So wait...you're saying you want her to inject opinion into her rulings, instead of basing her rulings solely on law? Isn't ruling from the heart and not from the head exactly the sort of thing people rail against when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?
Sotomayor is a Mussolini style fascist just like Obama is
Source? All the Supreme Court hearings I've heard Sotomayor take part that have been broadcasted on C-SPAN have shown that she does just what someone in her position should do: stick to the law.
You can show me all kinds of skelatons in her closet, but can you give me specific examples of her being facist since she took her place at the bench?
I'm really looking forward to her hearing later today...there isn't much to go on about her, so I'm reserving judgement exclusively to how she handles herself during the questioning.
Space and time are the only two reasons I haven't gotten into Ham Radio yet. The money and the interest is definitely there. Only one or two more years, and space won't be an issue. At least time can be allocated:-)
Grounding, or effectively grounding (by say, shorting two ends of a dipole) an antenna will *always* result in loss of signal, even when starting values are ideal.
I think the bigger problem is that with all of Apple's "expertise with hardware", they would design something with this kind of flaw.
I've always felt that political parties and party platforms are the very worst thing that ever happened to politics. Parties should be abolished entirely and all candidates should run as independent individuals. They should do so with an overample supply of public money for conducting their campaigns and then any and all campaign contributions of any sort should be outlawed as bribery and punished severely. Mandatory term limits wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Optimistically, it would at the very least make people listen to what politicians actually say rather than paying attention to the letter after their names.
Realistically, I think this would cause confusion in the general electorate. They aren't used to paying attention:/ Regardless, we are in complete agreement here.
"Honesty" is "the truth and the whole truth". Therefore, honesty would include giving me a real answer as to why you continue to adhere to this belief after it's been shown through critical thinking that it can only lead to the very worst people obtaining political power. Or it might include telling me why I have this all wrong, like pointing out that I have contradicted myself or committed a logical fallacy.
Honestly?
Because I try to assume people are genuinely good, even when I know (and am shown) that they aren't. That doesn't mean I treat evil people as if they weren't evil, but I still try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Either way, the agreeability or disagreeability of your beliefs or whether you'd run for office was never the subject of my comments. That makes it less-than-honest to respond as though I were asking about those things, for that's just a distraction technique whether intentional or otherwise.
In this case, meant merely as a joke. Distraction was unintentional, I was going for a laugh...and failed -_-;;
Honestly I expected little else. If I understand your beliefs there correctly, you are OK with them as I described them and don't care about the undesirable outcome they would produce. It's not possible to believe in something harmful like that and also have a willingness to look at it objectively, for that would be a recipe for inner conflict. I am asking you to look at it objectively so you needed a distraction.
Cutting through all my bullshit and whatever else I've tossing up around here...no. I am certainly not ok with what you described. I'm very much a laid-back, non-violent person, and I do not like to see violence inflicted upon others. As for myself, however, if I present an opinion to anyone but myself, it means that I am accepting whatever happens as a result, good or bad. As said in a previous post, I do not allow other people's hatred or threats to influence my opinions or actions.
That analogy is fatally flawed. The risk involved in bungee jumping comes from gravity, a natural force. Gravity doesn't discriminate against political views and it isn't "out to get you". It affects everyone equally. The possibility of a failure leading to injury or death is an inherent part of bungee jumping.
Gravity is an inherent risk in bungee jumping. Backlash is an inherent risk of publicly admitting an opinion (look at any politician that touts a view separate from their political party, for a good example of that one.) People are aware of gravity, just as they are aware of backlash.
Unlike bungee jumping, signing your name to a piece of paper is not an inherently dangerous action. It is made artificially dangerous by those who break the law in order to use violence and threats against those who sign the "wrong" document. Unlike gravity, those thugs do discriminate because they have an agenda and they are "out to get" anyone who disagrees with them.
But like bungee jumping, it is something done by the own free will of a person (if you believe in free will, which is an entirely different conversation). Those thugs would be out to get you whether you signed a piece of paper, or held up a sign in protest. I understand that anonymity is important, but I feel that if you aren't willing to fess up to your own beliefs, regardless of what the backlash may be, then you don't truly believe.
I'm putting a big ol' "my opinion only" disclaimer all over that one.
