If you don't understand, basically I mean: You disagree with somebody about something. Rather than just make your point, you go on with the "...jackass" "You're a naive, apologist twat. Grow up." Infer the poster live's in him mom's basement, and that's so pathetic, etc. Basically, you just acted like a dick. You showed no respect or manners.
Please don't. It makes the world suck more for no good reason.
Yeah, I have no idea how someone can say the graphics in TRON were bad by any measure. To me, the graphics were totally innovative, and we'll never see a movie that looks like that again. Why go to all of the trouble to do it that way when you can use all of modern CGI much easier now? By no means am I an "older is better" person, but there is some cool magic that gets lost here and there (and magic gained elsewhere as we develop new techniques). For example, no skeletons have ever looked cooler to me than those in movies like The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, or Jason and the Argonauts. The Jim Henson style puppet creatures in movies like "The Dark Crystal" have a certain charm for me as well. I even have a slight preference for the grittier look of original trilogy Star Wars props. That's not to say that I dislike modern CGI though, a lot of cool things have been done with it.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. You say you fault him as his style is making him the focus more than the information that has been leaked. On the other hand you seem to be saying that the leaks are unimportant. If the leaks are unimportant in the 1st place, why is Julian Assange's fault in this of any concern to you? The ol' cynical "Governements do horible things, is anyone surprised?" angle. Basically anything could be leaked and there would be somebody sitting around acting like the cool guy saying "Yeah, like we didn't already know that the US is hooking warlords up with little boys, psh... old news". Is any leak going to change the world? If it doesn't, do we just act like hipsters that are too cool to give a shit about anything at all?
Wow, nationalism can be so silly. Even sillier is pride in things you had no choice in. Black pride, white pride, gay pride, proud to be an American... Congratulations on being born by chance in a certain geographical location, with a certain skin tone, or a certain sexual orientation.
This is a typical comment. I don't really know what the point of it is though. Are you warning us as if we didn't know? Do you think Google should come up with services, but you find it distasteful for them to benefit or profit from them? Is it some sort of existential scream of "I'm not a number dammit! I'm a person!"? Do you believe this is part of a dark conspiracy that will end in some sort of dystopian future? Is it just snark against Mr. Popular: Google?
What about people who aren't pirating? Do they need to justify themselves as well? I think a backup is a legitimate use, and I think that moving to hard drives for media center convenience is also legitimate. Personally I have hundreds of ripped real physical CDs. It would be a huge pain to juggle CDs now, so much more convenient and accessible as mp3s. I haven't went to the hassle to do that with my video, but I can see its benefits being the same. I think honestly we would all have to admit that much.
People of both genders go on dates for a variety of reasons. You are defining one of those reasons as being bad/not the proper purpose. Eh... guess I don't see it.
Cool, if you see it that way, I can't say I'd necessarily disagree... and it all becomes degrees and intents, if there is reasonable moderation. If I expand my substitutions for alcohol in your statement out to more clearly "bad" things, eventually we all reach things we wouldn't do and it becomes a matter of whether our reasons for not doing so really make sense, or just are justifying our own hang ups.
"If you are so uptight and judgmental you can't even enjoy huffing a can of paint/raping a hot drunk chick/blowing a wad of cash at the casino..." etc.
One is dangerous, is bad for your brain, another is legally dangerous and against reasonable moral codes (evil?), the other may be irresponsible, or maybe not. I'm pretty sure I have more hangups than you, in a bad way that might keep me from great experiences. On the other hand, I'm not necessarily convinced that people who abstain from certain things (say, Buddhist monks, etc) are living uptight or less fulfilling lives (not claiming you are either, though maybe you are).
Why is someone who doesn't drink necessarily a tightwad? Is a person who doesn't drink also necessarily judgemental? Your comment could be read as being pretty judgemental itself.
Also, the 2nd sentence... "If you're so uptight and judgemental you can't even enjoy a single drink, that's got to have a lot of negative influence on your state of mind."...
Can't you use that same logic for any other activity other than drinking? "If you're so uptight and judgmental you can't even enjoy a single prostitute/line of coke/bacon butter cheeseburger/hot gay sex experience/ice cold Mt. Dew..." etc. Basically, you seem to be privileging alcohol consumption in an odd way here.
