You are effectively denying all science by grouping AGW sceptics with "useful idiots".
There is one huge problem with AGW: we cannot measure it. So how can you claim it is a scientific fact? If Earth is warming we certainly should be able to measure it, right? Why cannot we?
Yes, they can't measure how sea-levels are rising, causing small island nations to lose already small reserves of land, and they cant measure how el-nino and la-nina cycles are changing because of climate change, yeah totally!!! What I cannot understand is the resistance to legislature regarding fuel-efficiency and carbon emmisions caps. Industry could stand to be more resource efficient anyway, regardless of the veracity of climate change or "AGW"...
Marine science tells us that many coral species are sensitive to small temperature changes, and carbon dioxide levels rising will also cause acidification of the oceans, and the coral bleaching beginning in many parts of the tropics seem to ominously back this up. another factor in coral bleaching. Because yes, people in the northern hemisphere should be able to grow wine further up north than usual, don't worry about the die-off of some of the most important organisms in the marine enironment, I mean, fish stocks, fish life-cycles, migrations, what are those, we need wine in northern europe! By the way, my point was sincere, but that bit about northen europe was tongue-in-cheek...
Oh my goodness... Neither of us compared the other to Hitler/Satan/Nazis/unsavoury political group, not even once!!! Did we just break Godwin's Law?
Yes, this discussion was unusually civil, and that's both refreshing and scary! One question I would like to ask, is what would you do if you had the choice to vote for or against marriage equality? Would you view allowing both types of unions access to privileges associated with marriage a lesser evil than keeping the status quo, or would you vote against it with the long term goal of invalidating state favouring of all forms of marriage (keeping in mind the probability of this happening approaches, or is, zero)?
The homophobe ad hominem attack in my first reply was merely a preemptive strike (you surely must know how most slashdot discussions progress). I take that back, not because I don't think you're a homophobe, but because there is no way I can say you are without having met and gotten to know you...
Thank you too sir, for civil discourse, the way ARPANET and Al Gore intended...
I see you are opposed to all state sponsored marriages. That gives fresh perspective on all your previous posts, and I can see know why you take the position you take. I honestly did scour your comments for signs of this, but as you said
I'm not a machine, for crying out loud.
While your position is logically consistent, and admirable in theory, it does not help real world same sex couples who are deprived of benefits and safeguards accorded to heterosexual couples. It also does not realistically endanger the privileges heterosexual couples have now.
Your position is, to the mind of one opposed to marriage equality, ideal, not only are you theoretically for same-sex marriage, you are against all marriages, and realistically, are likely to achieve neither aim.
Please enter the real world, where lives are lived and choices are made, where things like marriage equality count for something, and are not just a bit of semantic fluff.
You showed how few states recognize civil unions (bleak picture).
Yes I did, I gave actual numbers, as opposed to this
What you don't seem to realize is that everything you have argued that gay people should be allowed to have, they are allowed to have in virtually every state in the union.
The only thing they are still denied in most states is a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. Even the ability to adopt as a couple is available in most states now. It has literally come down, in virtually every state, to a fight over the word.
Which is borderline deceitful, as only later did you clarify that these rights are acquirable only individually through lawyers and not through civil unions as that passage seems to imply.
What I said in my previous post, you seem to be misunderstanding, so I'll use more words this time is this:
Marriage is a lot of things. Its a legal contract between two individuals, in some cases it's a religious convention/sacrament. It's a signifier of closeness/importance, which affects next-of-kin status and right-of-attorney, also an economic/social signifier of stability and status, which affects insurance, loan and adoption eligibility. These things have very to do directly with marriage as a reproductive strategy, and more do with individuals quality of life and happiness.
While there are many more types of marriages that should and could be recognized as legitimate by the government, such as poly(gamous/gynous)/polyamourous marriages, and a host of others, the issue at hand is same-sex marriage, and the position I seem to be getting from you (please correct me if I am wrong), is that because these other forms are not allowed, and because most of these rights are acquirable through other mean, then "meh, whats the big deal people, lets move on".
