Market forces won't work if there's no incentive to be right. It's tempting for ideologues to sign up and just vote the way they want it to go, instead of the way they think it will go.
Then you are a predator. In the minds of these people, going to the bar and looking for the sluttiest girl is no different from going to the watering hole and looking for the slowest Wildebeest. You will get caught in a drag net, and no one will care that you're harmless because you've been labeled a sexual predator. After all, "if it stops just one rape..."
Because you said, "Mormons voted, based on their religion, to ban homosexual marriage" I wanted to point out that many Mormons opposed prop8
Ah, you assumed that because I used a collective noun, that my statement refered to every member of that group and not just a general tendency. That's a bad assumption.
Also, I am a little curious why you feel the Mormons are so responsible for proposition 8.
The degree of their responsibility isn't relevent in this context. They only need to be a little bit responsible in order to counter the statement that "Mormons believe in freedom from religion".
Once you argue that certain reasons for voting a particular way should be invalid, you're marching down the road to having thought police.
Who argued that the vote was invalid? All I said is that Mormons voted to force their religion on non-mormons. They won, their policy was implemented, and this is an example of Mormons forcing their religion on others.
Nothing said in this thread anywhere addresses the point that mormons have forced their religion on nonmormons in California. Yes, they did it through the legal process, but it's still force.
So lots of people voted exactly the same way for reasons that had nothing to do with what the Mormons think
Yeah, let's ignore the Mormon sponsored propaganda blitz across California. That never happened...
De facto demanding that religious people abandon their religious motivations at the ballot box is equally idiotic.
Did I demand that? No, I only asked that you understand what it is that you are doing when you vote based on your religious belifs. You are trying to force those beliefs on other people. That's what it is.
Win the debate, win the vote. You lost the debate and so you lost the vote. Next time, rouse your side and do a better job of winning the debate and you'll win the vote.
I agree entirely. And at that point it will be me forcing my liberal beliefs on you. Make sense now?
If you have to wait for a compatriot to leave the country and return before you get uncensored news you'll miss the protests going on downtown. The point of the firewall is to prevent an Arab Spring from occuring in China.
Yes, by all means, factor in human stupidity. Humans aren't getting any stupider, so that will be a constant. The technology keeps getting better though. So we can look at the past 60 years of human experience with nuclear and be reasonably sure that nuclear power won't be any more dangerous in the future than it has been in the past.
And already today, nuclear power causes fewer deaths per watt than any other source of power. Even wind power and solar have a greater death toll than nuclear power.
Or you know, we could sit around and do nothing and continue to let thousands of people die in coal mines and from inhalation of radioactive coal dust. That would be the stupid and reckless part.
Are you seriously trying to argue that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote because it isn't fair for the non-religous people?
No, I'm suggesting that we call it what it is. If you vote to force your religion on people that is what you are doing. Deal with it.
Are you suggesting that no Mormons are homosexual? Or are you suggesting that no Mormons voted against prop8? I assure you that if you are both suggestions are false.
How did you infer either of those from what I said? Neither follow.
Mormons voted, based on their religion, to ban homosexual marriage. This ban applies to people who do not follow that religion. Do I need to draw you a diagram?
Your objections that it is limited to a bare head count are manufactured from your personal belief, not explicit in the Constitution.
I guess the 9th amendment doesn't exist then?
For me, the duties of government are sufficiently encompassing that I prefer them to have knowledge to shape their actions, and the Census is a cost-efficient baseline. Do you deny that the federal government does have powers and responsibilities and that to conduct them effectively, it would be better to be informed than ignorant?
Yes, absolutely. Nothing about that means it's OK for them to extract that information under threat of violence however. Forcing me to make any kind of declaration whatsoever violates my freedom of speech.
Not at all, I just do not concur with your position which I see as extreme and irrational.
And it's rational and not extreme at all to send government agents to my door asking personal questions and criminalizing me if I assert my right to privacy?
Risk is damage * incidence. A high damage event with low incidence can be lower risk than a low damage event with high incidence. This is in fact the case when we compare nuclear with coal power.
If you can't understand this basic principle of risk analysis, you are too stupid to contribute anything to this discussion.
It sucks, and it's humiliating for those who are strip searched due to minor crimes or worse yet, court system fuck-ups (which is part of what this case had going for it to make a sympathetic plaintiff) but the alternative is the crime and drug gangs just having a few guys whose job it is to get arrested for running enough stoplights to smuggle stuff in to the leaders on a 30-day pass and pass messages back and forth from the outside too.
Bullshit. There's a number of alternatives. How about we don't put people in jail until they've been found guilty? If you can't deal with that, how about we keep the accused away from the convicted, and keep the 30 day inmates away from the inmates who are in for years?
Unlimited strip searches are not the only alternative.
Actually resisting arrest is a relatively serious crime.
Only when accompanied by a valid arrest. By valid arrest, I mean one that results in a conviction for a crime that causes more damage than the arrest itself does.
It's happening right now. If the Deepwater accident happened in lots of other countries you'd never even have heard about it, much less had a huge cleanup effort.