I don't think the left fails to see the Taliban are totally, utterly despicable bad guys. Even with a lefty attempt to try to understand a culture or movement and make allowances in the name of multiculturalism... these guys fail to hold any belief or take any action that someone from the left would agree with. It is one of, if not the most brutal, anti-woman, anti-education, fundamentalist movements ever to exist. So, I think you are mis-characterizing or misunderstanding the left.
Take your example of the Times cover. The headline that went with the picture was "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan?". That headline implies that leaving Afghanistan is to leave young women to a tragic fate. Yet, this incident happened to the woman while we were there. Is it the US responsibility to bring human rights to Afghanistan? Can we even do it if we wanted, or would war just mean death and misery, until we eventually pull out and Afghanistan goes back to its default tribal state of misery? Basically, let's assume the US wants to help. Even if we want to help, are the actions we are taking helping?
I think these are legitimate questions people from all political persuasions could hash out and try to come up with answers that work. I think that one of the problems that gets in the way of doing this is that we assume the worst of our political rivals and revert to the right-left football game where everyone's an idiot and whatnot.
I'd say it is a game where death has consequences (in time and effort). I'm not some elite PVP type player in the game, and I've often been what people in game would term a "carebear", but the danger is what makes the game thrilling (in those moments, it can be boring like any MMO as well). You don't have to be a griefer or pirate type to enjoy that they are in the game trying to screw you any way they can. The portion of industry people in the game who want to do away with danger by having CCP change the game... I really wonder why they joined the game in the 1st place. It's not like they weren't told what they were getting into. I'd also like to say it isn't a matter of more or less hardcore, or that one type of game is better than another. It's just what style of game different people prefer. If death has little consequence in WoW, and that is part of what most of the player base really enjoys about it I don't think PVPers should try to change WoW into a different game at the expense of the majority of the player base. They should find a game that fits their play style more. Likewise with Eve... screwing people over is a cornerstone of the whole thing, and protecting people from that will change the game in a way that I believe (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so) most of the player base would be dissatisfied with.
Why would it come as a shock to me? Clearly anyone understands that. Also, how does your point support your assertion that my point is moot? I do not see how that follows.
The responsibility aspect is that real modern wars involve real actual people. You are getting your jollies over the portrayal of events that are the most tragic moments of real people's lives. I mean, sure, if that is how you like your games. Still, I think it is not very respectful or classy. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/slackerwink/iraqfamily3.jpg This girl must be in her teens now. Imagine that by some unlikely circumstance she was in your neighborhood. She had the blood of her parents splattered all over her from them being killed at a checkpoint by people who invaded her country, crouched, crying while surrounded alone in the dark by the soldiers who did it. Do you find it tiresome that she would be bothered by you blowing away folks in her country on your X-Box, because "Hey, I'm just having a little fun, and I need to unlock this last achievement"? I think any mature perspective of a person able to see outside their bedroom can see the issues involved here.
Are you saying there needs to be a special law in place to prevent people and/or businesses from writing down your publicly broadcasted SSID? Maybe people should be fined or jailed? What would be the parameters on what you think should be possible?
Personally, I have a hard time conjuring up a reason to care that someone might have this info, so could you maybe paint your nightmare scenario? Is it something along the lines of "Through data-mining Google has been able to correlate my user accounts with my RL address and is guessing that it has my Access Point recorded, and my Google searches will have ads for Wireless Routers"? Or "I fear this database will become public, and people will use Google Maps and this data to stop outside my house and leech my internet, hack my system, and frame me with child porn, which is terrifying, but not so terrifying that I want to secure my Access Point"? I'm not sure what the fears are here.