What you don't seem to appreciate is the commonness of same sex unions, the difficulties faced by them due to the absence of the option of marriage, and the inconsistency of civil union laws. These problems all affect same sex unions, and the most elegant solution seems to be extending marriage to same sex couples.
I see you seem to have no reply to my last post, but merely to attack headkase. I have a few more questions for you, and would love to get a response. This is what is said in the article you linked to above (kennethpike.com)
Sensing a theme or two? Despite my comparative apathy toward the marriage amendments, I think the most significant victory for traditional marriage--or loss for same-sex marriage, depending on your position--was the Arkansas initiative limiting adoption to married couples (in a state where same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage). This is a substantive right, a clear statement of law that there is something heterosexual couples can do that same-sex couples unequivocally cannot, at least in Arkansas.
and yet in another comment you say this
Is it illegal for you to adopt children as an individual? (I recognize that this is an unattractive alternative to a committed couple, but I am not aware of any state where only married couples may legally adopt.)
Which is it? Are you aware that what you are saying does not logically fit when taken together? You are saying, and you are right, that most of these rights\protections are acquirable through other channels.
But that's a different argument than saying these rights are "denied." It is not these rights that are denied when they are available through other channels (again--some may not be, of course)--rather, it is the convenience that is denied. Or more accurately, convenience is an incentive that you have not been offered.
But what you seem to be unaware of, or are purposely ignoring/underestimating, is the difficulty and expense of acquiring these, of hiring a lawyer, of having the initiative to foresee these things in the first place, all these things straight unions have from the outset.
Your desire to deny these things from gay couples is attributed to anti-statism.
I have lately been on a real anti-statism kick and so any time someone wants more laws, I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction--no matter the subject. I recognize that this makes me, um, quirky, to say the least
But you don't want to consider removing them from straight couples for some reason. If you reply that you do, I can't seem to read it in any of your comments. You are also conflating marraige as reproductive/procreative strategy, with marriage as a social, economic and legal institution that has less to do with reproduction than it once did.
But you're painting the picture as deliberately bleak. This is good rhetoric, I suppose, but if my statements were disingenuous for painting an unnecessarily rosy picture, yours fall prey to the same problem in reverse.
I don't see any figures or facts to support your statement that I am painting a deliberately bleak picture. Just a claim that my statements are good "rhetoric", using the word like a mild insult. All discussions of this nature are excercises in rhetoric, from both sides. What I am doing is simply using facts as opposed to anecdotes and analogies, and using them in the right context.
A modern example of how polygamy potentially hurts males can be had in the story of Utah's Lost Boys [childbrides.org].
Your attack on polygamy as a whole using the Utah "Lost Boys" as an example is a classic case of conflating issues.
You talk of marriage as a mechanism to encourage reproduction and childbearing, but seem to be ignoring its use as a signifier of importance/closeness (i.e, next-of-kin), personal/financial stability (joint accounts, mortgages, insurance). You only seem to recognize these things when straight men are deprived of them:
The psychological value of marriage to men is well-documented, and the damage done when young, single men are in greater supply than young, single women is also well-documented.
But apparently, not when gay people are deprived of them.
The only reasons I've ever heard for same-sex marriage boiled down to, "We like these people."
Please explain this double standard in your thinking, and I will refrain from applying a tag to you you don't think you deserve.
John and Joe can co-sign on the mortgage in most states.
The example of a few particularly forward thinking states does not invalidate the fact that the majority of the states in the USA do not offer such rights, or only offer some of them.
What you don't seem to realize is that everything you have argued that gay people should be allowed to have, they are allowed to have in virtually every state in the union.
The only thing they are still denied in most states is a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. Even the ability to adopt as a couple is available in most states now. It has literally come down, in virtually every state, to a fight over the word.
This statement is disingenuous, fully 20 states do not recognize civil unions between the same gender in any form, only 9 states grant civil unions most but not all legal advantages as marriage, and 6 others grant civil unions with lesser rights than marriage. This is not nearly the rosy picture you are painting of civil unions being equivalent to marriage Coming SoonTM.
