Love has nothing to do with laws. the laws say men can marry women. It does not matter if you are a mane in love with a turtle, another man, or a woman.
The laws and rights are absolutely equal, because A=A is always a true statement.
And now because I am getting tired of the intellectuality slow attacking truth, I will go ahead and point out the moral lesson that can be learned by this truth. Equality does not equal fairness. "That current laws and rights deprive homosexuals of equal rights" is 100% wrong. "That current laws and rights deprive homosexuals of fair rights." is absolutely correct.
But the laws say nothing about love, simply gender. And that example is not at all the same. A very apt example in the same vein would be: Imagine if the government was in charge of distributing food and gave all the people meals genetically designed to kill black people and then claimed it was fair because they treated everyone equally.
The difference between the two is that in mine everyone is treated equally, in yours they are not. Because equality does not always equal fairness, and that is what I was originally trying to point out.
Unfortunately, I am sure 99% of people will miss my insight and mod it troll.
No, historically Black people had a separate set of laws and rights. And it was not supposed to be funny, it is supposed to be an interesting technical fact that does really change the fact that homosexuals are being unfairly treated and oppressed.
I understand that, but it is all done to make things louder. I personally do not like excessive noise, but my biggest problem with excessive noise in music is that half of modern music is willing to go to any extreme to be louder. The loudness war is only part of it, it is how they write music, play songs, and sing. When the most important aspect of a singers voice is how loud they can scream, when they sound like you put a bag or gravel in a food possessor, that is a bag thing. There is no comparison to the modern day rock and role singer (some smuck of the street who is willing to scream until he vomits blood) and a professionally trained opera singer who can actually control his voice.
the entire movement, starting with the father of loud, is about replacing quality with loudness.
Which is not to say that his invention was not needed to create many theoretically good musical things, but that they were misused.
I know as much as you about the loudness war. But ignoring the specifics and talking about generalities, the loudness war is all about make things louder. I personally do not like excessive noise, but my biggest problem with excessive noise in music is that half of modern music is willing to go to any extreme to be louder. The loudness war is only part of it, it is how they write music, play songs, and sing. When the most important aspect of a singers voice is how loud they can scream, when they sound like you put a bag of gravel in a food possessor, that is a bad thing.
the entire movement, starting with the father of loud, is about replacing quality with loudness.
Which is not to say that his invention was not needed to create many theoretically good musical things, but that they were misused.
Well there is really no way to successfully disagree with a fact of life. They do have the exact same set of rights and laws as everyone else (in north america at least). To say otherwise is just to enter into semantic nonsense and start redefining words.
No your reasoning is complete semantic nonsense. Like I said before, they have the exact same set of rights. I, as a hetro male, do not have the right to many whoever I love. I can onyl marry any human female who is over some minimum age (the exact same as all other homosexual males).
I have been very interested in the whole "God hates homosexuals, but not me personally" group. Why do you believe this particular sin is worth your time and effort to fight. You, and a lot of other people with similar views, make a big deal about how God hates homosexuals but does he not also hate tattoos and even temporary skin markings (if you read a literal interpretation of the earliest bibles then it does not say "tattoos" but instead simply "markings", I believe) and 101 other things that no Christians care about? If you (or others like you) really do have nothing personal against homosexuals then do you spend as much time protesting in front of tattoo parlours and kid face painting stands as you do for anti-gay stuff?
I would be very very interesting in any kind of a response to this (in case you do not want to do this in public: jonathonwisnoski at hotmail.com).
I am not sure it is is true to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights. Because they are still considered human and given the exact same set of rights. For example they have the right to marry what ever woman they want.
In my opinion, loudness was the worst thing that ever happened to music. Pretty much destroyed all good music, and retroactively made many recordings of old music worse. Now that is not all this man's fault and music had to be digital eventually (and with digital comes a volume control). But he seems like the first step in a staircase of inept musical decisions.
Well I would have to disagree with you there. I held my beliefs because of my beliefs in anarchism and free speech. But anarchism is not for everyone and societies are much loved. In fact, it was the great anarchist himself who said "Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin, which is supposed to be a joke (but I maintain it is inherently anarchistic even when not taking it to extremes).
Now you might have that opinion because of, what I would call, a misinterpretation of what laws are. All laws exist simply to help hold together societies. Forget about ethics, forget about "justice", forget about fairness, it is simply a stabilising force on civilization; With the only boundaries being that if a law is too unethical, unjust, or unfair then the law itself can cause a disproportionate amount of instability. The most basic laws then are to prevent the inhabitants of the society from intentionally trying to hurt said society, either directly or indirectly (hurt an individual in that society). A troll is intentionally trying to hurt someone, therefore it is in the best interest of the government to stop that behaviour. It is not stupid, just a different set of beliefs.
"How do you even prove what someone was thinking at the time they made the comment, anyway? It seems unenforceable." You would likely have to make a decision based on a history or offensive comments. And I think it is not far-fetched to say that a judge/jury can tell when someone is trying to make an intelligent argument and when they are simply trying to upset people. It would work like it already works in real like but now with more complete records of what actually happened.