You are quick to support assault, so long as the assailant wears a badge. You really think the best option for the guards was to hop into his vehicle and slug him in the face? Then when he exited the vehicle the 2nd time at their request, he is told to get down and he is under arrest, he asks why (apparently a big no no in your book), and so is pepper sprayed and threatened with a baton. You say he is a jerk. You say he is to blame for his own victimization. I mean, let's boil this down, looking at everyone as equal people deserving of respect and not making one person more important that another. In a situation that doesn't involve police or guards, usually the person who throws the 1st punch is the villain. What makes this situation different? They have a job that requires them to look through some cars. They don't want him out of his car while they do this. Apparently there is an argument. Eventually he gets back in his car. That should have been the end of it. But, in your opinion, no, the guy being upset was obstruction, so now its time to get rough with him.
I say no, don't get rough with him, because getting rough with people unnecessarily is a huge evil. What was so critical about that situation to justify physical assault?
I understand that "saw the movies as adults" means "saw the movies as adults" and not necessarily the exact scenario I laid out. Still, I guess your point is that this isn't a childhood vs. adulthood thing. Are you claiming that I will like a movie I saw at 23 more than I will like a movie I see at age 33 just because I was younger when I saw it? If that is the case, I wouldn't agree with you. I can accept the childhood nostalgia thing as a possible influence, but I think that at some point in adulthood you will have some critical facilities that a child does not have. So, I think you could even legitimately claim childhood nostalgia as an influence for adult viewers who saw the movies at some point in their childhood as well. But, if a person was an adult of any age when they 1st saw the movies, in whatever order, I think the original poster's (sammy baby's) point stands. I believe he was referring to people who saw all movies 1st as an adult, and I have doubts that adults' nostalgia for their earlier adulthood is somehow what is influencing the opinion that the newer movies are much worse.
I think a good test is to explain what Episode 1 and Episode 4 were about, and which seems most likely to appeal to kids. I don't see how someone could honestly expect children to understand the plot to Episode 1, or even adults or George Lucas himself.
Episode 4: A poor water farmboy has dreams of leaving the farm, visits a hermit who exposes him to an exciting greater world that needs saving. Returning home he sees his family has been killed, leaving him with no ties to home and thrusting him into a grand adventure where he meets a rogue and a princess, learns magic and blows up an evil Empire's greatest weapon, saving untold planets.
Episode 1: Some warrior diplomats come to discuss a trade dispute, trade federation blockades planet, then for some reason starts a war. Diplomats try to warn the princess, but instead end up coming across some aliens before getting to the princess and leaving the planet. Princess needs to convince the Senate to intervene. On the way to the Senate they stop at a planet and come across a little kid who races pods and has potential. After the Senate does nothing, these same people, with a kid in tow, go back to the planet and start a big fight. The day is saved when the kid they picked up accidently flies a ship into a space station and blows it up.
The only reason I could like one over the other is because of the age I was when I saw it...
Umm, the parent to your comment said "Find people who saw all of the movies as adults". As in "I never saw any Star Wars movies until I was 30, then I watched all 6." You've missed the parent's entire point.
You are right that the BSD license is working as intended. However, the GPL is not "stupidly restrictive", it just prioritizes different things. I know you can't be stupid yourself, so you must know this. You say "Incoming downmods, how dare I question the GPL", yet you do not really question it. You sort of insulted it, I suppose, because you said it was stupidly restrictive. But that isn't really cutting, insightful commentary. So, I guess it is one of those deals where somebody is just a bit of a dick on the internet for no particular reason.
How about hatred towards a group because of something they can help, such as their religion? I mean, I'm an atheist, but I was born to a Christian family. Not that I'm some hatred loving guy, but it certainly seems legitimate to hate a set of beliefs, by legitimate I mean "should not in any way be illegal".
People have no choice regarding the race they are born into. It is not bigoted to think that certain beliefs are ridiculous. People do not have Catholicism genetically wired into their brains.
Umm, he doesn't think he is right and everyone else is wrong. You make it sounds like he stands alone in his position. The world is not full of theists, and particularly Christians. What you are doing with that is a sort of false bandwagon argument. I mean, a bandwagon argument is poor anyways, but yours is also false because the "bandwagon" isn't even necessarily holding to your view.