*WARNING AD HOMINEM* I am beginning to get the impression you are a closet homophobe.
Another follow-up question is, is it appropriate (assuming we don't have viable cloning techniques yet) to incentivize childbearing in some other way? And if so, what would be an appropriate way to do so?
The way I see it, the drive for marriage equality has less to do with such "incentives", and more to do with the legally entrenched recognition of a spouse as one's next of kin. A look at this will show you how inconsistently civil unions are implemented and it's obvious that the most elegant solution is marriage equality.
I wonder if removing financial incentives might dampen many homosexuals' desire for matrimony.
I think the incentive for marriage equality has more to do with recognition of a partner over other relatives, in situations such as end-of-life decisions, inheritance and administration/execution of estates. This still bites many same-sex couples in the ass when one partner dies, often because of the hostility of the deceased's family. This I think is much more important than the financial aspects.
Now, if only they'd focus more on laptop/battery usage issues...
Yes, seriously, PC-BSD 7 hosed my laptop battery when I tested it because I wasn't aware it wasn't using AC power (siblings with other laptops, few power switches, bound to happen). Not only did it deplete my battery without any visual indication, it did it in such a way (I have learnt this happens if certain power settings are not enabled - [citation forgotten]) that now i have a battery life of 5 minutes vs. 3 hours before this happened...
Dude, religion and science are like two completely different answers which answer completely different questions.. If you're a religious person trying to disprove science, or a scientist\science supporter trying to disprove religion, you're like one of those crossover fanfiction people trying to prove Princess Leia and Captain Kirk would have hooked up. Totally pointless, and totally annoying...
Wine
Is
Not
Enough
Have you ever seen a non tech savvy user attempt to use wine? It's hard to use, and ugly. I know they're trying to make money out of CrossOver Office, but jeez....
Wow, this sounds like a game i played ages ago called Deus Ex... I loved that game...
Then Microsoft had to buy it out and put out Deus Ex 2: Invisible War for the xbox that was just a huge pile of shit... Well, in comparison to it's succesor...
Slashdot Mirror
You are effectively denying all science by grouping AGW sceptics with "useful idiots".
There is one huge problem with AGW: we cannot measure it. So how can you claim it is a scientific fact? If Earth is warming we certainly should be able to measure it, right? Why cannot we?
Yes, they can't measure how sea-levels are rising, causing small island nations to lose already small reserves of land, and they cant measure how el-nino and la-nina cycles are changing because of climate change, yeah totally!!! What I cannot understand is the resistance to legislature regarding fuel-efficiency and carbon emmisions caps. Industry could stand to be more resource efficient anyway, regardless of the veracity of climate change or "AGW"...
Marine science tells us that many coral species are sensitive to small temperature changes, and carbon dioxide levels rising will also cause acidification of the oceans, and the coral bleaching beginning in many parts of the tropics seem to ominously back this up. another factor in coral bleaching. Because yes, people in the northern hemisphere should be able to grow wine further up north than usual, don't worry about the die-off of some of the most important organisms in the marine enironment, I mean, fish stocks, fish life-cycles, migrations, what are those, we need wine in northern europe! By the way, my point was sincere, but that bit about northen europe was tongue-in-cheek...
Oh my goodness... Neither of us compared the other to Hitler/Satan/Nazis/unsavoury political group, not even once!!! Did we just break Godwin's Law?
Yes, this discussion was unusually civil, and that's both refreshing and scary! One question I would like to ask, is what would you do if you had the choice to vote for or against marriage equality? Would you view allowing both types of unions access to privileges associated with marriage a lesser evil than keeping the status quo, or would you vote against it with the long term goal of invalidating state favouring of all forms of marriage (keeping in mind the probability of this happening approaches, or is, zero)?
The homophobe ad hominem attack in my first reply was merely a preemptive strike (you surely must know how most slashdot discussions progress). I take that back, not because I don't think you're a homophobe, but because there is no way I can say you are without having met and gotten to know you...
Thank you too sir, for civil discourse, the way ARPANET and Al Gore intended...
Thank you for replying to my questions.