For bungee jumping, only the people actually doing the bungee jump are assuming any risk. By contrast, thugs who don't like your political views might not target only the petition signer; they might also threaten his family, his friends, or his employer. That might include people who don't even agree with his views but can be used to intimidate him because he cares about what happens to them. Such thugs are enabled by ready access to a list of people who hold political views they dislike. Why enable them?
This is true, although again in my view assuming anything is truly anonymous in the year 2010 is a fool's errand.
Call this opinion if you like but you are advocating a course of action with real consequences for real people. When thugs show up at someone's door talking about how much of a shame it would be if "something were to happen" to the place, they are not discussing abstract philosophy or opinion.
If someone is worried about that happening due to an expression of an opinion (by any delivery method), then they shouldn't express that opinion publicly. Again, I feel that assuming anything is truly private is fooling yourself at this point.::shrug::
Yes they do. Your directive of "shut up" was a command, not a statement of opinion.
::sigh::
See how that works everyone? Pojut thinks that by wrapping his statements in the "opinion" blanket that he can continue to spout oppressive totalitarian bullshit. Now, if you are sharp enough you might even see how he's trying to force me into a Catch 22. The problem with that is when taken to the extreme, he would make the Freedom of Speech, just an opinion.
I really, REALLY hope you're just trolling. In case you aren't, here are some of my other thoughts wrapped up in a "totalitarian bullshit opinion blanket":
-I support full legalization of drugs -I fully support the Second Amendment (with the single exception being that you haven't been convicted of a violent crime) -If conflicting laws exist, I fully support State Law trumping Federal law -I fully support repealing "helmet" laws -I fully support prayer in schools so long as every religion is allowed the same opportunities. If Christians can have their prayer circles around the flagpole, then Muslims can carry carpets with them and pray towards Mecca, and Wiccans are allowed to cast circles and invoke their spirit guides. Either they're all ok, or none of them are. -I fully support the right for a woman to have an abortion, despite the fact that I don't agree with the action itself.
Want to know my "totalitarian" stance on anything else?
Again, this is the United States of America. If you don't like my opinions, you have several legal options to deal with them. Attempting to suppress my legal right to hold and express those opinions is not one of your options.
I wasn't attempting to suppress anything. I merely said that if you are afraid of retribution, don't partake in actions that could invoke it. However, if that retribution doesn't bother you, then by all means say whatever you want.
If you view that as "suppressing your freedoms", then you can fuck all the way off.
If you are holding up a picket sign, you're not necessarily giving out your address on the picket sign (i.g. the "Anonymous" demonstrations against Scientology with everyone wearing Guy Fawks masks).
True, but you are still revealing your identiy by showing your face. The "Anonymous" demonstrations where people wore masks...eh, that's their deal. I still think if you are going to protest something, you should do so openly. Only my opinion, nothing more.
You seem to feel strongly about your comments on Slashdot. In your reply to this comment please post your name and address so I can come over and discuss this with you.
Exposing your address and exposing your name are two very different things. If you choose to sign a petition which includes your address, don't bitch when people egg your house.
I operate under the assumption that, in 2010, anything I do can't be considered truly private. I don't allow this to influence my actions, I merely recognize that my actions are likely not a secret to every person on the planet. To assume otherwise is foolish.
I recognize that my opinions are generally not agreeable with most people, which is why I would never run for office.::shrug:: Again, sorry for not being honest. I've responded to one of your other posts (specifically this one. That should answer any question as to why I feel this way.
Again, let me reiterate: I recognize that this is merely my opinion, and in no way should, in reality, apply to everyone else. It's the way I think though, so it's what I express.::shrug::
Those are your exact words. Maybe read them a few times over and let their meaning sink in before you reply again saying you never said them.
It's called an opinion; an expression of personal belief which is merely a statement, not a directive. Do they not have opinions where you come from?
No. However, I do feel that it's my place to let oppressive people, such as yourself, know that the vast majority of US citizens simply will not tolerate ideas like yours.
O-P-I-N-I-O-N. For the record, this is a single topic. If you spent just five minutes with me on the "hot button" issues, you would find that my philosophies are quite the opposite of "oppressive". But hey, no worries about being quick to judge...plenty of other people do it too.
