If homosexuality is not genetic, that still doesn't make it a choice.
And again, if you are not presenting original research (which, if you are, should probably go somewhere peer reviewed-- not slashdot) you cannot make that statement. No one has a definitive answer, and there are at least some for whom it IS a choice.
You can try to frame this however you like, but society decides what marriage is.
How society defines marriage is irrelevant to this discussion. As an individual I am required to follow the laws of society, and none of them require me to see anyone's marriage as valid for my own purposes. There are a specific set of areas where society dictates that the marriage must be recognized; one of them is not "cake buying", nor "religious ceremony".
In this world, homosexuals are not allowed to express their love in the same way as heterosexuals.
Sure they are. You are again attempting to draw a parallel and call it "the same thing". A homosexual male can do each of the things a heterosexual male can and society will react the same. Society will react differently if he does the homosexual analogues, because those analogues arent "the same way".
In any case, the discussion on "what is marriage" is irrelevant here. You have your opinion, thats fine, and I would assume you would enjoy the right to express that opinion vocally, at protests, and by boycott. What Im hearing here is that people with a different opinion should NOT be able to express their views, simply because theyre different or because they are business owners; I begin to wonder whether freedom of speech and conscience is truly what people desire, or whether it is simply being able to express THEIR speech and conscience. I truly wonder if slashdotters had their way whether we would have a fair democracy or a tyranny of the majority.
If you are worried that homosexuals cannot have their homosexual analogues legally, do not worry; you can easily see which way society is leaning. What I worry about is whether anything resembling freedom of religion can survive over the coming decades, because people do not seem to embrace the idea that someone can disagree with you and thats OK.
Both the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association have declared this a solved issue since the 70's.
How the APA classifies it has zero to do with whether it is hereditary-- bringing that up is just a dodge. The fact is there is no smoking gun gay gene, and the general consensus is that it has many causes.
Heck, your own link specifically says the following: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
That doesnt stop the false narrative that its 100% innate and unchosen, however.
But in this case they are only attacking those with an intrinsic attribute
Close, but fundamentally wrong. They are opposing a very specific lifestyle choice; by and large these businesses would have no issue with a homosexual not getting married, or getting married in a heterosexual marriage; likewise they would generally equally oppose a heterosexual person trying to form a homosexual marriage.
The fact that those scenarios are unlikely to arise is irrelevant; it demonstrates the crucial difference that the object of opposition is not the person, but their behavior.
You are essentially making an argument that if women were still not allowed to vote, it wouldn't be discriminatory because you are only against the behavior of women voting,
That is not at the sort of argument I am making. You would rightly note that our system calls for equal rights under the law, and that men and women do not have access to the same rights (voting).
In this case, homosexuals have the ability to marry just as heterosexuals do; they just prefer not to do the sort of widely and historically sanctioned form of marriage. YOUR argument is akin to saying that paedophiles dont have equal rights, because they prefer to have sex with children and society has arbitrary rules about that. Except, they are treated 100% equally under the law-- it is their ACTION that gets a different treatment, not anything innate to them.
Why is there no religious objection to serving divorce people
Some people do. Im fairly certain the elders at my church would refuse to marry divorced couples, depending on circumstances; CS Lewis famously had trouble getting married to a divorcee.
In any case its not your business. Who a business does and does not choose to serve really is not your business, any more than you have to justify to the business why you boycott them.
TL;DR 1) some do 2) many have such an objection 3) not your business.
Theres such a thing as fighting for a principle. This was not a big deal in the past, because it was generally understood that you COULD refuse to service customers at will so long as it wasnt against a protected class.
The only reason a big deal is being made is because a small population niche is on a crusade to force everyone to approve of their lifestyle. News flash, some people dont, and thats not the end of the world.
because genuine religious oppression is a sacred cow here.
Its a sacred cow because of the amount of it that has happened historically. Not only that, reading slashdot and reddit comments over the last several years, I would honestly start a "countdown to persecution" if any of the majority of these online communities got into a position to write legislation. Im seeing several posts in this very thread that seem to think that certain religious views just need to be abolished, and I know over the years Ive seen a number advocating for forcible reeducation.
I recognize how privileged in terms of religious freedom I am in the US, but I have no illusions that that can be taken away in a moment, and I have no doubt it will in the next few decades.
The state action in this case is simply making it clear that you as a business owner have the right not to serve someone whose lifestyle you disagree with. The state itself isnt doing anything in this law.
If your business fails because you hold objectionable opinions and make them public, tough shit.
I am not aware of anyone disagreeing with this. I have heard no one claiming that people dont have the right to boycott Indiana, ironically.