I see you are opposed to all state sponsored marriages. That gives fresh perspective on all your previous posts, and I can see know why you take the position you take. I honestly did scour your comments for signs of this, but as you said
I'm not a machine, for crying out loud.
While your position is logically consistent, and admirable in theory, it does not help real world same sex couples who are deprived of benefits and safeguards accorded to heterosexual couples. It also does not realistically endanger the privileges heterosexual couples have now.
Your position is, to the mind of one opposed to marriage equality, ideal, not only are you theoretically for same-sex marriage, you are against all marriages, and realistically, are likely to achieve neither aim.
Please enter the real world, where lives are lived and choices are made, where things like marriage equality count for something, and are not just a bit of semantic fluff.
You showed how few states recognize civil unions (bleak picture).
Yes I did, I gave actual numbers, as opposed to this
What you don't seem to realize is that everything you have argued that gay people should be allowed to have, they are allowed to have in virtually every state in the union.
The only thing they are still denied in most states is a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. Even the ability to adopt as a couple is available in most states now. It has literally come down, in virtually every state, to a fight over the word.
Which is borderline deceitful, as only later did you clarify that these rights are acquirable only individually through lawyers and not through civil unions as that passage seems to imply.
What I said in my previous post, you seem to be misunderstanding, so I'll use more words this time is this:
Marriage is a lot of things. Its a legal contract between two individuals, in some cases it's a religious convention/sacrament. It's a signifier of closeness/importance, which affects next-of-kin status and right-of-attorney, also an economic/social signifier of stability and status, which affects insurance, loan and adoption eligibility. These things have very to do directly with marriage as a reproductive strategy, and more do with individuals quality of life and happiness.
While there are many more types of marriages that should and could be recognized as legitimate by the government, such as poly(gamous/gynous)/polyamourous marriages, and a host of others, the issue at hand is same-sex marriage, and the position I seem to be getting from you (please correct me if I am wrong), is that because these other forms are not allowed, and because most of these rights are acquirable through other mean, then "meh, whats the big deal people, lets move on".
What you don't seem to appreciate is the commonness of same sex unions, the difficulties faced by them due to the absence of the option of marriage, and the inconsistency of civil union laws. These problems all affect same sex unions, and the most elegant solution seems to be extending marriage to same sex couples.
I see you seem to have no reply to my last post, but merely to attack headkase. I have a few more questions for you, and would love to get a response. This is what is said in the article you linked to above (kennethpike.com)
Sensing a theme or two? Despite my comparative apathy toward the marriage amendments, I think the most significant victory for traditional marriage--or loss for same-sex marriage, depending on your position--was the Arkansas initiative limiting adoption to married couples (in a state where same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage). This is a substantive right, a clear statement of law that there is something heterosexual couples can do that same-sex couples unequivocally cannot, at least in Arkansas.
and yet in another comment you say this
Is it illegal for you to adopt children as an individual? (I recognize that this is an unattractive alternative to a committed couple, but I am not aware of any state where only married couples may legally adopt.)
Which is it? Are you aware that what you are saying does not logically fit when taken together? You are saying, and you are right, that most of these rights\protections are acquirable through other channels.
But that's a different argument than saying these rights are "denied." It is not these rights that are denied when they are available through other channels (again--some may not be, of course)--rather, it is the convenience that is denied. Or more accurately, convenience is an incentive that you have not been offered.
But what you seem to be unaware of, or are purposely ignoring/underestimating, is the difficulty and expense of acquiring these, of hiring a lawyer, of having the initiative to foresee these things in the first place, all these things straight unions have from the outset.
Your desire to deny these things from gay couples is attributed to anti-statism.
I have lately been on a real anti-statism kick and so any time someone wants more laws, I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction--no matter the subject. I recognize that this makes me, um, quirky, to say the least
But you don't want to consider removing them from straight couples for some reason. If you reply that you do, I can't seem to read it in any of your comments. You are also conflating marraige as reproductive/procreative strategy, with marriage as a social, economic and legal institution that has less to do with reproduction than it once did.
This is less quirky than deliberately contrary.
