> No, my analogy is fine - if you look at the value of writing code as a service
Nope. I'm on your side of this argument, but I still think it's a bad analogy.
The problem with looking at it as a service is that, when compared to the original statement, you are implying that the service (act of writing code) is what is at question. It is not. Your analogy would fit if the original had been saying that he should have exclusive rights to write the code, but that is not what he said. Therefore, the argument isn't about the service at all, but the end result of his work just as the end result of your work is smaller rocks or gravel
> If you don't pay him for the right to use it but use it anyway, you are taking money from him
AAAARGH, this is a fucking stupid argument. If you don't pay him for the right to use it, you are taking JACK SHIT. You MAY be preventing the compensation from one sale, but the creator has not lost a damn thing.
Take this further: Say I am a painter. I sell my paintings for not a penny under $40,000. Joe Schtick thinks it's cool, but only works minimum wage. He takes a picture of it (which he could blow up to actual size, although it would be slightly lower quality, a la CD -> MP3). He may well be breaking the law, technically, but I have not lost anything just because he made a copy of my work. I wasn't going to get the money anyway, so I HAVE LOST NOTHING, nothing was taken from me.
I think the reason they claimed it is for beginners thru advanced users is because of arrogance, and not necessarily on their part. How many Linux users have you met who call themselves "experts," just to find out they barely have enough knowledge to be a common user? They think that just because they can figure out some shell commands and edit some.conf files, they must be experts. Those are the kind of "advanced" users that need a book like this.
> Suck to have an idiot for a president, doesn't it?
What does it suck? Or is that a command? So, if I don't suck, I'll have a perfectly normal person for president. I'll keep the current one and not suck anything, thank you.
> And have that idiot re-elected in 2004 by idiots
Wow, someone must have learned a new word today. You must be so proud. Very good, little Billy, repeat after me "Idiot." Also, I seem to have misplaced a year of my life, since last time I checked, 2004 had not even started yet. I guess I'm lucky that I live in the U.S. so I'm not an ignorant, pustule-sucking moron who doesn't even know what fucking year it is. Christ, man, get a fucking clue.
> America, wake up: the world hates you.
Clueless dolt, wake up: We know, but it's unjustified & there's nothing we can do about it, so we take the only available option. Laugh at you & point, then quickly ignore you (which isn't too hard to do) because you have 0 idea what is really going on.
> this seems more useful in the case of lead poisioning
With things such as lead & iron poisoning, aren't the particles too small to be effectively affected (that's an odd phrase) by a magnet?
Another concern/question of mine: There are so many blood routes through the body, you would have to place this by (into) your aorta/vena cava (is that right? Haven't had Anatomy class for years) to have a chance at affecting the entire stream, correct? Otherwise, it might be diluted, but never entirely removed.
> > "Natural mutations are random within tightly determined limits." > Where on earth did you get that idea?
Well, compared to infinite possibilities, nature is pretty tightly determined. For instance, the chance that a fish will grow a foot containing a 3-foot wide eyeball that shoots Pez candies from the center is unlikely -- I would even venture to say statistically impossible. It IS, however, within the realm of infinite possibilities (the !NULL set?) for that to happen. With infinite possibilities, every action has an equal chance to occur as any other action. On Earth, that is not so. Certain things simply cannot be.
> Sure we won't "destroy" the earth, but we may make it less enjoyable to live upon.
And conversely, we may make it MORE enjoyable. The automatic fear of the unknown is usually unjustified, and there's (theoretically) a 50/50 split on whether any given action would be good or bad.
> Hmm, a book written by illiterate nomads, huh? =)
Yeah, I can troll from time to time;)
> you still haven't described exactly what you mean by 'homophobe' and 'gay basher' yet
All of the above. If someone thinks that there is some (other than preference) difference between gays & straights, they are (IMO, of course) mistaken. If they accept that they can be treated differently, they are not showing love for their brothers. I DO realize that it makes some people uneasy -- so just don't bring it up. But don't hate just because you (not you personally) don't understand or because a random statement makes you think it's bad. Have a reason, not a book.