Where are the gay store owners declaring that they would like to not sell to right-wing bigots? Oh, right, there are none, because normal people do not question the sexual orientation of members of the public who come into a store to purchase goods.
Gay owners want not to sell to someone who wants a cake that says something THEY find objectionable.
And you are wrong regarding the right to choose your customers. This is a well established legal right with the sole exceptions where protected classes (nationality, race, religion, disability) are concerned. I've posted links in my other comments, but its not terribly hard to google.
I did not say that there was a law, I said that the presiding popular opinion seems to be that pastors should be forced to marry homosexual couples. As an example...example the 2nd
Again: not talking about law, talking about opinion and what the loudest voices are shouting for.
So now you're saying there is a moral equivalence between adultery and child abuse?
No, I did not say that, and it would be nice if it were possible to say anything at all and not have people read things into it.
I gave 3 separate examples, one of adultery, one of opposing adoption, one of child abuse. All would be considered objectionable, that does not mean they are equivalent. Nor am I saying homosexuals are better or worse or the same as child abusers.
What is different here is that this law and others like it grant business owners the right to do so with impunity
The law changes nothing of the sort. In one sense, they already can do it with impunity, and the law does not change that. They cannot do it with impunity in the sense that the community is free to boycott. I have heard NO ONE on the religious side of this objecting to the right of consumers to boycott; if you have that convictional belief, so be it.
What Im hearing though is that one side is convinced that they are the only ones entitled to convictional beliefs, and that no one else dare judge them for it.
If you use XOR with a properly secured one-time pad, it is literally impossible to derive anything from the message. The only way to crack it is to obtain the pad or the seed used to generate the pad. There is no way to do frequency analysis or anything else; it is literally indistinguishable from random noise.
The point is: EVERYONE uses XOR, its use is not indicative of a fundamental problem. It can be implemented in insecure ways, but the whole "XOR=crappy security" thing is just as stupid as surmising that the use of an encryption key makes something insecure.
It is wild speculation to call homosexual an intrinsic trait; no causation has been proven one way or the other AFAIK.
In any case, its not an intrinsic attribute that is being "attacked" but a behavior or lifestyle. What if someone argued "I was intrinsically born a pedophile", would you agree that you couldnt refuse to serve them because it was intrinsic? Or would you agree that in this case what was being objected to was a pedophile's behaviors? What if it was an adulterer, or habitual liar? Someone could call those "intrinsic" too, but they fundamentally fall on individual choices.
Its not your right to dictate what others must believe. You're free to boycott others, but it sounds an awful lot like you're against a business being able to say "I dont like that belief system" but perfectly OK dictating what THEY must believe.
Being gay is not a curse from the devil
Very few believe this to be the case. The bible calls ANY sexual activity outside of a man-woman marriage "sin". Quit pulling the victim card here, I have inclinations that are called sin too. Its called "being human".
it's in your goddamned genetic code
Incidentally, there is precious little evidence for this. AFAIK there has yet to be a shred of evidence that it is heritable. But this is a non-sequitur.
You're speculating on what those various, vaguely defined businesses believe. If a wedding cake company does not wish to create a wedding cake for someone like CS Lewis for his marriage to a divorcee, that should absolutely 100% be their right-- as you point out, catholics (and a great many protestants) would widely agree that such marriages are invalid.
But I would imagine that in most cases it is not so clear; people do not ask to be married or ask for a wedding cake indicating that they are fornicators or divorcees. When 2 men or 2 women show up and ask for wedding services, only a dunce would be unaware of what the implication was.]
In short, your objections are only directed at a small subset of those living in a way you disapprove. This reveals it as the bigotry you are pretending it is not.
It sounds to me like you're making wild generalizations on what different belief subsets exist, and declaring anything outside that = hypocrisy; and that anyone who does not do a full interview of its customers is likewise committing hypocrisy.
The objections _I_ raise are specifically because these are things I KNOW come up in our church ("is so and so eligible to marry according to the bible"-- not just for homosexuality) and there has been discussion specifically about revoking the church's veto power over services they provide. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about how people choose to provide services when you cannot speak for "the average business".
Name me ONE other context in which a business owner can refuse to serve someone.
Every other context that does not involve a "protected class". This is a fundamental right of businesses. A grocer can refuse to sell you anything at all for any reason at all (and this has been upheld by SCOTUS on a number of different contexts) so long as it does not violate the very specific exceptions (ie, protected classes-- race, disability, etc).
If you want more source than that, here So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal? Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. or here or good old yahoo answers (which gets it basically right!).