Being that I've made no claims to the contrary, I will leave you with an obligatory Princess Bride quote: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
Soo...an opinion isn't an expression of what one person thinks?::sigh:: See, people: this is EXACTLY why I put fucking disclaimers in front of my posts about my statements being mere opinion...because shit like this always seems to happen when I don't include one.
So you admit then that that my position is backed by facts, sound reasoning, and that there are no flaws in either.
yes.
You further admit that your position is based in opinion only.
Not exactly. My opinion on this matter has been shaped by previous experience. I've been retaliated against for my opinions, through threats of violence, to which I gave a big ol' middle finger. Violence was attempted, violence failed, and ever since then I vowed never to allow someone's hatred influence the way I would publicly state an opinion. So far, it's worked out pretty well for me. it will likely catch up to me at some point, but I'll worry about that when it happens.
It follows that when determining public policy, the factual position with sound reason should trump the opinion.
Absolutely. Why do you think I would never run for office?:-)
Freedom is a two-way street. You are free to express your opinion, just as others are free to oppose it. Violence and retribution is where the police come in.
Those damn tax dollars!
To expand on this further: I'm a pussy, which is why I would never hop on a crotch rocket and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack. There are plenty of people who aren't pussies, so they hop on crotch rockets, and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack. Likewise, I will not and do not allow intimidation to impact how I feel about something, whether publicly or privately. Some people allow intimidation or retribution to impact how they publicly feel about something, and that's fine...I'm simply saying that I don't.
I recognize that just because I think a certain way doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with me...but I can still feel like they should. If that makes me a pretentious dick, then I guess I'm a pretentious dick...but I'm a pretentious dick with nothing to hide.::shrug:: Sorry for being honest.
You know, this is the United States of America. Our freedom of speech is a protected right, fuck you very much. If I want to be anti-homosexual, that's protected speech. If you want to be pro-homosexual, that's protected speech to.
My strong feelings on any subject do not give you, nor anyone else, the right to suppress my freedoms.
There's a place in the world for oppressive totalitarian dickwads like yourself, and it's called Europe. Please, I encourage you to take your "stfu" attitude and get the fuck out of our beloved country.
I never once said you shouldn't express yourself. I said if you fear retribution, then don't engage in an activity which could bring retribution to your doorstep. Like an analogy I used earlier in this thread, if you don't want to risk being splattered on rocks, don't go bungee jumping.
I personally don't care what people think; your opinion is your opinion, and it is not my place to judge or tell you that it's wrong. I never once directed what I thought towards any person or group; I merely presented what I thought.
Apparently, you feel it is your place to judge me. Thanks for the hypocrisy, it tastes awesome.
They don't have to keep their views to themselves...but if they don't want to risk being splayed across rocks, they don't go bungie jumping. Some people are willing to take that risk, so they slap those oversized rubber bands to their ankles, and take the plunge.
Really? That's funny, because I support legalizing drugs, abolishing the PATRIOT act, i FULLY support the second amendment, and reducing government intervention in state and local problems (unless they caused the problem in the first place.)
I'm a registered Independent, because I think operating under the assumption that one side or the other has all the answers is ludicrous.
Your assumptions are amusing, though. Thanks for the laugh:-)
If you'd like to actually support or demonstrate the flaw in anything I actually argued, feel free. Most of the time that I make that request, the other person will ramble on and on and repeat themselves without ever making a single good counterpoint. Maybe you'll be the exception, maybe you won't.
There is no flaw in what you said, which is why I did nothing to attempt to contradict it.
You keep wanting to make this "just my opinion" and "YMMV" but there are factual reasons to back up my position.
And I never once claimed you were wrong. I merely stated what I thought. Since when did facts get in the way of an opinion?:-)
Like I said in another post, if you want to talk of cowards: Anonymous ballots and anonymous petitions are not protection for cowards; they are protection from cowards. Few things are more cowardly than hating or harming someone merely because they hold a different belief. Anonymous petitions and ballots make it more difficult for those cowards to inflict their cowardice on others.
True, but again, going back to my point, I personallythink that is irrelevant. If you want to voice your opinion, then voice it. If you fear retribution for certain views, then keep them to yourself.