> I think that homosexuality is morally wrong, on the authority of sources I trust
What is that source? The Bible? Obviously I can't argue faith, it's a losing battle. Which is a big problem to me. Many peoples' beliefs are based solely on the words of a book. Problem with complete faith is that there is no reasoning involved. There is no way to argue against it, so they feel like they've "won" once they invoke scripture and I can't argue it -- there's nothing TO argue.
> If the Bible were just 'a book written by illiterate nomads', why has it lasted so long, and had so much influence?
Because it makes people feel good. Like they have a purpose. Also, you mention Islam. Well, there are MANY MANY more Muslims in the world than Christians, so does that mean they are wrong? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists can't all be right, so I have no reason to believe yours is the "correct" religion. Just because something is around for a long time does not make it correct or even give it authority. I have other reasons, but if I list them it'll be considered flamebait, and probably rightfully so.
> Islam survives because it has a lot of the truth (surprise, a lot of it's copied from the Bible).
Umm... actually, they were both copied from similar sources. Your phrasing implies that after Christianity was around, Islam just popped up and copied their good ideas. That is absolutely untrue.
> I'm guilty of acting in un-loving ways and causing pain to people around me
Thanks for not assuming, but you would be correct if you did. I don't know if I am capable of love; it seems that no one has ever loved me. The Bible teaches to love thy neighbor, but I have never been on the receiving end of that. Maybe my spite for humanity in general has caused my dislike of religion, but either way, it is still my opinion.
> Out of curiosity, what turned you off to Christianity? Why were you interested in it before, and what changed?
In less honest moments, I will claim that it was the jerks and fanatics that turned me off, but it has more (everything?) to do with myself. I was depressed and just for the heck of it, I went to a revival with a friend of mine. I enjoyed it and felt pretty good for a while, so I stuck with it. Life was pretty crappy to start with and while I was going to church it was in an upswing for a short while. Then it got much, much, worse. I prayed asking for guidance, assistance, anything to give me some indication I wasn't wasting my time being alive. It never came, and still has not. I don't feel the glory of God, I don't feel like he is protecting or watching me. I felt alone, hurt, and betrayed by the one who claimed he was here to help us all. You might say I am an atheist because I'm pissed off at God for being a dick to me. You might be right.
Basically, I don't believe in Hell because I think I'm already there.
> it's Christianity's assertian that homosexuality is evil that you really don't like
Geez, if you wanted me to be concise, yeah, but where's the fun in that?:)
Yes, that assertion is partly what I don't like, but some people take it too far. The people who get on TV or pulpit and say that gays should stop being gay to save their souls are much more offensive to me than a statement in a very old book.
I'm not attacking Christianity in the whole, although I recognize that it sounds that way. But take those that are Christian and DON'T have a problem with (or at least aren't outspoken about) homosexuality. I have no problem with most of them. It's the lunatic fanatics that irk me.
> the idea that homosexuality is sin is
Basically, that's the most important point. Simply calling something evil does not make it so, regardless how many people believe it is or is not. I don't believe for a second that being homosexual is evil. Most people who are gay don't CHOOSE to be, they were born that way (that's arguable I think, but it's how I feel). That means their only choices are: Live in "sin," be alone and unhappy, or be with someone you don't want to be with and live unhappily. What if the Bible said that those with diabetes were sinful? They can't just say "okay, I decide I don't want Diabetes, so I can get to heaven." It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way. It is a Bad Thing, IMO, to call someone a sinner over something they have little control (as I see it).
> Text of article in case it gets/.ed. Posted as AC so I can't be accused of karma whoring
Karma whoring? More like you didn't post w/ your username because you would look like a bloody idiot, posting/. article text to/. in case of/.ing. DUH.
> You just said that you have no personal experience for that belief other than a prejudice against Christianity that you've received from popular culture.
Hold on, buckaroo, I said no such thing. I was born Methodist, but wasn't much into it & didn't care about religion. When I was in HS through most of College, I was a born-again Christian -- baptism and all that happy shit. I have plenty of experience with many forms of Christianity -- I used to "church hop." Me & my friend would find different churches to go to, especially revivals, as they're fun and you get a better in-depth look at the sect. I didn't gain my total dislike for religion until the last few years, partially because of the type of people I describe. I'm not gay, but I've met enough homophobes (as opposed to those just off the street) in church to realize it's much more prevalent in churchgoers. Also, I certainly take very few cues from popular culture, thank you. I generally dislike "popular culture," of which (in the U.S., not the world -- that goes to Islam) Christianity is a part. Popular means "lots of people do it" and in the U.S., Christianity is more "popular" than any other religion (or possibly lack of one).