For all of your vehemence, you seem to be ignorant of what the law is and says. The equal protections acts created exceptions to a general rule that businesses DO have the right to toss you out if they dont like you, your behavior, or your haircut.
If your puny little religious mind thinks you deserve to be able to refuse service,
My puny religious mind is going off of widely understood legal precedent, and showing how that is rational. Maybe you should do the same.
Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.
Might as well take a page from the Romans and force them to offer incense to the president.
It draws a false equivalence which says "you are bad to refuse to buy from assholes who want the legal right to refuse to serve you".
No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.
In which case they're no better than the Taliban or ISIL... it's just people claiming their religion gives them the right to do anything they so choose.
You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
A lot of people including religious folks like myself might be OK with that. But the issue at stake now is whether personal objections to someone elses behavior can be allowed. From what I see in this thread and from the objections to the law in the news, the intention is that a christian pastor could be forced to marry 2 people against his personal convictions, and that a shopkeep could be forced to serve customers whose actions he disapproves of.
Why is that a problem? Well, from the Chik-fil-a and other boycotts, I get the impression that the gay rights advocates strongly support the idea of boycotting a business based on what they believe. Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs. Is bizarre system truly what is wanted, or is it a double standard because THEIR beliefs are "correct"?
Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle? Many christians would say that being in a homosexual relationship is analogous to adultery or fornication, but dare to refuse to serve THEM over such a principle and its bigotry. What?
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior. This isnt about finding a class of person and saying "i hate them", its about saying "I dont support that lifestyle". You dont like it? Fine, dont go to those businesses-- just be aware you're doing literally the same thing that Indiana businesses are arguing for by boycotting a lifestyle or ethos.
So in other words the prior comment about there having been specific bigotry in Indiana was fallacious, but you're hopeful that in time they will do something that will reinforce your world view.
Wow the ignorance in this thread. XOR is a perfectly fine component of encryption, and can be used with the most secure / uncrackable form of encryption (OTP).
Not really sure why people who dont know what XOR is (having just read on it) feel the need to give their input on whether its cryptologically sound (it is, if your key is).
Slashdot Mirror
If homosexuality is not genetic, that still doesn't make it a choice.
And again, if you are not presenting original research (which, if you are, should probably go somewhere peer reviewed-- not slashdot) you cannot make that statement. No one has a definitive answer, and there are at least some for whom it IS a choice.
You can try to frame this however you like, but society decides what marriage is.
How society defines marriage is irrelevant to this discussion. As an individual I am required to follow the laws of society, and none of them require me to see anyone's marriage as valid for my own purposes. There are a specific set of areas where society dictates that the marriage must be recognized; one of them is not "cake buying", nor "religious ceremony".
In this world, homosexuals are not allowed to express their love in the same way as heterosexuals.
Sure they are. You are again attempting to draw a parallel and call it "the same thing". A homosexual male can do each of the things a heterosexual male can and society will react the same. Society will react differently if he does the homosexual analogues, because those analogues arent "the same way".
In any case, the discussion on "what is marriage" is irrelevant here. You have your opinion, thats fine, and I would assume you would enjoy the right to express that opinion vocally, at protests, and by boycott. What Im hearing here is that people with a different opinion should NOT be able to express their views, simply because theyre different or because they are business owners; I begin to wonder whether freedom of speech and conscience is truly what people desire, or whether it is simply being able to express THEIR speech and conscience. I truly wonder if slashdotters had their way whether we would have a fair democracy or a tyranny of the majority.
If you are worried that homosexuals cannot have their homosexual analogues legally, do not worry; you can easily see which way society is leaning. What I worry about is whether anything resembling freedom of religion can survive over the coming decades, because people do not seem to embrace the idea that someone can disagree with you and thats OK.
Both the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association have declared this a solved issue since the 70's.
How the APA classifies it has zero to do with whether it is hereditary-- bringing that up is just a dodge. The fact is there is no smoking gun gay gene, and the general consensus is that it has many causes.
Heck, your own link specifically says the following:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
That doesnt stop the false narrative that its 100% innate and unchosen, however.
But in this case they are only attacking those with an intrinsic attribute
Close, but fundamentally wrong. They are opposing a very specific lifestyle choice; by and large these businesses would have no issue with a homosexual not getting married, or getting married in a heterosexual marriage; likewise they would generally equally oppose a heterosexual person trying to form a homosexual marriage.
The fact that those scenarios are unlikely to arise is irrelevant; it demonstrates the crucial difference that the object of opposition is not the person, but their behavior.
You are essentially making an argument that if women were still not allowed to vote, it wouldn't be discriminatory because you are only against the behavior of women voting,
That is not at the sort of argument I am making. You would rightly note that our system calls for equal rights under the law, and that men and women do not have access to the same rights (voting).