And I know it can be a slippery slope and I do not agree with making it illegal to say or type anything (weather you are making plans to blow up the white house or taking about how awful homosexuals are). But most people would not agree with me and 100% of free speech laws that I know of do not cover slander and intentionality trying to upset people. Canada's free speech laws equate to something like: "If no one gets offended by what you say then you can say whatever you want".
I am not sure about the exact text of this or the general interpretation of it but when someone intends to cause physiological distress then normally it is illegal. Say whatever you what, but if the sole reason you are speaking is to cause harm to another then most people would consider that worthy of being illegal.
That is what the flight attendant said it looked like. That does not mean that it looked like that in the slightest./. once had an article where the police were called on the halo devs for carrying a AF-47 around in public, the AF-47 was in fact a 10 foot long halo sniper rifle replica that does not even look real (http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/11/medium_3ce16ecb6851fdac6329346672baea73.jpg).
No, that is wrong. There are professional electronic signature stuff that no script kiddy is going to break. But that is incidental. It is not like written signatures are secure. Anyone can forge anyone elses signature. It takes a profession to tell the difference if any amount of effort is put into it. I personally have lousy handwriting and do not write any one signature like any other. No one checks even on official government documents. My signature looks like it has been forged by a 4 year old, but it does not matter. And in this case all the school is looking for is a way to transfer blame, and even a forged signature does that.
And some parents/children are not English literate. That does not mean that we send some kind of digital voice box home to all children because we have to make the lowest common denominator the default. We already make concessions and have far more then 2 systems in place to cater to minorities. And you do not need 2 systems for children who do not have a pc/internet, the cheapest alternative might actually be to supply them with cheap computers and internet access (the cost saved in paper and ink alone would cover the cost of bare essentials).
"signature of a parent (field trip authorization, etc.) it will have to be paper anyway."
No, there are many ways to electronically sign things. The point of a sig. is not that they can trace the ink back to your pen but that the design is not easy to copy.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not say it works or is fair for both groups.
Sometimes equality is not fair, but it is still equality.
Love has nothing to do with laws. the laws say men can marry women. It does not matter if you are a mane in love with a turtle, another man, or a woman.
The laws and rights are absolutely equal, because A=A is always a true statement.
And now because I am getting tired of the intellectuality slow attacking truth, I will go ahead and point out the moral lesson that can be learned by this truth.
Equality does not equal fairness.
"That current laws and rights deprive homosexuals of equal rights" is 100% wrong.
"That current laws and rights deprive homosexuals of fair rights." is absolutely correct.
But the laws say nothing about love, simply gender. And that example is not at all the same.
A very apt example in the same vein would be: Imagine if the government was in charge of distributing food and gave all the people meals genetically designed to kill black people and then claimed it was fair because they treated everyone equally.
The difference between the two is that in mine everyone is treated equally, in yours they are not. Because equality does not always equal fairness, and that is what I was originally trying to point out.
Unfortunately, I am sure 99% of people will miss my insight and mod it troll.
No, historically Black people had a separate set of laws and rights.
And it was not supposed to be funny, it is supposed to be an interesting technical fact that does really change the fact that homosexuals are being unfairly treated and oppressed.
I understand that, but it is all done to make things louder. I personally do not like excessive noise, but my biggest problem with excessive noise in music is that half of modern music is willing to go to any extreme to be louder. The loudness war is only part of it, it is how they write music, play songs, and sing. When the most important aspect of a singers voice is how loud they can scream, when they sound like you put a bag or gravel in a food possessor, that is a bag thing. There is no comparison to the modern day rock and role singer (some smuck of the street who is willing to scream until he vomits blood) and a professionally trained opera singer who can actually control his voice.
the entire movement, starting with the father of loud, is about replacing quality with loudness.
Which is not to say that his invention was not needed to create many theoretically good musical things, but that they were misused.
I know as much as you about the loudness war.
But ignoring the specifics and talking about generalities, the loudness war is all about make things louder. I personally do not like excessive noise, but my biggest problem with excessive noise in music is that half of modern music is willing to go to any extreme to be louder. The loudness war is only part of it, it is how they write music, play songs, and sing. When the most important aspect of a singers voice is how loud they can scream, when they sound like you put a bag of gravel in a food possessor, that is a bad thing.
the entire movement, starting with the father of loud, is about replacing quality with loudness.
Which is not to say that his invention was not needed to create many theoretically good musical things, but that they were misused.
Well there is really no way to successfully disagree with a fact of life. They do have the exact same set of rights and laws as everyone else (in north america at least).
To say otherwise is just to enter into semantic nonsense and start redefining words.
No your reasoning is complete semantic nonsense.
Like I said before, they have the exact same set of rights. I, as a hetro male, do not have the right to many whoever I love. I can onyl marry any human female who is over some minimum age (the exact same as all other homosexual males).