> There are a lot of evil things in this world, of which homosexuality is certainly not the worst.
This reaks of bias. I don't want to put words in your mouth (as you did to me) but the essence of this statement is that "homosexuality is evil, but not the most evil." Who the heck are you to say that it is evil? Because a book written by illiterate nomads, thousands of years ago, said it's bad.
> "For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."
This has no bearing on the conversation, so feel free to ignore it, but everyone feels hate at some point in their life. So that means they cannot love God and will therefore suffer in hell (barring true repentance, of course) for eternity. That doesn't make much sense coming from the NT "loving god." The Bible has good ideas and is a good book (pun, yeah), but there are too many ways to interpret wildly different things from it. Being a book written to save your soul, it certainly isn't organized or succinct well enough at all.
> I want to make THEIR suffering with computers less
That is true. Just because I don't appreciate life doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they did. Of course, if I had included that before, it would have taken away from the feeling. I'm pretty sure my parents don't suffer with computers like I do with life, but yes, I help them with their PCs. I even bought a new one for my Dad: I didn't want him to get the tech-rage that comes to me when trying to get 12-year old hardware working again because you don't have anything else to use.
> I don't believe anyone is really "sane"
Umm, I don't mean "sane" as in zero problems; everyone has problems, I mean it as in "can function normally in society." I, unfortunately, cannot. That's why I post to Slashdot.:)
> FUCK family. They 'aint good for nothin'. Except for the fact that they brought me into this world
Strange, the exact OPPOSITE is true for me. I'd be all about family if I didn't know they were the kind of sick bastards who brought someone like me (exactly like me, amazingly!) into this world.
In fact, I'd be very close to them if I wasn't here...?
> Who would have thought that the lady who is president of the PTA was into kinky sex?
Me, for one. I'm pretty sure most people are turned on, to some extent, by some "kinky" stuff, but they are usually too worried about appearances to do more than fantasize guiltily from time to time.
> 'Oh, about the gift of life I gave you - you're welcome.'
No thanks. Why is it that parents believe that because they figured out how to fuck without a condom, you owe them something? It wasn't a "gift" that I was born (more of a curse, but that's another story), it was a decision by them. I don't owe them shit. I'm glad they decided to raise me instead of chucking me onto the street to be eaten by hobos or something, although an abortion would have been a nice option, had I known the outcome of living. This doesn't mean I'm hostile towards them; my parents are nice people, but I don't feel a tremendous attachment to them either. I guess this all revolves around my complex mental state. Well, maybe it's not that complex: I'm fucking insane (and not happy about it either).
To attach this philosophy to that of my.sig: Life is not a gift, it just is.
> Christians don't believe that it is morally correct to limit the rights of homosexuals
Sure, except their right to life. I'm not going to lie and say it's the majority, but I'd be willing to put every dollar I own down on the bet that of the gay-bashers, a large majority of them are Christian and of them, most are anti-gay simply because the church tells them it's wrong, so they assume with all fervor that the church is right.
Please note, this isn't a post against christianity in general, just Christian gay-bashers.
Slashdot Mirror
> Now they are going to search through the internet looking for people all over that are simply downloading music.
"He." It seems you have trouble differentiating between an organization and a person who was previously a part of that org.
> No, my analogy is fine - if you look at the value of writing code as a service
Nope. I'm on your side of this argument, but I still think it's a bad analogy.
The problem with looking at it as a service is that, when compared to the original statement, you are implying that the service (act of writing code) is what is at question. It is not. Your analogy would fit if the original had been saying that he should have exclusive rights to write the code, but that is not what he said. Therefore, the argument isn't about the service at all, but the end result of his work just as the end result of your work is smaller rocks or gravel
> If you don't pay him for the right to use it but use it anyway, you are taking money from him
AAAARGH, this is a fucking stupid argument. If you don't pay him for the right to use it, you are taking JACK SHIT. You MAY be preventing the compensation from one sale, but the creator has not lost a damn thing.