In this case, homosexuals have the ability to marry just as heterosexuals do; they just prefer not to do the sort of widely and historically sanctioned form of marriage. YOUR argument is akin to saying that paedophiles dont have equal rights, because they prefer to have sex with children and society has arbitrary rules about that. Except, they are treated 100% equally under the law-- it is their ACTION that gets a different treatment, not anything innate to them.
Why is there no religious objection to serving divorce people
Some people do. Im fairly certain the elders at my church would refuse to marry divorced couples, depending on circumstances; CS Lewis famously had trouble getting married to a divorcee.
In any case its not your business. Who a business does and does not choose to serve really is not your business, any more than you have to justify to the business why you boycott them.
TL;DR 1) some do
2) many have such an objection
3) not your business.
Theres such a thing as fighting for a principle. This was not a big deal in the past, because it was generally understood that you COULD refuse to service customers at will so long as it wasnt against a protected class.
The only reason a big deal is being made is because a small population niche is on a crusade to force everyone to approve of their lifestyle. News flash, some people dont, and thats not the end of the world.
closed public library
because genuine religious oppression is a sacred cow here.
Its a sacred cow because of the amount of it that has happened historically. Not only that, reading slashdot and reddit comments over the last several years, I would honestly start a "countdown to persecution" if any of the majority of these online communities got into a position to write legislation. Im seeing several posts in this very thread that seem to think that certain religious views just need to be abolished, and I know over the years Ive seen a number advocating for forcible reeducation.
I recognize how privileged in terms of religious freedom I am in the US, but I have no illusions that that can be taken away in a moment, and I have no doubt it will in the next few decades.
The state action in this case is simply making it clear that you as a business owner have the right not to serve someone whose lifestyle you disagree with. The state itself isnt doing anything in this law.
If your business fails because you hold objectionable opinions and make them public, tough shit.
I am not aware of anyone disagreeing with this. I have heard no one claiming that people dont have the right to boycott Indiana, ironically.
Where are the gay store owners declaring that they would like to not sell to right-wing bigots? Oh, right, there are none, because normal people do not question the sexual orientation of members of the public who come into a store to purchase goods.
Sorry for the double post, but didnt see this.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/out...
Gay owners want not to sell to someone who wants a cake that says something THEY find objectionable.
And you are wrong regarding the right to choose your customers. This is a well established legal right with the sole exceptions where protected classes (nationality, race, religion, disability) are concerned. I've posted links in my other comments, but its not terribly hard to google.
I did not say that there was a law, I said that the presiding popular opinion seems to be that pastors should be forced to marry homosexual couples. As an example...example the 2nd
Again: not talking about law, talking about opinion and what the loudest voices are shouting for.
So now you're saying there is a moral equivalence between adultery and child abuse?
No, I did not say that, and it would be nice if it were possible to say anything at all and not have people read things into it.
I gave 3 separate examples, one of adultery, one of opposing adoption, one of child abuse. All would be considered objectionable, that does not mean they are equivalent. Nor am I saying homosexuals are better or worse or the same as child abusers.
What is different here is that this law and others like it grant business owners the right to do so with impunity
The law changes nothing of the sort. In one sense, they already can do it with impunity, and the law does not change that. They cannot do it with impunity in the sense that the community is free to boycott. I have heard NO ONE on the religious side of this objecting to the right of consumers to boycott; if you have that convictional belief, so be it.
What Im hearing though is that one side is convinced that they are the only ones entitled to convictional beliefs, and that no one else dare judge them for it.
If you use XOR with a properly secured one-time pad, it is literally impossible to derive anything from the message. The only way to crack it is to obtain the pad or the seed used to generate the pad. There is no way to do frequency analysis or anything else; it is literally indistinguishable from random noise.
The point is: EVERYONE uses XOR, its use is not indicative of a fundamental problem. It can be implemented in insecure ways, but the whole "XOR=crappy security" thing is just as stupid as surmising that the use of an encryption key makes something insecure.
Some ignorant hayseed might decide you are gay for whatever strange reason and then suddenly decide not to serve you.
And I might randomly decide that I dont like the angle a pastry store's sign is hung at, and decide not to patronize it. Whats the problem?
It is wild speculation to call homosexual an intrinsic trait; no causation has been proven one way or the other AFAIK.
In any case, its not an intrinsic attribute that is being "attacked" but a behavior or lifestyle. What if someone argued "I was intrinsically born a pedophile", would you agree that you couldnt refuse to serve them because it was intrinsic? Or would you agree that in this case what was being objected to was a pedophile's behaviors? What if it was an adulterer, or habitual liar? Someone could call those "intrinsic" too, but they fundamentally fall on individual choices.
