanced society so much as to justify this massive inbalance in wealth.

So there you have it. A pretty good list of arguments for why your statements are wrong. A list you've so far blithely ignored. Well, I guess you did try to have a counter-argument for #1 (by erroneously lumping social security into the pie chart), but after that you just whined that it doesn't seem fair to tax rich dicks.

BRAND NEW ARGUMENT #8) Whoa! Holy shit, how did I miss this one. You're getting confused on the definition of "minority group". It's a sociological term. And frankly, those guys suck at math. Yes, there are less rich guys than poor guys, the rich are in the minority. But the term "minority group" has a different meaning than that. It means the used and abused subset of a populace, not necessarily the ones there are less of. That's how black people were still a minority group in the south after they were freed. You're using the casual term overlap and abusing it.

You were taught that "progressive taxation is good",

Yes, because a progressive tax IS GOOD. At least it's a hell of a lot better than any other alternative tried so far. A flat tax, or even the dystopia of a regressive tax, seems to accumulate ALL the wealth to a small subset at the top who always abuse that wealth and use their power to stay in power.

and "Walmart is bad"

Whoa now. Walmart is POWERFUL, not necessarily bad. And as a corporation you can trust them to try and get as much money as they can in any way they can. And like a strong dog, it needs to have a leash on it. It's like radiation; dangerous, powerful, potentially useful, and it needs to be properly handled OR IT'LL FUCKING KILL YOU.

and the other lessons schools teach

Pft, is that a jab at education? Are you fighting against education now?

Why is it OK to hurt group A and not group B?

Because group A is "hurting"(in your sense of the word) group B in the ludicrously imbalanced system that is the fre