Take this further: Say I am a painter. I sell my paintings for not a penny under $40,000. Joe Schtick thinks it's cool, but only works minimum wage. He takes a picture of it (which he could blow up to actual size, although it would be slightly lower quality, a la CD -> MP3). He may well be breaking the law, technically, but I have not lost anything just because he made a copy of my work. I wasn't going to get the money anyway, so I HAVE LOST NOTHING, nothing was taken from me.
I think the reason they claimed it is for beginners thru advanced users is because of arrogance, and not necessarily on their part. How many Linux users have you met who call themselves "experts," just to find out they barely have enough knowledge to be a common user? They think that just because they can figure out some shell commands and edit some .conf files, they must be experts. Those are the kind of "advanced" users that need a book like this.
> Suck to have an idiot for a president, doesn't it?
What does it suck? Or is that a command? So, if I don't suck, I'll have a perfectly normal person for president. I'll keep the current one and not suck anything, thank you.
> And have that idiot re-elected in 2004 by idiots
Wow, someone must have learned a new word today. You must be so proud. Very good, little Billy, repeat after me "Idiot." Also, I seem to have misplaced a year of my life, since last time I checked, 2004 had not even started yet. I guess I'm lucky that I live in the U.S. so I'm not an ignorant, pustule-sucking moron who doesn't even know what fucking year it is. Christ, man, get a fucking clue.
> America, wake up: the world hates you.
Clueless dolt, wake up: We know, but it's unjustified & there's nothing we can do about it, so we take the only available option. Laugh at you & point, then quickly ignore you (which isn't too hard to do) because you have 0 idea what is really going on.
> this seems more useful in the case of lead poisioning
With things such as lead & iron poisoning, aren't the particles too small to be effectively affected (that's an odd phrase) by a magnet?
Another concern/question of mine: There are so many blood routes through the body, you would have to place this by (into) your aorta/vena cava (is that right? Haven't had Anatomy class for years) to have a chance at affecting the entire stream, correct? Otherwise, it might be diluted, but never entirely removed.
> We can't even stop our own growth.
Is that why the population has started declining in some areas? Such as parts of Europe?
> > "Natural mutations are random within tightly determined limits."
> Where on earth did you get that idea?
Well, compared to infinite possibilities, nature is pretty tightly determined. For instance, the chance that a fish will grow a foot containing a 3-foot wide eyeball that shoots Pez candies from the center is unlikely -- I would even venture to say statistically impossible. It IS, however, within the realm of infinite possibilities (the !NULL set?) for that to happen.
With infinite possibilities, every action has an equal chance to occur as any other action. On Earth, that is not so. Certain things simply cannot be.
> Sure we won't "destroy" the earth, but we may make it less enjoyable to live upon.
And conversely, we may make it MORE enjoyable. The automatic fear of the unknown is usually unjustified, and there's (theoretically) a 50/50 split on whether any given action would be good or bad.
> I would have been happy with McCain
FYI, he's the ONLY one I would have been happy about on either side.
> Hmm, a book written by illiterate nomads, huh? =)
;)
Yeah, I can troll from time to time
> you still haven't described exactly what you mean by 'homophobe' and 'gay basher' yet
All of the above. If someone thinks that there is some (other than preference) difference between gays & straights, they are (IMO, of course) mistaken. If they accept that they can be treated differently, they are not showing love for their brothers. I DO realize that it makes some people uneasy -- so just don't bring it up. But don't hate just because you (not you personally) don't understand or because a random statement makes you think it's bad. Have a reason, not a book.
> I think that homosexuality is morally wrong, on the authority of sources I trust
What is that source? The Bible? Obviously I can't argue faith, it's a losing battle. Which is a big problem to me. Many peoples' beliefs are based solely on the words of a book. Problem with complete faith is that there is no reasoning involved. There is no way to argue against it, so they feel like they've "won" once they invoke scripture and I can't argue it -- there's nothing TO argue.
> If the Bible were just 'a book written by illiterate nomads', why has it lasted so long, and had so much influence?
