Slashdot Mirror
Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage?
RedK writes: Connie St-Louis, on June 8th, reported on apparently sexist remarks made by Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize winning scientist, during an event organised for women in sciences. This led to the man's dismissal from his stations, all in such urgency that he did not even have time to present his side, nor was his side ever offered any weight. A leaked report a few days later suggests that the remarks were taken out of context. Further digging shows that the accuser has distorted the truth in many cases it seems. This is not the first time that people may have jumped the gun too soon on petty issues and ruined great events or careers.
THAT's your complaint? In this time and age, with terrorism and an economy in the dump, your problem is that fags can marry?
Dude, get your priorities right. Or, in terms that you can understand, Matt 7,3.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, in my defense, it's hard to imagine a sane person getting worked up over something as petty as whether or not some people they know nothing about can marry.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, in my defense, it's hard to imagine a sane person getting worked up over something as petty as whether or not some people they know nothing about can marry.
Hmmm: "hard to imagine"... "a sane person"... "they know nothing about".
You seem pretty confident that you know what's best for raising children, and people who disagree with you know nothing. Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father? Do you think it (can) make a difference whether a real, live woman is involved in the parenting of a child? How about a real, live man? Of course generalizations and simplifications are often wrong, but sometimes there is signal in the data that can be studied if one is willing to think honestly about it. (Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it, and rewards mindless, one-sided drivel like you wrote above.)
You seem pretty confident that you know what's best for raising children, and people who disagree with you know nothing. Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
Why should we grant that? The people against gay marriage certainly are not arguing for what is best for the children, so why should that be addressed by those for gay marriage?
When a person argues against raising a child in a family that loves and supports each other, all while arguing for raising children in abusive families where the children aren't fed, clothed, schooled, and thrown out on the street to work and fend for themselves at age 16, I see absolutely NO situation where "what is best for the children" matters at all to be argued about.
Every single one of your 'concerns' arises in cases of divorce, too. But there was no well-financed national campaign to maje divorce more difficult. Nobody tried to amend any Constitutions to ban no-fault divorce. No, it was the numerically small, historically persecuted minority that got that kind of attention. I think the true priorities are pretty clearly seen from the actions taken.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Who even said anything about raising kids? Marriage is not about kids. It used to be, granted, but these days, marriage is about taxes, inheritance, renting, who gets to visit whom in hospitals and a load of other things that are very different whether you're married or not.
Not to mention the whole "love" thing...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.