You are being obtuse. According to my reasoning, if you knock at my door and tell me that being gay (or tolerant of gays) will cause me to suffer pain and misery for an eternity, you are attempting to force me into your way of thinking, albeit passive-agressively.
The difference in your example is that you are telling me an event might cause physical harm up to and including death, not that "non-believing" or "believing" in a certain moral/ethical delimma will lead to eternal misery. If you stated that the volcano will blow up and only kill "non-believers", asking me to believe to avoid such a fate, then that would fall under my example. I never stated that anything you attempt to enlighten me about is using fear to force me into your thinking.
What if they walk around telling everyone they will die if they don't believe what they do? What if they do that to young children, as young as 2 or 3? Yeah, it isn't the same as when they Crusaded, but they still attempt to force you into their way of thinking through fear. Violence invokes fear *right now*, but when they leave the fear is gone. The fear of eternal punishment never goes away.
Again, this is one thing when it's a few nuts in a cult. When backed by millions of people and billions of dollars, they have the ability to influence the weak, poor and depressed.
Always good to see people who are intolerant of Christians. If you can be tolerant of gays, and tolerant of people speaking ideas you disagree with, why can't you be tolerant of Muslims, Jews, and Christians too?
Because they aren't? Do you know the main foundation of Christianity (and most religions)? The Christians believe in good and will live in bliss forever; the others will suffer for being "non-believers" and perish forever. What part of their belief system can be called tolerant if they believe whole-heartedly that you will suffer for eternity for *not believeing in the same thing they do*?
Yeah, I think any book that gives people funny ideas should probably be banned
Many books give people funny ideas. The only ones that are dangerous are those that have the backing of an organization and millions of followers that believe (or don't protest) that the book is the infallable "word of God". It is the "Universal Truth" label of the Bible that differentiates it.
And no book should ever be banned. In fact, I encourage everyone to *study* the Bible - you will learn many things.
They relish this opportunity to prove their faith because the Bible also proclaims that they will be persecuted.
It has been my experience, through years of informal religion studies, that the Bible can predict/proclaim/justify just about anything you want it. Thousands of pages of hear-say, from hundreds of authors, many only written after being passed down for generations, just adds up to way too much ambiguity and makes it way to easy to find a sentence or two that can support $my_action. Yes, this is part of what makes religion so dangerous.
Saying "they shouldn't get married" isn't an answer, as that means they can't get the rights that other married people are entitled to.
That isn't removing or preventing the use of a "right". That is not agreeing with the institution of marriage and choosing not to participate, which is much different than a gay person not being able to marry. Banning a class of people from marrige is a crime; some people not conforming to the traditional definition of marriage (in this case, having multiple sexual partners openly), yet still retaining the right to marry is freedom.
I like how you got modded a troll for a very well reasoned response to his response. In fact you pointed out exactly why that isn't a valid reason for opposition to "gay marriage"; it lets a bigot hide behind an unlikely event and use that as an excuse to not support gay marriage. It has to be a logical fallacy, but I can't figure out which category it falls into.
I can see your point about petitions being the only thing in that list you get "outed" for...
Perhaps it's because of what's in this petition. It is "harmful" in ways as it bans one class of people from doing things another can. Perhaps if they weren't trying to remove rights from people, they wouldn't get rights removed from them. That doesn't automatically make it right, but as you said, reasonable.
Those who sued to get the names of the people who signed the petition did so so that they could harrass the more prominent people who signed it.
You use the word "harrass", but I wonder if you didn't actually mean "shame". There is a big difference between harrassment and calling someone out for a hateful attitude towards a minority with a different lifestyle that in reality has little affect on any straight person. I wonder if you could consider gay marriage bans a "harrassment" of gays?
Do you know how much arguing goes on about *exactly* what "bear arms" and "speech" mean? The reason bills are long now is that we relize that me must be precise, or leave it up to interpretation.
How far back do you want to go? Blacks being pissed about something that happened 200 years ago is stupid! Mad about "Separate but Equal"? STFU, it was 50 years ago!
I am mad that Jesus started (continued, really) all this bullshit 2000 years ago... does that mean I should be neutered? Or are yours the genes that need to be removed from society for such a lack of perspective?