Because it makes people feel good. Like they have a purpose. Also, you mention Islam. Well, there are MANY MANY more Muslims in the world than Christians, so does that mean they are wrong? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists can't all be right, so I have no reason to believe yours is the "correct" religion. Just because something is around for a long time does not make it correct or even give it authority. I have other reasons, but if I list them it'll be considered flamebait, and probably rightfully so.
> Islam survives because it has a lot of the truth (surprise, a lot of it's copied from the Bible).
Umm... actually, they were both copied from similar sources. Your phrasing implies that after Christianity was around, Islam just popped up and copied their good ideas. That is absolutely untrue.
> I'm guilty of acting in un-loving ways and causing pain to people around me
Thanks for not assuming, but you would be correct if you did. I don't know if I am capable of love; it seems that no one has ever loved me. The Bible teaches to love thy neighbor, but I have never been on the receiving end of that. Maybe my spite for humanity in general has caused my dislike of religion, but either way, it is still my opinion.
> Out of curiosity, what turned you off to Christianity? Why were you interested in it before, and what changed?
In less honest moments, I will claim that it was the jerks and fanatics that turned me off, but it has more (everything?) to do with myself.
I was depressed and just for the heck of it, I went to a revival with a friend of mine. I enjoyed it and felt pretty good for a while, so I stuck with it.
Life was pretty crappy to start with and while I was going to church it was in an upswing for a short while. Then it got much, much, worse. I prayed asking for guidance, assistance, anything to give me some indication I wasn't wasting my time being alive. It never came, and still has not. I don't feel the glory of God, I don't feel like he is protecting or watching me. I felt alone, hurt, and betrayed by the one who claimed he was here to help us all. You might say I am an atheist because I'm pissed off at God for being a dick to me. You might be right.
Basically, I don't believe in Hell because I think I'm already there.
> it's Christianity's assertian that homosexuality is evil that you really don't like
:)
Geez, if you wanted me to be concise, yeah, but where's the fun in that?
Yes, that assertion is partly what I don't like, but some people take it too far. The people who get on TV or pulpit and say that gays should stop being gay to save their souls are much more offensive to me than a statement in a very old book.
I'm not attacking Christianity in the whole, although I recognize that it sounds that way. But take those that are Christian and DON'T have a problem with (or at least aren't outspoken about) homosexuality. I have no problem with most of them. It's the lunatic fanatics that irk me.
> the idea that homosexuality is sin is
Basically, that's the most important point. Simply calling something evil does not make it so, regardless how many people believe it is or is not. I don't believe for a second that being homosexual is evil.
Most people who are gay don't CHOOSE to be, they were born that way (that's arguable I think, but it's how I feel). That means their only choices are: Live in "sin," be alone and unhappy, or be with someone you don't want to be with and live unhappily. What if the Bible said that those with diabetes were sinful? They can't just say "okay, I decide I don't want Diabetes, so I can get to heaven." It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way. It is a Bad Thing, IMO, to call someone a sinner over something they have little control (as I see it).
> I think it was his idea of humor.
:)
I had considered that, but I couldn't see how it was at all humorous. Maybe he has a bad sense of humor. Or maybe it's just me
> > I think I'll wait for the movie adaptation of the book.
> Personally, I'm looking forward to the promotional website for the movie.
Personally, I (for one) welcome our online.. promotional.... website? Wait, this is the wrong joke! (Isn't it always, though?)
> Text of article in case it gets /.ed. Posted as AC so I can't be accused of karma whoring
/. article text to /. in case of /.ing. DUH.
Karma whoring? More like you didn't post w/ your username because you would look like a bloody idiot, posting
> You just said that you have no personal experience for that belief other than a prejudice against Christianity that you've received from popular culture.
Hold on, buckaroo, I said no such thing. I was born Methodist, but wasn't much into it & didn't care about religion. When I was in HS through most of College, I was a born-again Christian -- baptism and all that happy shit. I have plenty of experience with many forms of Christianity -- I used to "church hop." Me & my friend would find different churches to go to, especially revivals, as they're fun and you get a better in-depth look at the sect.