I'm not questioning your reasoning (which is sound), I'm not saying you're wrong (which you aren't), and I'm not saying you're being misleading (which, again, you aren't)...I'm saying that your specific points are irrelevant to my opinion.
Ever heard of the secret ballot? There are some very good reasons why we have one. It was created as a response to the coercion and intimidation that went on before one's suffrage could be exercised anonymously. It makes a good analogy for this petition. I'll add that "coward" is a judgment against the character of a person you have never met. Having described that, I feel no need to respond to it or the emotional nature behind it. Instead, I'd like to ask you a factual question.
I view signing a petition as serving the same purpose as holding up a picket sign.
If the signatures remain anonymous, the signers have a measure of protection against harassment. Someone gains from that scenario and I can't think of anything it does to harm anyone else. The list of signatures can still be checked to make sure there are no duplicates etc.; the list and whether there are duplicates is just not a matter of public record.
And if I had four wheels, I'd be a wagon.
If the signatures are published publically, who gains or who benefits from this? For the opponents of the petition who did not wish to sign it, does it enhance their lives or further their cause in any way to know that John Smith from another city signed this petition? What good or useful purpose does it serve? Does that purpose outweigh the very real possibility of harassment?
Bottom line: if you feel strongly enough about something to declare your support for it with a fucking signature, you should be man (or woman) enough to own up to it and deal with whatever consequences that may include. If you don't want people to know you feel a certain way about something, or if you fear retribution for your opinion, then you should just shut up and not express it.
Slashdot Mirror
So wait...you're saying you want her to inject opinion into her rulings, instead of basing her rulings solely on law? Isn't ruling from the heart and not from the head exactly the sort of thing people rail against when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?
Also, obligatory: Slavery is a horrible thing.
As an angry wanker
Doesn't that hurt? Or at the very least, chafe?
Sotomayor is a Mussolini style fascist just like Obama is
Source? All the Supreme Court hearings I've heard Sotomayor take part that have been broadcasted on C-SPAN have shown that she does just what someone in her position should do: stick to the law.
You can show me all kinds of skelatons in her closet, but can you give me specific examples of her being facist since she took her place at the bench?
I'm really looking forward to her hearing later today...there isn't much to go on about her, so I'm reserving judgement exclusively to how she handles herself during the questioning.
Space and time are the only two reasons I haven't gotten into Ham Radio yet. The money and the interest is definitely there. Only one or two more years, and space won't be an issue. At least time can be allocated :-)
Give the guy some slack...maybe it's the only way he could do the GP's momma without throwing up in his mouth.
Grounding, or effectively grounding (by say, shorting two ends of a dipole) an antenna will *always* result in loss of signal, even when starting values are ideal.
I think the bigger problem is that with all of Apple's "expertise with hardware", they would design something with this kind of flaw.
I've always felt that political parties and party platforms are the very worst thing that ever happened to politics. Parties should be abolished entirely and all candidates should run as independent individuals. They should do so with an overample supply of public money for conducting their campaigns and then any and all campaign contributions of any sort should be outlawed as bribery and punished severely. Mandatory term limits wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Optimistically, it would at the very least make people listen to what politicians actually say rather than paying attention to the letter after their names.
Realistically, I think this would cause confusion in the general electorate. They aren't used to paying attention :/ Regardless, we are in complete agreement here.
"Honesty" is "the truth and the whole truth". Therefore, honesty would include giving me a real answer as to why you continue to adhere to this belief after it's been shown through critical thinking that it can only lead to the very worst people obtaining political power. Or it might include telling me why I have this all wrong, like pointing out that I have contradicted myself or committed a logical fallacy.
Honestly?
Because I try to assume people are genuinely good, even when I know (and am shown) that they aren't. That doesn't mean I treat evil people as if they weren't evil, but I still try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Either way, the agreeability or disagreeability of your beliefs or whether you'd run for office was never the subject of my comments. That makes it less-than-honest to respond as though I were asking about those things, for that's just a distraction technique whether intentional or otherwise.
In this case, meant merely as a joke. Distraction was unintentional, I was going for a laugh...and failed -_-;;
Honestly I expected little else. If I understand your beliefs there correctly, you are OK with them as I described them and don't care about the undesirable outcome they would produce. It's not possible to believe in something harmful like that and also have a willingness to look at it objectively, for that would be a recipe for inner conflict. I am asking you to look at it objectively so you needed a distraction.