Re:Employee monitoring is not really new
on
Employee Monitoring
·
· Score: 1
It is slightly different because I don't know of any other tool used in an office that can facilitate so many diverse activities. I can't think of many other tools used in an office (or a manu plant even) where there can be such a gap from "knowing proper usage to complete the job" and "knowing how to tell if any misuse has occured".
It's really easy to tell if a guy is misusing a gun; you see him point and twirling it. It's obvious even to a complete noob. But trying to catch a guy perhaps using TOR to download and then encrypt porn is difficult for an experienced computer user.
Re:Employee monitoring is not really new
on
Employee Monitoring
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If the manager is not technically competent to monitor computer use, then there is a question of why that person is managing people who use computers for their work -- the manager should be competent with the equipment.
That's a bit much. The accounting manager should be able to keep up with the latest ways to hide computer usage? Does that mean the most able computer user should be the head of each department regardless of ability to manage that department? Also, aren't the guys trying to hide stuff more likely to become the most compentent user therefore allowing them to be the "boss". Of course that means as you go up the the chain of the company it just keeps being more and more technically superior people, regardless of ability to do the job.
No, I'll stick with the idea that the department manager should know his specific job better than anyone. That includes the IT Manager, and he should be ultimately responsible for all computer usage.
So now he will be crucified for saying "ass" by the Pubs. "uncouth" "can't master the english language" are now the comments. I remember during the election one Pub I know kept saying all he could do was "give speaches and read a teleprompter".
Earlier this week FOX was talking about how Obama was at the gulf in "fancy pants". Seriously, I don't think there is anything he will be able to do to get the right off his back.
Exactly what is "partisan" about wanting government regulation on activities that have the ability to ruin major parts of our economy/environment? Sure, it's the Republican mantra right now, but in reality most Americans are perfectly fine with regulation on those who have the ability to affect an inordinate amount of lives, such as BP.
Perhaps I can counter with a new law in addition to yours...
High Guy's Law: Any basic truth that counters a partisan belief will be spun into "partisan" tactics within 5 replies.
Most NPOs can't even afford a decent tech guy, much less a dedicated DBA.
Remember that the next time someone asks how they can build a resume or get some experience. It may not be cutting edge, but working on an older system, gathering requirements, implementing changes and training... that can make a huge difference in their systems, build your resume, and give you an excellent reference. All this plus you can do some good. Find a charity that you like (warning: some have extremely strong views - know who you volunteer for) and it will be a really rewarding experience.
You do realize that because of another rule change the filibuster is now way to easy to do, right? You don't have to actually put any effort into a filibuster... all you have to do is say "we got 40" and you can't vote. That isn't the way it was when Madison was around, and according to your originalist view, he was all knowing. So let's go back to the point where you actually have to be willing to sacrifice to stand for your principles in the face of a majority.
First, let me state I am still on the fence for NN. But your car analogy is backwards; if you had got it right it seems like a good one *for* NN.
Car companies would be like websites.
Each state would be like an ISP.
Net Neutrality would/should be the act of preventing each state from creating their own crazy laws and regulations. That would prevent things like making automakers pass state specific safety test that cost $x million a year. In this case GM is actually the one that would benefit; Tesla would be the one that is screwed.
Frankly I think I am glad the roads are built by the taxpayers and we let just about anyone use them in accordance with just regulations.
To bring it home, perens.com couldn't afford the fees and administrative costs, but a Microsoft blog about the advantages of software patents and how closed source code improves security could easily afford the extra costs.
I'm not real sure how strongly I feel about this, but someone has to play DA.
private companies aren't allowed to put you in jail
Read this. Then think about the fact that our government just allowed corporations to make unlimited contributions to election funds. I have a chance every other year to change my local school board, city council, state government, and the federal government. I have no chance to do this with a private company; unless I vote in leaders that will create rules to regulate the private sector.
Same issue here. Fucking pissed at ATT for implementing the DNS redirection crap. My connection is slow enough without having to use some third party DNS, but I guess that's what I'll have to do. Good to finally see another person with this issue (searched for this exact issue with no good results).
Slashdot Mirror
You are being obtuse. According to my reasoning, if you knock at my door and tell me that being gay (or tolerant of gays) will cause me to suffer pain and misery for an eternity, you are attempting to force me into your way of thinking, albeit passive-agressively.