If the BP incident occured in a country with a functioning regulatory system there would have been a relief well drilled along with the main well. Then once the thing popped, you could have it shut down in a day or two instead of three months.
Instead we all got to sit around doing nothing while BP dumped dispersant to hide (not remove, not clean, hide) the damage they caused. That dispersant actually increased the damage the oil caused, by allowing it to mix with water it enters biological systems more easily.
Oh, you're one of THOSE people. Conditioned by people bound to stop domestic production at any cost to the environment or other people.
And you're one of THOSE people, conditioned to continue releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at any cost to the environment or other people.
The fact is there are ALREADY pipelines over that area. There has not been an issue from that. Also of course, the pipelines would be closely monitored and the aquifer is incredibly deep - any small spills that might occur would simply have zero effect.
There hasn't been an issue from that yet. Before the BP incident in the Gulf we could have said something similar about gulf drilling. Also, how do you propose they closely monitor the integrity of 1700 miles of pipeline?
I note you have no counter for the fact that ethically it's far better to get oil from Canada than the middle east.
I have none, because it's irrelevant. Canada was going to ship their oil overseas anyway, even if we build the pipeline. Why do you think they wanted to run the pipeline to the gulf? So they could ship it!
So, you're totally okay with being arrested and being thrown into a cage with other people (quite likely to be criminals) for any reason whatsoever
No, no I'm not. Locking people into cages is barbaric, and the fact that we do this to innocent people before they've had a single day in court is doubly barbaric. Triply barbaric is the fact that they have no recourse against their aggressor once they've been found innocent.
However, the Census bureau doesn't stop there. Have you seen the "American Community Survey"? They request extremely detailed information (what time do you go to work?) that could easily be used to victimize people. And if you refuse to answer, they threaten you with fines.
Never mind that the Constitution only empowers the government to take a head count once every 10 years, not a detailed statistical sampling of 1/10th of the population every year. I ended up filling in the number of people in my household and sending it back. I got a few visits from Census officials every few days for a few months but they gave up eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
So, when's Sony getting fined for storing data in the clear as exposed in the PSN and LulzSec breaches?
Market forces won't work if there's no incentive to be right. It's tempting for ideologues to sign up and just vote the way they want it to go, instead of the way they think it will go.
You could say the same thing about a female victim of rape, and it would be just as wrong.
What if I am just trying to get laid?
Then you are a predator. In the minds of these people, going to the bar and looking for the sluttiest girl is no different from going to the watering hole and looking for the slowest Wildebeest. You will get caught in a drag net, and no one will care that you're harmless because you've been labeled a sexual predator. After all, "if it stops just one rape..."
We all have our brain farts. :D
A real solution is end to end encryption network-wide, which is what IPv6 was supposed to do
LOLWUT?
Because you said, "Mormons voted, based on their religion, to ban homosexual marriage" I wanted to point out that many Mormons opposed prop8
Ah, you assumed that because I used a collective noun, that my statement refered to every member of that group and not just a general tendency. That's a bad assumption.
Also, I am a little curious why you feel the Mormons are so responsible for proposition 8.
The degree of their responsibility isn't relevent in this context. They only need to be a little bit responsible in order to counter the statement that "Mormons believe in freedom from religion".
Yes it is. Orbits, unlike the weather, are not chaotic.
An orbit is not chaotic. Solving two orbits (three bodies) is the exact problem that lead to the development of chaos theory.
Neither is good, yet people scream when we want to invest in renewable sources that *ARE* better in all respects.
What renewable energy source is safer than nuclear?
Once you argue that certain reasons for voting a particular way should be invalid, you're marching down the road to having thought police.
Who argued that the vote was invalid? All I said is that Mormons voted to force their religion on non-mormons. They won, their policy was implemented, and this is an example of Mormons forcing their religion on others.
Nothing said in this thread anywhere addresses the point that mormons have forced their religion on nonmormons in California. Yes, they did it through the legal process, but it's still force.
So lots of people voted exactly the same way for reasons that had nothing to do with what the Mormons think
Yeah, let's ignore the Mormon sponsored propaganda blitz across California. That never happened...
De facto demanding that religious people abandon their religious motivations at the ballot box is equally idiotic.
Did I demand that? No, I only asked that you understand what it is that you are doing when you vote based on your religious belifs. You are trying to force those beliefs on other people. That's what it is.
Win the debate, win the vote. You lost the debate and so you lost the vote. Next time, rouse your side and do a better job of winning the debate and you'll win the vote.
I agree entirely. And at that point it will be me forcing my liberal beliefs on you. Make sense now?
If you have to wait for a compatriot to leave the country and return before you get uncensored news you'll miss the protests going on downtown. The point of the firewall is to prevent an Arab Spring from occuring in China.
Yes, by all means, factor in human stupidity. Humans aren't getting any stupider, so that will be a constant. The technology keeps getting better though. So we can look at the past 60 years of human experience with nuclear and be reasonably sure that nuclear power won't be any more dangerous in the future than it has been in the past.
And already today, nuclear power causes fewer deaths per watt than any other source of power. Even wind power and solar have a greater death toll than nuclear power.