Its not your right to dictate what others must believe. You're free to boycott others, but it sounds an awful lot like you're against a business being able to say "I dont like that belief system" but perfectly OK dictating what THEY must believe.
Being gay is not a curse from the devil
Very few believe this to be the case. The bible calls ANY sexual activity outside of a man-woman marriage "sin". Quit pulling the victim card here, I have inclinations that are called sin too. Its called "being human".
it's in your goddamned genetic code
Incidentally, there is precious little evidence for this. AFAIK there has yet to be a shred of evidence that it is heritable. But this is a non-sequitur.
You're speculating on what those various, vaguely defined businesses believe. If a wedding cake company does not wish to create a wedding cake for someone like CS Lewis for his marriage to a divorcee, that should absolutely 100% be their right-- as you point out, catholics (and a great many protestants) would widely agree that such marriages are invalid.
But I would imagine that in most cases it is not so clear; people do not ask to be married or ask for a wedding cake indicating that they are fornicators or divorcees. When 2 men or 2 women show up and ask for wedding services, only a dunce would be unaware of what the implication was.]
In short, your objections are only directed at a small subset of those living in a way you disapprove. This reveals it as the bigotry you are pretending it is not.
It sounds to me like you're making wild generalizations on what different belief subsets exist, and declaring anything outside that = hypocrisy; and that anyone who does not do a full interview of its customers is likewise committing hypocrisy.
The objections _I_ raise are specifically because these are things I KNOW come up in our church ("is so and so eligible to marry according to the bible"-- not just for homosexuality) and there has been discussion specifically about revoking the church's veto power over services they provide. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about how people choose to provide services when you cannot speak for "the average business".
Name me ONE other context in which a business owner can refuse to serve someone.
Every other context that does not involve a "protected class". This is a fundamental right of businesses. A grocer can refuse to sell you anything at all for any reason at all (and this has been upheld by SCOTUS on a number of different contexts) so long as it does not violate the very specific exceptions (ie, protected classes-- race, disability, etc).
If you want more source than that, here
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
or here or good old yahoo answers (which gets it basically right!).
For all of your vehemence, you seem to be ignorant of what the law is and says. The equal protections acts created exceptions to a general rule that businesses DO have the right to toss you out if they dont like you, your behavior, or your haircut.
If your puny little religious mind thinks you deserve to be able to refuse service,
My puny religious mind is going off of widely understood legal precedent, and showing how that is rational. Maybe you should do the same.
Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.
Might as well take a page from the Romans and force them to offer incense to the president.
It draws a false equivalence which says "you are bad to refuse to buy from assholes who want the legal right to refuse to serve you".
No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.
In which case they're no better than the Taliban or ISIL ... it's just people claiming their religion gives them the right to do anything they so choose.
You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
And after the indiana legislation, several businesses have refused to do business in indiana. How is one boycott bigotry, and the other isnt?
A lot of people including religious folks like myself might be OK with that. But the issue at stake now is whether personal objections to someone elses behavior can be allowed. From what I see in this thread and from the objections to the law in the news, the intention is that a christian pastor could be forced to marry 2 people against his personal convictions, and that a shopkeep could be forced to serve customers whose actions he disapproves of.
Why is that a problem? Well, from the Chik-fil-a and other boycotts, I get the impression that the gay rights advocates strongly support the idea of boycotting a business based on what they believe. Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs. Is bizarre system truly what is wanted, or is it a double standard because THEIR beliefs are "correct"?
Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle? Many christians would say that being in a homosexual relationship is analogous to adultery or fornication, but dare to refuse to serve THEM over such a principle and its bigotry. What?
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior. This isnt about finding a class of person and saying "i hate them", its about saying "I dont support that lifestyle". You dont like it? Fine, dont go to those businesses-- just be aware you're doing literally the same thing that Indiana businesses are arguing for by boycotting a lifestyle or ethos.
So in other words the prior comment about there having been specific bigotry in Indiana was fallacious, but you're hopeful that in time they will do something that will reinforce your world view.
Got it.
Many use XOR. Anyone with beef with XOR, please read.
http://crypto.stackexchange.co...
Wow the ignorance in this thread. XOR is a perfectly fine component of encryption, and can be used with the most secure / uncrackable form of encryption (OTP).
Not really sure why people who dont know what XOR is (having just read on it) feel the need to give their input on whether its cryptologically sound (it is, if your key is).
It's far more effective to simply disable the means of tracking you.
And far more impossible. How do you propose to stop a webserver from logging your visit or knowing your IP?