The difference in your example is that you are telling me an event might cause physical harm up to and including death, not that "non-believing" or "believing" in a certain moral/ethical delimma will lead to eternal misery. If you stated that the volcano will blow up and only kill "non-believers", asking me to believe to avoid such a fate, then that would fall under my example. I never stated that anything you attempt to enlighten me about is using fear to force me into your thinking.
What if they walk around telling everyone they will die if they don't believe what they do? What if they do that to young children, as young as 2 or 3? Yeah, it isn't the same as when they Crusaded, but they still attempt to force you into their way of thinking through fear. Violence invokes fear *right now*, but when they leave the fear is gone. The fear of eternal punishment never goes away.
Again, this is one thing when it's a few nuts in a cult. When backed by millions of people and billions of dollars, they have the ability to influence the weak, poor and depressed.
Both sides point fingers and scream foul! Neither side being tolerant of the other while condemning the other.
...
I could go on and on about your "statement" but you've obviously missed the point and the rest would be lost on you
Not exactly a beacon of tolerance are you?
Always good to see people who are intolerant of Christians. If you can be tolerant of gays, and tolerant of people speaking ideas you disagree with, why can't you be tolerant of Muslims, Jews, and Christians too?
Because they aren't? Do you know the main foundation of Christianity (and most religions)? The Christians believe in good and will live in bliss forever; the others will suffer for being "non-believers" and perish forever. What part of their belief system can be called tolerant if they believe whole-heartedly that you will suffer for eternity for *not believeing in the same thing they do*?
Yeah, I think any book that gives people funny ideas should probably be banned
Many books give people funny ideas. The only ones that are dangerous are those that have the backing of an organization and millions of followers that believe (or don't protest) that the book is the infallable "word of God". It is the "Universal Truth" label of the Bible that differentiates it.
And no book should ever be banned. In fact, I encourage everyone to *study* the Bible - you will learn many things.
They relish this opportunity to prove their faith because the Bible also proclaims that they will be persecuted.
It has been my experience, through years of informal religion studies, that the Bible can predict/proclaim/justify just about anything you want it. Thousands of pages of hear-say, from hundreds of authors, many only written after being passed down for generations, just adds up to way too much ambiguity and makes it way to easy to find a sentence or two that can support $my_action. Yes, this is part of what makes religion so dangerous.
Saying "they shouldn't get married" isn't an answer, as that means they can't get the rights that other married people are entitled to.
That isn't removing or preventing the use of a "right". That is not agreeing with the institution of marriage and choosing not to participate, which is much different than a gay person not being able to marry. Banning a class of people from marrige is a crime; some people not conforming to the traditional definition of marriage (in this case, having multiple sexual partners openly), yet still retaining the right to marry is freedom.
I like how you got modded a troll for a very well reasoned response to his response. In fact you pointed out exactly why that isn't a valid reason for opposition to "gay marriage"; it lets a bigot hide behind an unlikely event and use that as an excuse to not support gay marriage. It has to be a logical fallacy, but I can't figure out which category it falls into.
I can see your point about petitions being the only thing in that list you get "outed" for...
Perhaps it's because of what's in this petition. It is "harmful" in ways as it bans one class of people from doing things another can. Perhaps if they weren't trying to remove rights from people, they wouldn't get rights removed from them. That doesn't automatically make it right, but as you said, reasonable.
Those who sued to get the names of the people who signed the petition did so so that they could harrass the more prominent people who signed it.
You use the word "harrass", but I wonder if you didn't actually mean "shame". There is a big difference between harrassment and calling someone out for a hateful attitude towards a minority with a different lifestyle that in reality has little affect on any straight person. I wonder if you could consider gay marriage bans a "harrassment" of gays?
Do you know how much arguing goes on about *exactly* what "bear arms" and "speech" mean? The reason bills are long now is that we relize that me must be precise, or leave it up to interpretation.
How far back do you want to go? Blacks being pissed about something that happened 200 years ago is stupid! Mad about "Separate but Equal"? STFU, it was 50 years ago!
I am mad that Jesus started (continued, really) all this bullshit 2000 years ago... does that mean I should be neutered? Or are yours the genes that need to be removed from society for such a lack of perspective?
It is slightly different because I don't know of any other tool used in an office that can facilitate so many diverse activities. I can't think of many other tools used in an office (or a manu plant even) where there can be such a gap from "knowing proper usage to complete the job" and "knowing how to tell if any misuse has occured".