But you're painting the picture as deliberately bleak. This is good rhetoric, I suppose, but if my statements were disingenuous for painting an unnecessarily rosy picture, yours fall prey to the same problem in reverse.
I don't see any figures or facts to support your statement that I am painting a deliberately bleak picture. Just a claim that my statements are good "rhetoric", using the word like a mild insult. All discussions of this nature are excercises in rhetoric, from both sides. What I am doing is simply using facts as opposed to anecdotes and analogies, and using them in the right context.
A modern example of how polygamy potentially hurts males can be had in the story of Utah's Lost Boys [childbrides.org].
Your attack on polygamy as a whole using the Utah "Lost Boys" as an example is a classic case of conflating issues.
You talk of marriage as a mechanism to encourage reproduction and childbearing, but seem to be ignoring its use as a signifier of importance/closeness (i.e, next-of-kin), personal/financial stability (joint accounts, mortgages, insurance). You only seem to recognize these things when straight men are deprived of them:
The psychological value of marriage to men is well-documented, and the damage done when young, single men are in greater supply than young, single women is also well-documented.
But apparently, not when gay people are deprived of them.
The only reasons I've ever heard for same-sex marriage boiled down to, "We like these people."
Please explain this double standard in your thinking, and I will refrain from applying a tag to you you don't think you deserve.
John and Joe can co-sign on the mortgage in most states.
The example of a few particularly forward thinking states does not invalidate the fact that the majority of the states in the USA do not offer such rights, or only offer some of them.
What you don't seem to realize is that everything you have argued that gay people should be allowed to have, they are allowed to have in virtually every state in the union.
The only thing they are still denied in most states is a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. Even the ability to adopt as a couple is available in most states now. It has literally come down, in virtually every state, to a fight over the word.
This statement is disingenuous, fully 20 states do not recognize civil unions between the same gender in any form, only 9 states grant civil unions most but not all legal advantages as marriage, and 6 others grant civil unions with lesser rights than marriage. This is not nearly the rosy picture you are painting of civil unions being equivalent to marriage Coming SoonTM.
*WARNING AD HOMINEM* I am beginning to get the impression you are a closet homophobe.
Another follow-up question is, is it appropriate (assuming we don't have viable cloning techniques yet) to incentivize childbearing in some other way? And if so, what would be an appropriate way to do so?
The way I see it, the drive for marriage equality has less to do with such "incentives", and more to do with the legally entrenched recognition of a spouse as one's next of kin. A look at this will show you how inconsistently civil unions are implemented and it's obvious that the most elegant solution is marriage equality.
I wonder if removing financial incentives might dampen many homosexuals' desire for matrimony.
I think the incentive for marriage equality has more to do with recognition of a partner over other relatives, in situations such as end-of-life decisions, inheritance and administration/execution of estates. This still bites many same-sex couples in the ass when one partner dies, often because of the hostility of the deceased's family. This I think is much more important than the financial aspects.
Now, if only they'd focus more on laptop/battery usage issues...
Yes, seriously, PC-BSD 7 hosed my laptop battery when I tested it because I wasn't aware it wasn't using AC power
(siblings with other laptops, few power switches, bound to happen). Not only did it deplete my battery without any visual
indication, it did it in such a way (I have learnt this happens if certain power settings are not enabled - [citation forgotten])
that now i have a battery life of 5 minutes vs. 3 hours before this happened...
Dude, religion and science are like two completely different answers which answer completely different questions.. If you're a religious person trying to disprove science, or a scientist\science supporter trying to disprove religion, you're like one of those crossover fanfiction people trying to prove Princess Leia and Captain Kirk would have hooked up. Totally pointless, and totally annoying...
Wine Is Not Enough Have you ever seen a non tech savvy user attempt to use wine? It's hard to use, and ugly. I know they're trying to make money out of CrossOver Office, but jeez....
Wow, this sounds like a game i played ages ago called Deus Ex... I loved that game... Then Microsoft had to buy it out and put out Deus Ex 2: Invisible War for the xbox that was just a huge pile of shit... Well, in comparison to it's succesor...