I have been very interested in the whole "God hates homosexuals, but not me personally" group.
Why do you believe this particular sin is worth your time and effort to fight. You, and a lot of other people with similar views, make a big deal about how God hates homosexuals but does he not also hate tattoos and even temporary skin markings (if you read a literal interpretation of the earliest bibles then it does not say "tattoos" but instead simply "markings", I believe) and 101 other things that no Christians care about?
If you (or others like you) really do have nothing personal against homosexuals then do you spend as much time protesting in front of tattoo parlours and kid face painting stands as you do for anti-gay stuff?
I would be very very interesting in any kind of a response to this (in case you do not want to do this in public: jonathonwisnoski at hotmail.com).
I am not sure it is is true to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights. Because they are still considered human and given the exact same set of rights. For example they have the right to marry what ever woman they want.
Yes but they are absolutely related. Different techniques that both similarly diminished the art-form of music by making it louder.
In my opinion, loudness was the worst thing that ever happened to music.
Pretty much destroyed all good music, and retroactively made many recordings of old music worse. Now that is not all this man's fault and music had to be digital eventually (and with digital comes a volume control). But he seems like the first step in a staircase of inept musical decisions.
Well I would have to disagree with you there. I held my beliefs because of my beliefs in anarchism and free speech. But anarchism is not for everyone and societies are much loved. In fact, it was the great anarchist himself who said "Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin, which is supposed to be a joke (but I maintain it is inherently anarchistic even when not taking it to extremes).
Now you might have that opinion because of, what I would call, a misinterpretation of what laws are.
All laws exist simply to help hold together societies. Forget about ethics, forget about "justice", forget about fairness, it is simply a stabilising force on civilization; With the only boundaries being that if a law is too unethical, unjust, or unfair then the law itself can cause a disproportionate amount of instability.
The most basic laws then are to prevent the inhabitants of the society from intentionally trying to hurt said society, either directly or indirectly (hurt an individual in that society).
A troll is intentionally trying to hurt someone, therefore it is in the best interest of the government to stop that behaviour.
It is not stupid, just a different set of beliefs.
For what it's worth I agree 100%, but the laws of every country I have ever heard of and most people do not agree with either of us.
"How do you even prove what someone was thinking at the time they made the comment, anyway? It seems unenforceable."
You would likely have to make a decision based on a history or offensive comments. And I think it is not far-fetched to say that a judge/jury can tell when someone is trying to make an intelligent argument and when they are simply trying to upset people. It would work like it already works in real like but now with more complete records of what actually happened.
And I know it can be a slippery slope and I do not agree with making it illegal to say or type anything (weather you are making plans to blow up the white house or taking about how awful homosexuals are). But most people would not agree with me and 100% of free speech laws that I know of do not cover slander and intentionality trying to upset people. Canada's free speech laws equate to something like: "If no one gets offended by what you say then you can say whatever you want".
I am not sure about the exact text of this or the general interpretation of it but when someone intends to cause physiological distress then normally it is illegal.
Say whatever you what, but if the sole reason you are speaking is to cause harm to another then most people would consider that worthy of being illegal.
Ah, but most/all of these files were shared and 100% public, where they not?
Well considering that it is legal to own and carry in public a AK-47 where that happened I would disagree that it was irresponsible.
Well I am sure there is some CP on it somewhere.
Probably bestiality, pro terrorism, and lots of other good stuff as well.
A barret light .50 is like 1/4 the size of this gun replica. and neither look like a AK47.
That is what the flight attendant said it looked like. That does not mean that it looked like that in the slightest. /. once had an article where the police were called on the halo devs for carrying a AF-47 around in public, the AF-47 was in fact a 10 foot long halo sniper rifle replica that does not even look real (http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/11/medium_3ce16ecb6851fdac6329346672baea73.jpg).
It does not matter how much violence is in these games because the people fighting against them never play them in the first place.
No, that is wrong.
There are professional electronic signature stuff that no script kiddy is going to break.
But that is incidental. It is not like written signatures are secure.
Anyone can forge anyone elses signature. It takes a profession to tell the difference if any amount of effort is put into it.
I personally have lousy handwriting and do not write any one signature like any other. No one checks even on official government documents.
My signature looks like it has been forged by a 4 year old, but it does not matter.
And in this case all the school is looking for is a way to transfer blame, and even a forged signature does that.
And some parents/children are not English literate. That does not mean that we send some kind of digital voice box home to all children because we have to make the lowest common denominator the default.
We already make concessions and have far more then 2 systems in place to cater to minorities.
And you do not need 2 systems for children who do not have a pc/internet, the cheapest alternative might actually be to supply them with cheap computers and internet access (the cost saved in paper and ink alone would cover the cost of bare essentials).
"signature of a parent (field trip authorization, etc.) it will have to be paper anyway."
No, there are many ways to electronically sign things.
The point of a sig. is not that they can trace the ink back to your pen but that the design is not easy to copy.