I didn't gain my total dislike for religion until the last few years, partially because of the type of people I describe. I'm not gay, but I've met enough homophobes (as opposed to those just off the street) in church to realize it's much more prevalent in churchgoers.
Also, I certainly take very few cues from popular culture, thank you. I generally dislike "popular culture," of which (in the U.S., not the world -- that goes to Islam) Christianity is a part. Popular means "lots of people do it" and in the U.S., Christianity is more "popular" than any other religion (or possibly lack of one).
> There are a lot of evil things in this world, of which homosexuality is certainly not the worst.
This reaks of bias. I don't want to put words in your mouth (as you did to me) but the essence of this statement is that "homosexuality is evil, but not the most evil." Who the heck are you to say that it is evil? Because a book written by illiterate nomads, thousands of years ago, said it's bad.
> "For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."
This has no bearing on the conversation, so feel free to ignore it, but everyone feels hate at some point in their life. So that means they cannot love God and will therefore suffer in hell (barring true repentance, of course) for eternity. That doesn't make much sense coming from the NT "loving god."
The Bible has good ideas and is a good book (pun, yeah), but there are too many ways to interpret wildly different things from it. Being a book written to save your soul, it certainly isn't organized or succinct well enough at all.
> I want to make THEIR suffering with computers less
:)
That is true. Just because I don't appreciate life doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they did. Of course, if I had included that before, it would have taken away from the feeling. I'm pretty sure my parents don't suffer with computers like I do with life, but yes, I help them with their PCs. I even bought a new one for my Dad: I didn't want him to get the tech-rage that comes to me when trying to get 12-year old hardware working again because you don't have anything else to use.
> I don't believe anyone is really "sane"
Umm, I don't mean "sane" as in zero problems; everyone has problems, I mean it as in "can function normally in society." I, unfortunately, cannot. That's why I post to Slashdot.
> Do you charge your friends for sodas they drink at your house too?
Absolutely. My house is strictly BYOB or you can drink water from the tap or hose. Plastic cups available for a small monthly payment of $10.99.
> install remotely accessible backdoors into the beautiful girl's system
I'd like to install something in her "backdoor," teehee. And I guarantee it ain't software..
> FUCK family. They 'aint good for nothin'. Except for the fact that they brought me into this world
Strange, the exact OPPOSITE is true for me. I'd be all about family if I didn't know they were the kind of sick bastards who brought someone like me (exactly like me, amazingly!) into this world.
In fact, I'd be very close to them if I wasn't here...?
> Who would have thought that the lady who is president of the PTA was into kinky sex?
Me, for one. I'm pretty sure most people are turned on, to some extent, by some "kinky" stuff, but they are usually too worried about appearances to do more than fantasize guiltily from time to time.
> You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you.
I AM NOT VAIN! And I damn well didn't think you were talking about me, so THERE. Pthpthpthpthpthppt.
> 'Oh, about the gift of life I gave you - you're welcome.'
.sig:
No thanks. Why is it that parents believe that because they figured out how to fuck without a condom, you owe them something? It wasn't a "gift" that I was born (more of a curse, but that's another story), it was a decision by them. I don't owe them shit. I'm glad they decided to raise me instead of chucking me onto the street to be eaten by hobos or something, although an abortion would have been a nice option, had I known the outcome of living. This doesn't mean I'm hostile towards them; my parents are nice people, but I don't feel a tremendous attachment to them either. I guess this all revolves around my complex mental state. Well, maybe it's not that complex: I'm fucking insane (and not happy about it either).
To attach this philosophy to that of my
Life is not a gift, it just is.
So, now that I've said a whole load of nothing...
> You can never read any news cause all you n00bs suck up the bandwidth.
Yes, it's the 100 or so new visitors sucking up all the bandwidth, and has nothing to do with the million already here...
> Christians don't believe that it is morally correct to limit the rights of homosexuals
Sure, except their right to life. I'm not going to lie and say it's the majority, but I'd be willing to put every dollar I own down on the bet that of the gay-bashers, a large majority of them are Christian and of them, most are anti-gay simply because the church tells them it's wrong, so they assume with all fervor that the church is right.
Please note, this isn't a post against christianity in general, just Christian gay-bashers.