You say that the creator is not bound by the laws that science operates in. Maybe that is somehow possible, in a theoretical sense we have no way of knowing. How do you know this? You say that history, revelation, and experience are used to know about God. How do you distinguish between history and mythology? How do you know who's revelation to trust? Can't one person's "revelation" just be their imagination, or their own wishes, or a lie to coerce others? What do we do when some have no experience of a God, and others do, while others have experience of encounters with extraterrestrials? Choosing to know a God in the ways you describe leads to irreconcilable differences when people have conflicting revelations or experiences with no way to sort out their differences. At least science can attempt to go to the evidence, and if it fails to resolve a difference now, there is a hope evidence may be uncovered as our knowledge advances.
Now, your relationship to your brother... well, science has some things to say about it. Things to say about genetics, mechanisms, how memories form, outside things. Your internal and shared subjective experiences, however, well, it is its own thing. Science is not so much about that internal feeling of social things, though it has certain things to say about objective mechanisms involved. Some people point to these sorts of things as the place for religion, though it has seemed better filled by philosophy and psychology and community to me.
You say that the military doesn't provide recruits with a list of assignments and wars they'll be engaging in so you can decide if you agree with the principles used to justify them. This is exactly what makes volunteering for the military such a dubious proposition, and seriously clouds the idea that such a sacrifice should automatically be considered a positive thing, or even respected.
If recruiting requires one to sacrifice your moral decision making to a 3rd party, the amount of respect you deserve really depends upon the morality of your commander, in a sense. Do I have to respect a soldier who kills someone, while I oppose that killing and everything their objective stands for? Do I only have to respect him for being from my country, or because I should give him the benefit of the doubt that he means well? What about "serving a country" makes that anything more automatically deserving of respect?
Respecting soldiers' sacrifice automatically amounts to support for what they did, even though there are instances where soldiers have been the iron fist behind atrocities and evil. Respecting the soldiers of your own nation while not having respect (or having less respect) for those of your nation's enemies basically amounts to the perpetuation of nationalism. Respect those who do good, regardless of their location or background. Respect for soldiers must be conditional based on what they have done, just like it is for any other person.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, don't be such a dick.
If you don't understand, basically I mean: You disagree with somebody about something. Rather than just make your point, you go on with the "...jackass" "You're a naive, apologist twat. Grow up." Infer the poster live's in him mom's basement, and that's so pathetic, etc. Basically, you just acted like a dick. You showed no respect or manners.
Please don't. It makes the world suck more for no good reason.
Yeah, I have no idea how someone can say the graphics in TRON were bad by any measure. To me, the graphics were totally innovative, and we'll never see a movie that looks like that again. Why go to all of the trouble to do it that way when you can use all of modern CGI much easier now? By no means am I an "older is better" person, but there is some cool magic that gets lost here and there (and magic gained elsewhere as we develop new techniques). For example, no skeletons have ever looked cooler to me than those in movies like The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, or Jason and the Argonauts. The Jim Henson style puppet creatures in movies like "The Dark Crystal" have a certain charm for me as well. I even have a slight preference for the grittier look of original trilogy Star Wars props. That's not to say that I dislike modern CGI though, a lot of cool things have been done with it.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. You say you fault him as his style is making him the focus more than the information that has been leaked. On the other hand you seem to be saying that the leaks are unimportant. If the leaks are unimportant in the 1st place, why is Julian Assange's fault in this of any concern to you? The ol' cynical "Governements do horible things, is anyone surprised?" angle. Basically anything could be leaked and there would be somebody sitting around acting like the cool guy saying "Yeah, like we didn't already know that the US is hooking warlords up with little boys, psh... old news". Is any leak going to change the world? If it doesn't, do we just act like hipsters that are too cool to give a shit about anything at all?
Wow, nationalism can be so silly. Even sillier is pride in things you had no choice in. Black pride, white pride, gay pride, proud to be an American... Congratulations on being born by chance in a certain geographical location, with a certain skin tone, or a certain sexual orientation.
This is a typical comment. I don't really know what the point of it is though. Are you warning us as if we didn't know? Do you think Google should come up with services, but you find it distasteful for them to benefit or profit from them? Is it some sort of existential scream of "I'm not a number dammit! I'm a person!"? Do you believe this is part of a dark conspiracy that will end in some sort of dystopian future? Is it just snark against Mr. Popular: Google?