It's really easy to tell if a guy is misusing a gun; you see him point and twirling it. It's obvious even to a complete noob. But trying to catch a guy perhaps using TOR to download and then encrypt porn is difficult for an experienced computer user.
If the manager is not technically competent to monitor computer use, then there is a question of why that person is managing people who use computers for their work -- the manager should be competent with the equipment.
That's a bit much. The accounting manager should be able to keep up with the latest ways to hide computer usage? Does that mean the most able computer user should be the head of each department regardless of ability to manage that department? Also, aren't the guys trying to hide stuff more likely to become the most compentent user therefore allowing them to be the "boss". Of course that means as you go up the the chain of the company it just keeps being more and more technically superior people, regardless of ability to do the job.
No, I'll stick with the idea that the department manager should know his specific job better than anyone. That includes the IT Manager, and he should be ultimately responsible for all computer usage.
Obviously you haven't heard his "kick-ass" comment. Last week the Pub's mantra was "No Drama Obama" and how he wasn't "mad enough".
Comments on his kick-ass statement
So now he will be crucified for saying "ass" by the Pubs. "uncouth" "can't master the english language" are now the comments. I remember during the election one Pub I know kept saying all he could do was "give speaches and read a teleprompter".
Earlier this week FOX was talking about how Obama was at the gulf in "fancy pants". Seriously, I don't think there is anything he will be able to do to get the right off his back.
Exactly what is "partisan" about wanting government regulation on activities that have the ability to ruin major parts of our economy/environment? Sure, it's the Republican mantra right now, but in reality most Americans are perfectly fine with regulation on those who have the ability to affect an inordinate amount of lives, such as BP.
Perhaps I can counter with a new law in addition to yours...
High Guy's Law: Any basic truth that counters a partisan belief will be spun into "partisan" tactics within 5 replies.
RTFM you moron. It plainly states on the download page that it resets all your settings to friends only.
Most NPOs can't even afford a decent tech guy, much less a dedicated DBA.
Remember that the next time someone asks how they can build a resume or get some experience. It may not be cutting edge, but working on an older system, gathering requirements, implementing changes and training... that can make a huge difference in their systems, build your resume, and give you an excellent reference. All this plus you can do some good. Find a charity that you like (warning: some have extremely strong views - know who you volunteer for) and it will be a really rewarding experience.
You do realize that because of another rule change the filibuster is now way to easy to do, right? You don't have to actually put any effort into a filibuster... all you have to do is say "we got 40" and you can't vote. That isn't the way it was when Madison was around, and according to your originalist view, he was all knowing. So let's go back to the point where you actually have to be willing to sacrifice to stand for your principles in the face of a majority.
What you didn't notice the link to The Consulant's Report? FUD? No.
Are you using the same tatic we are calling bullshit on in this tread? Christians aren't bad because Muslims are REALLY BAD!!! GTFO.
First, let me state I am still on the fence for NN. But your car analogy is backwards; if you had got it right it seems like a good one *for* NN.
Car companies would be like websites.
Each state would be like an ISP.
Net Neutrality would/should be the act of preventing each state from creating their own crazy laws and regulations. That would prevent things like making automakers pass state specific safety test that cost $x million a year. In this case GM is actually the one that would benefit; Tesla would be the one that is screwed.
Frankly I think I am glad the roads are built by the taxpayers and we let just about anyone use them in accordance with just regulations.
To bring it home, perens.com couldn't afford the fees and administrative costs, but a Microsoft blog about the advantages of software patents and how closed source code improves security could easily afford the extra costs.
private companies aren't allowed to put you in jail
Read this.
Then think about the fact that our government just allowed corporations to make unlimited contributions to election funds.
I have a chance every other year to change my local school board, city council, state government, and the federal government. I have no chance to do this with a private company; unless I vote in leaders that will create rules to regulate the private sector.
With a DEMOCRACY, you can change your government every 4 years. Once that option is removed, you then move to the next box.
Same issue here. Fucking pissed at ATT for implementing the DNS redirection crap. My connection is slow enough without having to use some third party DNS, but I guess that's what I'll have to do. Good to finally see another person with this issue (searched for this exact issue with no good results).