Cutting through all my bullshit and whatever else I've tossing up around here...no. I am certainly not ok with what you described. I'm very much a laid-back, non-violent person, and I do not like to see violence inflicted upon others. As for myself, however, if I present an opinion to anyone but myself, it means that I am accepting whatever happens as a result, good or bad. As said in a previous post, I do not allow other people's hatred or threats to influence my opinions or actions.
I am aware that this doesn't work for everybody.
That analogy is fatally flawed. The risk involved in bungee jumping comes from gravity, a natural force. Gravity doesn't discriminate against political views and it isn't "out to get you". It affects everyone equally. The possibility of a failure leading to injury or death is an inherent part of bungee jumping.
Gravity is an inherent risk in bungee jumping. Backlash is an inherent risk of publicly admitting an opinion (look at any politician that touts a view separate from their political party, for a good example of that one.) People are aware of gravity, just as they are aware of backlash.
Unlike bungee jumping, signing your name to a piece of paper is not an inherently dangerous action. It is made artificially dangerous by those who break the law in order to use violence and threats against those who sign the "wrong" document. Unlike gravity, those thugs do discriminate because they have an agenda and they are "out to get" anyone who disagrees with them.
But like bungee jumping, it is something done by the own free will of a person (if you believe in free will, which is an entirely different conversation). Those thugs would be out to get you whether you signed a piece of paper, or held up a sign in protest. I understand that anonymity is important, but I feel that if you aren't willing to fess up to your own beliefs, regardless of what the backlash may be, then you don't truly believe.
I'm putting a big ol' "my opinion only" disclaimer all over that one.
For bungee jumping, only the people actually doing the bungee jump are assuming any risk. By contrast, thugs who don't like your political views might not target only the petition signer; they might also threaten his family, his friends, or his employer. That might include people who don't even agree with his views but can be used to intimidate him because he cares about what happens to them. Such thugs are enabled by ready access to a list of people who hold political views they dislike. Why enable them?
This is true, although again in my view assuming anything is truly anonymous in the year 2010 is a fool's errand.
Call this opinion if you like but you are advocating a course of action with real consequences for real people. When thugs show up at someone's door talking about how much of a shame it would be if "something were to happen" to the place, they are not discussing abstract philosophy or opinion.
If someone is worried about that happening due to an expression of an opinion (by any delivery method), then they shouldn't express that opinion publicly. Again, I feel that assuming anything is truly private is fooling yourself at this point. ::shrug::
Yes they do. Your directive of "shut up" was a command, not a statement of opinion.
::sigh::
See how that works everyone? Pojut thinks that by wrapping his statements in the "opinion" blanket that he can continue to spout oppressive totalitarian bullshit. Now, if you are sharp enough you might even see how he's trying to force me into a Catch 22. The problem with that is when taken to the extreme, he would make the Freedom of Speech, just an opinion.
I really, REALLY hope you're just trolling. In case you aren't, here are some of my other thoughts wrapped up in a "totalitarian bullshit opinion blanket":
-I support full legalization of drugs
-I fully support the Second Amendment (with the single exception being that you haven't been convicted of a violent crime)
-If conflicting laws exist, I fully support State Law trumping Federal law
-I fully support repealing "helmet" laws
-I fully support prayer in schools so long as every religion is allowed the same opportunities. If Christians can have their prayer circles around the flagpole, then Muslims can carry carpets with them and pray towards Mecca, and Wiccans are allowed to cast circles and invoke their spirit guides. Either they're all ok, or none of them are.
-I fully support the right for a woman to have an abortion, despite the fact that I don't agree with the action itself.
Want to know my "totalitarian" stance on anything else?
Again, this is the United States of America. If you don't like my opinions, you have several legal options to deal with them. Attempting to suppress my legal right to hold and express those opinions is not one of your options.
I wasn't attempting to suppress anything. I merely said that if you are afraid of retribution, don't partake in actions that could invoke it. However, if that retribution doesn't bother you, then by all means say whatever you want.
If you view that as "suppressing your freedoms", then you can fuck all the way off.