What about people who aren't pirating? Do they need to justify themselves as well? I think a backup is a legitimate use, and I think that moving to hard drives for media center convenience is also legitimate. Personally I have hundreds of ripped real physical CDs. It would be a huge pain to juggle CDs now, so much more convenient and accessible as mp3s. I haven't went to the hassle to do that with my video, but I can see its benefits being the same. I think honestly we would all have to admit that much.
People of both genders go on dates for a variety of reasons. You are defining one of those reasons as being bad/not the proper purpose. Eh... guess I don't see it.
Cool, if you see it that way, I can't say I'd necessarily disagree... and it all becomes degrees and intents, if there is reasonable moderation. If I expand my substitutions for alcohol in your statement out to more clearly "bad" things, eventually we all reach things we wouldn't do and it becomes a matter of whether our reasons for not doing so really make sense, or just are justifying our own hang ups.
"If you are so uptight and judgmental you can't even enjoy huffing a can of paint/raping a hot drunk chick/blowing a wad of cash at the casino..." etc.
One is dangerous, is bad for your brain, another is legally dangerous and against reasonable moral codes (evil?), the other may be irresponsible, or maybe not. I'm pretty sure I have more hangups than you, in a bad way that might keep me from great experiences. On the other hand, I'm not necessarily convinced that people who abstain from certain things (say, Buddhist monks, etc) are living uptight or less fulfilling lives (not claiming you are either, though maybe you are).
Talk talking chat...
Why is someone who doesn't drink necessarily a tightwad? Is a person who doesn't drink also necessarily judgemental? Your comment could be read as being pretty judgemental itself.
Also, the 2nd sentence... "If you're so uptight and judgemental you can't even enjoy a single drink, that's got to have a lot of negative influence on your state of mind."...
Can't you use that same logic for any other activity other than drinking? "If you're so uptight and judgmental you can't even enjoy a single prostitute/line of coke/bacon butter cheeseburger/hot gay sex experience/ice cold Mt. Dew..." etc. Basically, you seem to be privileging alcohol consumption in an odd way here.
I don't think the left fails to see the Taliban are totally, utterly despicable bad guys. Even with a lefty attempt to try to understand a culture or movement and make allowances in the name of multiculturalism... these guys fail to hold any belief or take any action that someone from the left would agree with. It is one of, if not the most brutal, anti-woman, anti-education, fundamentalist movements ever to exist. So, I think you are mis-characterizing or misunderstanding the left.
Take your example of the Times cover. The headline that went with the picture was "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan?". That headline implies that leaving Afghanistan is to leave young women to a tragic fate. Yet, this incident happened to the woman while we were there. Is it the US responsibility to bring human rights to Afghanistan? Can we even do it if we wanted, or would war just mean death and misery, until we eventually pull out and Afghanistan goes back to its default tribal state of misery? Basically, let's assume the US wants to help. Even if we want to help, are the actions we are taking helping?
I think these are legitimate questions people from all political persuasions could hash out and try to come up with answers that work. I think that one of the problems that gets in the way of doing this is that we assume the worst of our political rivals and revert to the right-left football game where everyone's an idiot and whatnot.
I'd say it is a game where death has consequences (in time and effort). I'm not some elite PVP type player in the game, and I've often been what people in game would term a "carebear", but the danger is what makes the game thrilling (in those moments, it can be boring like any MMO as well). You don't have to be a griefer or pirate type to enjoy that they are in the game trying to screw you any way they can. The portion of industry people in the game who want to do away with danger by having CCP change the game... I really wonder why they joined the game in the 1st place. It's not like they weren't told what they were getting into. I'd also like to say it isn't a matter of more or less hardcore, or that one type of game is better than another. It's just what style of game different people prefer. If death has little consequence in WoW, and that is part of what most of the player base really enjoys about it I don't think PVPers should try to change WoW into a different game at the expense of the majority of the player base. They should find a game that fits their play style more. Likewise with Eve... screwing people over is a cornerstone of the whole thing, and protecting people from that will change the game in a way that I believe (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so) most of the player base would be dissatisfied with.