Or you know, we could sit around and do nothing and continue to let thousands of people die in coal mines and from inhalation of radioactive coal dust. That would be the stupid and reckless part.
Are you seriously trying to argue that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote because it isn't fair for the non-religous people?
No, I'm suggesting that we call it what it is. If you vote to force your religion on people that is what you are doing. Deal with it.
Are you suggesting that no Mormons are homosexual? Or are you suggesting that no Mormons voted against prop8? I assure you that if you are both suggestions are false.
How did you infer either of those from what I said? Neither follow.
Nobody forced anything on anyone. The mormons followed the legal, established process for prop 8.
In what world do you live in where passing a law doesn't equate to the use of force?
Mormons voted, based on their religion, to ban homosexual marriage. This ban applies to people who do not follow that religion. Do I need to draw you a diagram?
This is no joke. We can't even solve the three body problem. Who thinks we can solve the three hundred thousand body problem?
Your objections that it is limited to a bare head count are manufactured from your personal belief, not explicit in the Constitution.
I guess the 9th amendment doesn't exist then?
For me, the duties of government are sufficiently encompassing that I prefer them to have knowledge to shape their actions, and the Census is a cost-efficient baseline. Do you deny that the federal government does have powers and responsibilities and that to conduct them effectively, it would be better to be informed than ignorant?
Yes, absolutely. Nothing about that means it's OK for them to extract that information under threat of violence however. Forcing me to make any kind of declaration whatsoever violates my freedom of speech.
Not at all, I just do not concur with your position which I see as extreme and irrational.
And it's rational and not extreme at all to send government agents to my door asking personal questions and criminalizing me if I assert my right to privacy?
Risk is damage * incidence. A high damage event with low incidence can be lower risk than a low damage event with high incidence. This is in fact the case when we compare nuclear with coal power.
If you can't understand this basic principle of risk analysis, you are too stupid to contribute anything to this discussion.
Failing to realize that there are different degrees of safety, and that nuclear is much, much safer than coal, is even stupider.
The Church also strongly believes in freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion, if thats what "floats your boat".
That didn't stop you from forcing your religion on homosexual couples in California.
It sucks, and it's humiliating for those who are strip searched due to minor crimes or worse yet, court system fuck-ups (which is part of what this case had going for it to make a sympathetic plaintiff) but the alternative is the crime and drug gangs just having a few guys whose job it is to get arrested for running enough stoplights to smuggle stuff in to the leaders on a 30-day pass and pass messages back and forth from the outside too.
Bullshit. There's a number of alternatives. How about we don't put people in jail until they've been found guilty? If you can't deal with that, how about we keep the accused away from the convicted, and keep the 30 day inmates away from the inmates who are in for years?
Unlimited strip searches are not the only alternative.
Actually resisting arrest is a relatively serious crime.
Only when accompanied by a valid arrest. By valid arrest, I mean one that results in a conviction for a crime that causes more damage than the arrest itself does.
It's happening right now. If the Deepwater accident happened in lots of other countries you'd never even have heard about it, much less had a huge cleanup effort.
If the BP incident occured in a country with a functioning regulatory system there would have been a relief well drilled along with the main well. Then once the thing popped, you could have it shut down in a day or two instead of three months.
Instead we all got to sit around doing nothing while BP dumped dispersant to hide (not remove, not clean, hide) the damage they caused. That dispersant actually increased the damage the oil caused, by allowing it to mix with water it enters biological systems more easily.
Oh, you're one of THOSE people. Conditioned by people bound to stop domestic production at any cost to the environment or other people.
And you're one of THOSE people, conditioned to continue releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at any cost to the environment or other people.
The fact is there are ALREADY pipelines over that area. There has not been an issue from that. Also of course, the pipelines would be closely monitored and the aquifer is incredibly deep - any small spills that might occur would simply have zero effect.
There hasn't been an issue from that yet. Before the BP incident in the Gulf we could have said something similar about gulf drilling. Also, how do you propose they closely monitor the integrity of 1700 miles of pipeline?
I note you have no counter for the fact that ethically it's far better to get oil from Canada than the middle east.
I have none, because it's irrelevant. Canada was going to ship their oil overseas anyway, even if we build the pipeline. Why do you think they wanted to run the pipeline to the gulf? So they could ship it!
So, you're totally okay with being arrested and being thrown into a cage with other people (quite likely to be criminals) for any reason whatsoever
No, no I'm not. Locking people into cages is barbaric, and the fact that we do this to innocent people before they've had a single day in court is doubly barbaric. Triply barbaric is the fact that they have no recourse against their aggressor once they've been found innocent.
However, the Census bureau doesn't stop there. Have you seen the "American Community Survey"? They request extremely detailed information (what time do you go to work?) that could easily be used to victimize people. And if you refuse to answer, they threaten you with fines.
Never mind that the Constitution only empowers the government to take a head count once every 10 years, not a detailed statistical sampling of 1/10th of the population every year. I ended up filling in the number of people in my household and sending it back. I got a few visits from Census officials every few days for a few months but they gave up eventually.