If you are holding up a picket sign, you're not necessarily giving out your address on the picket sign (i.g. the "Anonymous" demonstrations against Scientology with everyone wearing Guy Fawks masks).
True, but you are still revealing your identiy by showing your face. The "Anonymous" demonstrations where people wore masks...eh, that's their deal. I still think if you are going to protest something, you should do so openly. Only my opinion, nothing more.
You seem to feel strongly about your comments on Slashdot. In your reply to this comment please post your name and address so I can come over and discuss this with you.
Exposing your address and exposing your name are two very different things. If you choose to sign a petition which includes your address, don't bitch when people egg your house.
I operate under the assumption that, in 2010, anything I do can't be considered truly private. I don't allow this to influence my actions, I merely recognize that my actions are likely not a secret to every person on the planet. To assume otherwise is foolish.
Again, just my opinion.
Tisk... and you call yourself a pussy. *shakes head*
"I don't let others intimidate me" isn't really one of their hallmarks. :-)
"They are what you eat", as they say.
Sorry, that was uncalled for :X
Wait... are you a pussy or are you a dick? You can't be both.
Are you a hermaphrodite?
Not last time I checked, no...but..wait...
Again, sorry for not being honest
GAH! That should read "Sorry for being honest". Doy -_-;;
I recognize that my opinions are generally not agreeable with most people, which is why I would never run for office. ::shrug:: Again, sorry for not being honest. I've responded to one of your other posts (specifically this one. That should answer any question as to why I feel this way.
Again, let me reiterate: I recognize that this is merely my opinion, and in no way should, in reality, apply to everyone else. It's the way I think though, so it's what I express. ::shrug::
Oh? Maybe I fail at reading:
Not reading, just comprehension. Let us continue:
Those are your exact words. Maybe read them a few times over and let their meaning sink in before you reply again saying you never said them.
It's called an opinion; an expression of personal belief which is merely a statement, not a directive. Do they not have opinions where you come from?
No. However, I do feel that it's my place to let oppressive people, such as yourself, know that the vast majority of US citizens simply will not tolerate ideas like yours.
O-P-I-N-I-O-N. For the record, this is a single topic. If you spent just five minutes with me on the "hot button" issues, you would find that my philosophies are quite the opposite of "oppressive". But hey, no worries about being quick to judge...plenty of other people do it too.
Being that I've made no claims to the contrary, I will leave you with an obligatory Princess Bride quote: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
Soo...an opinion isn't an expression of what one person thinks? ::sigh:: See, people: this is EXACTLY why I put fucking disclaimers in front of my posts about my statements being mere opinion...because shit like this always seems to happen when I don't include one.
So you admit then that that my position is backed by facts, sound reasoning, and that there are no flaws in either.
yes.
You further admit that your position is based in opinion only.
Not exactly. My opinion on this matter has been shaped by previous experience. I've been retaliated against for my opinions, through threats of violence, to which I gave a big ol' middle finger. Violence was attempted, violence failed, and ever since then I vowed never to allow someone's hatred influence the way I would publicly state an opinion. So far, it's worked out pretty well for me. it will likely catch up to me at some point, but I'll worry about that when it happens.
It follows that when determining public policy, the factual position with sound reason should trump the opinion.
Absolutely. Why do you think I would never run for office? :-)
Thank you for saving us a lot of time.
Glad to help!
Freedom is a two-way street. You are free to express your opinion, just as others are free to oppose it. Violence and retribution is where the police come in.
Those damn tax dollars!
To expand on this further: I'm a pussy, which is why I would never hop on a crotch rocket and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack. There are plenty of people who aren't pussies, so they hop on crotch rockets, and go zooming at hundreds of miles an hour around a racetrack. Likewise, I will not and do not allow intimidation to impact how I feel about something, whether publicly or privately. Some people allow intimidation or retribution to impact how they publicly feel about something, and that's fine...I'm simply saying that I don't.
I recognize that just because I think a certain way doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with me...but I can still feel like they should. If that makes me a pretentious dick, then I guess I'm a pretentious dick...but I'm a pretentious dick with nothing to hide. ::shrug:: Sorry for being honest.