Why would it come as a shock to me? Clearly anyone understands that. Also, how does your point support your assertion that my point is moot? I do not see how that follows.
The responsibility aspect is that real modern wars involve real actual people. You are getting your jollies over the portrayal of events that are the most tragic moments of real people's lives. I mean, sure, if that is how you like your games. Still, I think it is not very respectful or classy. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/slackerwink/iraqfamily3.jpg This girl must be in her teens now. Imagine that by some unlikely circumstance she was in your neighborhood. She had the blood of her parents splattered all over her from them being killed at a checkpoint by people who invaded her country, crouched, crying while surrounded alone in the dark by the soldiers who did it. Do you find it tiresome that she would be bothered by you blowing away folks in her country on your X-Box, because "Hey, I'm just having a little fun, and I need to unlock this last achievement"? I think any mature perspective of a person able to see outside their bedroom can see the issues involved here.
From the summary, as best I can tell, we have invented Energon cubes. Drink it up, Autobots.
Well, they got a border on all of them... except Lake Michigan! USA!
Are you saying there needs to be a special law in place to prevent people and/or businesses from writing down your publicly broadcasted SSID? Maybe people should be fined or jailed? What would be the parameters on what you think should be possible?
Personally, I have a hard time conjuring up a reason to care that someone might have this info, so could you maybe paint your nightmare scenario? Is it something along the lines of "Through data-mining Google has been able to correlate my user accounts with my RL address and is guessing that it has my Access Point recorded, and my Google searches will have ads for Wireless Routers"? Or "I fear this database will become public, and people will use Google Maps and this data to stop outside my house and leech my internet, hack my system, and frame me with child porn, which is terrifying, but not so terrifying that I want to secure my Access Point"? I'm not sure what the fears are here.
You are quick to support assault, so long as the assailant wears a badge. You really think the best option for the guards was to hop into his vehicle and slug him in the face? Then when he exited the vehicle the 2nd time at their request, he is told to get down and he is under arrest, he asks why (apparently a big no no in your book), and so is pepper sprayed and threatened with a baton. You say he is a jerk. You say he is to blame for his own victimization. I mean, let's boil this down, looking at everyone as equal people deserving of respect and not making one person more important that another. In a situation that doesn't involve police or guards, usually the person who throws the 1st punch is the villain. What makes this situation different? They have a job that requires them to look through some cars. They don't want him out of his car while they do this. Apparently there is an argument. Eventually he gets back in his car. That should have been the end of it. But, in your opinion, no, the guy being upset was obstruction, so now its time to get rough with him.
I say no, don't get rough with him, because getting rough with people unnecessarily is a huge evil. What was so critical about that situation to justify physical assault?
I understand that "saw the movies as adults" means "saw the movies as adults" and not necessarily the exact scenario I laid out. Still, I guess your point is that this isn't a childhood vs. adulthood thing. Are you claiming that I will like a movie I saw at 23 more than I will like a movie I see at age 33 just because I was younger when I saw it? If that is the case, I wouldn't agree with you. I can accept the childhood nostalgia thing as a possible influence, but I think that at some point in adulthood you will have some critical facilities that a child does not have. So, I think you could even legitimately claim childhood nostalgia as an influence for adult viewers who saw the movies at some point in their childhood as well. But, if a person was an adult of any age when they 1st saw the movies, in whatever order, I think the original poster's (sammy baby's) point stands. I believe he was referring to people who saw all movies 1st as an adult, and I have doubts that adults' nostalgia for their earlier adulthood is somehow what is influencing the opinion that the newer movies are much worse.
I think a good test is to explain what Episode 1 and Episode 4 were about, and which seems most likely to appeal to kids. I don't see how someone could honestly expect children to understand the plot to Episode 1, or even adults or George Lucas himself.
Episode 4: A poor water farmboy has dreams of leaving the farm, visits a hermit who exposes him to an exciting greater world that needs saving. Returning home he sees his family has been killed, leaving him with no ties to home and thrusting him into a grand adventure where he meets a rogue and a princess, learns magic and blows up an evil Empire's greatest weapon, saving untold planets.