You know, this is the United States of America. Our freedom of speech is a protected right, fuck you very much. If I want to be anti-homosexual, that's protected speech. If you want to be pro-homosexual, that's protected speech to.
My strong feelings on any subject do not give you, nor anyone else, the right to suppress my freedoms.
There's a place in the world for oppressive totalitarian dickwads like yourself, and it's called Europe. Please, I encourage you to take your "stfu" attitude and get the fuck out of our beloved country.
I never once said you shouldn't express yourself. I said if you fear retribution, then don't engage in an activity which could bring retribution to your doorstep. Like an analogy I used earlier in this thread, if you don't want to risk being splattered on rocks, don't go bungee jumping.
I personally don't care what people think; your opinion is your opinion, and it is not my place to judge or tell you that it's wrong. I never once directed what I thought towards any person or group; I merely presented what I thought.
Apparently, you feel it is your place to judge me. Thanks for the hypocrisy, it tastes awesome.
They don't have to keep their views to themselves...but if they don't want to risk being splayed across rocks, they don't go bungie jumping. Some people are willing to take that risk, so they slap those oversized rubber bands to their ankles, and take the plunge.
Really? That's funny, because I support legalizing drugs, abolishing the PATRIOT act, i FULLY support the second amendment, and reducing government intervention in state and local problems (unless they caused the problem in the first place.)
I'm a registered Independent, because I think operating under the assumption that one side or the other has all the answers is ludicrous.
Your assumptions are amusing, though. Thanks for the laugh :-)
Go walk into Harlem wearing that says you hate black people, and see how "freely expressive" you can be.
Does that make Harlem like Iraq? ::eyeroll::
If you'd like to actually support or demonstrate the flaw in anything I actually argued, feel free. Most of the time that I make that request, the other person will ramble on and on and repeat themselves without ever making a single good counterpoint. Maybe you'll be the exception, maybe you won't.
There is no flaw in what you said, which is why I did nothing to attempt to contradict it.
You keep wanting to make this "just my opinion" and "YMMV" but there are factual reasons to back up my position.
And I never once claimed you were wrong. I merely stated what I thought. Since when did facts get in the way of an opinion? :-)
Like I said in another post, if you want to talk of cowards: Anonymous ballots and anonymous petitions are not protection for cowards; they are protection from cowards. Few things are more cowardly than hating or harming someone merely because they hold a different belief. Anonymous petitions and ballots make it more difficult for those cowards to inflict their cowardice on others.
True, but again, going back to my point, I personallythink that is irrelevant. If you want to voice your opinion, then voice it. If you fear retribution for certain views, then keep them to yourself.
I'm not questioning your reasoning (which is sound), I'm not saying you're wrong (which you aren't), and I'm not saying you're being misleading (which, again, you aren't)...I'm saying that your specific points are irrelevant to my opinion.
That has about as much merit as comparing George W. Bush to Hitler, or Obama to Marx. Knee-jerking hurts no one but yourself.
Ever heard of the secret ballot? There are some very good reasons why we have one. It was created as a response to the coercion and intimidation that went on before one's suffrage could be exercised anonymously. It makes a good analogy for this petition. I'll add that "coward" is a judgment against the character of a person you have never met. Having described that, I feel no need to respond to it or the emotional nature behind it. Instead, I'd like to ask you a factual question.
I view signing a petition as serving the same purpose as holding up a picket sign.
If the signatures remain anonymous, the signers have a measure of protection against harassment. Someone gains from that scenario and I can't think of anything it does to harm anyone else. The list of signatures can still be checked to make sure there are no duplicates etc.; the list and whether there are duplicates is just not a matter of public record.
And if I had four wheels, I'd be a wagon.
If the signatures are published publically, who gains or who benefits from this? For the opponents of the petition who did not wish to sign it, does it enhance their lives or further their cause in any way to know that John Smith from another city signed this petition? What good or useful purpose does it serve? Does that purpose outweigh the very real possibility of harassment?
Bottom line: if you feel strongly enough about something to declare your support for it with a fucking signature, you should be man (or woman) enough to own up to it and deal with whatever consequences that may include. If you don't want people to know you feel a certain way about something, or if you fear retribution for your opinion, then you should just shut up and not express it.
Just my opinion, YMMV, etc.