Episode 1: Some warrior diplomats come to discuss a trade dispute, trade federation blockades planet, then for some reason starts a war. Diplomats try to warn the princess, but instead end up coming across some aliens before getting to the princess and leaving the planet. Princess needs to convince the Senate to intervene. On the way to the Senate they stop at a planet and come across a little kid who races pods and has potential. After the Senate does nothing, these same people, with a kid in tow, go back to the planet and start a big fight. The day is saved when the kid they picked up accidently flies a ship into a space station and blows it up.
The only reason I could like one over the other is because of the age I was when I saw it...
Umm, the parent to your comment said "Find people who saw all of the movies as adults". As in "I never saw any Star Wars movies until I was 30, then I watched all 6." You've missed the parent's entire point.
You are right that the BSD license is working as intended. However, the GPL is not "stupidly restrictive", it just prioritizes different things. I know you can't be stupid yourself, so you must know this. You say "Incoming downmods, how dare I question the GPL", yet you do not really question it. You sort of insulted it, I suppose, because you said it was stupidly restrictive. But that isn't really cutting, insightful commentary. So, I guess it is one of those deals where somebody is just a bit of a dick on the internet for no particular reason.
The world is a happier place.
Thank you
How about hatred towards a group because of something they can help, such as their religion? I mean, I'm an atheist, but I was born to a Christian family. Not that I'm some hatred loving guy, but it certainly seems legitimate to hate a set of beliefs, by legitimate I mean "should not in any way be illegal".
People have no choice regarding the race they are born into. It is not bigoted to think that certain beliefs are ridiculous. People do not have Catholicism genetically wired into their brains.
Umm, he doesn't think he is right and everyone else is wrong. You make it sounds like he stands alone in his position. The world is not full of theists, and particularly Christians. What you are doing with that is a sort of false bandwagon argument. I mean, a bandwagon argument is poor anyways, but yours is also false because the "bandwagon" isn't even necessarily holding to your view.
You say that the creator is not bound by the laws that science operates in. Maybe that is somehow possible, in a theoretical sense we have no way of knowing. How do you know this? You say that history, revelation, and experience are used to know about God. How do you distinguish between history and mythology? How do you know who's revelation to trust? Can't one person's "revelation" just be their imagination, or their own wishes, or a lie to coerce others? What do we do when some have no experience of a God, and others do, while others have experience of encounters with extraterrestrials? Choosing to know a God in the ways you describe leads to irreconcilable differences when people have conflicting revelations or experiences with no way to sort out their differences. At least science can attempt to go to the evidence, and if it fails to resolve a difference now, there is a hope evidence may be uncovered as our knowledge advances.
Now, your relationship to your brother... well, science has some things to say about it. Things to say about genetics, mechanisms, how memories form, outside things. Your internal and shared subjective experiences, however, well, it is its own thing. Science is not so much about that internal feeling of social things, though it has certain things to say about objective mechanisms involved. Some people point to these sorts of things as the place for religion, though it has seemed better filled by philosophy and psychology and community to me.
You say that the military doesn't provide recruits with a list of assignments and wars they'll be engaging in so you can decide if you agree with the principles used to justify them. This is exactly what makes volunteering for the military such a dubious proposition, and seriously clouds the idea that such a sacrifice should automatically be considered a positive thing, or even respected.
If recruiting requires one to sacrifice your moral decision making to a 3rd party, the amount of respect you deserve really depends upon the morality of your commander, in a sense. Do I have to respect a soldier who kills someone, while I oppose that killing and everything their objective stands for? Do I only have to respect him for being from my country, or because I should give him the benefit of the doubt that he means well? What about "serving a country" makes that anything more automatically deserving of respect?
Respecting soldiers' sacrifice automatically amounts to support for what they did, even though there are instances where soldiers have been the iron fist behind atrocities and evil. Respecting the soldiers of your own nation while not having respect (or having less respect) for those of your nation's enemies basically amounts to the perpetuation of nationalism. Respect those who do good, regardless of their location or background. Respect for soldiers must be conditional based on what they have done, just like it is for any other person.