The people who run OKCupid are afforded those same rights. They chose to run an ad on their website bringing the issue to users' attentions, and giving them instructions how to act. Those users are then free to choose to switch browsers, quit using OKCupid, and hell, they could even choose to continue to browse the website using Mozilla. You're linking all of these quotes saying that unpopular speech must be offered the same protection as popular speech, but so far the only difference I see here is that you agree with Eich's views and disagree with OKCupid's, and you've reached the conclusion OKCupid is doing something either illegal or immoral (or something along those lines). Why are Eich's actions acceptable to you while OKCupid's are not?
You are mistaken. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association was updated in 1973 to indicate that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Look, I'm not in the business of defining other people's opinions, much like I'm not in the business of the LGBT community defining mine. I don't care what you call it, a union that receives the benefits of marriage in the eyes of the government should not be limited to persons of differing genders. My view is not that words should be redefined, rather that government has no business restricting the benefits of marriage to only straight people. I understand where the LGBT community is coming from, however, since having separate legal classifications for such a union based on the gender of those taking part in it is an ugly precedent to set.
Well, please don't project. I feel a manageable level of insulted when people suggest that I shouldn't be allowed to marry who I would like because of their religion. Once people start assuming that I'm wearing assless chaps and waving a rainbow flag in front of a Chick-fil-A whenever I mention that, I get misanthropic and generally resign from the conversation.
Donating money to a group that me I'm not allowed to marry who I want isn't politely disagreeing with someone: it's taking an active measure that will have a negative impact on my life. I know you feel like you're being civil, but telling people that "It's just my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to marry who you want" is far more insulting than I think you realize it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know all that. Still itching to learn more.
Whichever. I like math. I'd like to see either.
Fine. Show me the math that says people cannot here the difference.
But there's not much substance to the study, either. You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.
Can you show me the math that proves that there's no difference between an uncompressed audio source and a 320kbps mp3?
Too late. The summary already gave our resident armchair-experts enough fodder laugh over how everyone is stupid except them.
I don't know that this guy does, though.
I'm surprised I haven't been called a fag yet. Guess I've been playing too much dota.
The people who run OKCupid are afforded those same rights. They chose to run an ad on their website bringing the issue to users' attentions, and giving them instructions how to act. Those users are then free to choose to switch browsers, quit using OKCupid, and hell, they could even choose to continue to browse the website using Mozilla. You're linking all of these quotes saying that unpopular speech must be offered the same protection as popular speech, but so far the only difference I see here is that you agree with Eich's views and disagree with OKCupid's, and you've reached the conclusion OKCupid is doing something either illegal or immoral (or something along those lines). Why are Eich's actions acceptable to you while OKCupid's are not?
You are mistaken. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association was updated in 1973 to indicate that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Look, I'm not in the business of defining other people's opinions, much like I'm not in the business of the LGBT community defining mine. I don't care what you call it, a union that receives the benefits of marriage in the eyes of the government should not be limited to persons of differing genders. My view is not that words should be redefined, rather that government has no business restricting the benefits of marriage to only straight people. I understand where the LGBT community is coming from, however, since having separate legal classifications for such a union based on the gender of those taking part in it is an ugly precedent to set.
No worries, it's all good.
It's funny, I've heard that line before, and I've always been bothered by those facts, but now that I'm in a relationship...goddamn that stings.
I don't think the texting I've been doing has affected this conversation, but if it would make you more comfortable I'll keep my phone on my desk.
Isn't the majority of the country in favor of allowing gays to marry? It was either that or pot that tipped recently and I forget which.
Well, please don't project. I feel a manageable level of insulted when people suggest that I shouldn't be allowed to marry who I would like because of their religion. Once people start assuming that I'm wearing assless chaps and waving a rainbow flag in front of a Chick-fil-A whenever I mention that, I get misanthropic and generally resign from the conversation.
I don't donate money to political causes. Could you show me where I wasn't nice? I feel like my post was about as tactful as I could have made it.
*that tells me I'm not allowed to marry
Preview exists for a reason; I gotta remember that.
Donating money to a group that me I'm not allowed to marry who I want isn't politely disagreeing with someone: it's taking an active measure that will have a negative impact on my life. I know you feel like you're being civil, but telling people that "It's just my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to marry who you want" is far more insulting than I think you realize it is.
More vocal seems likely. Or maybe we're just more irked by it than we used to be.
Agreed. They already track everything I do, anyway. A little DNS monitoring from our less-evil corporate overlord is no problem in my book.
Just leave me to my nostalgia, damnit!
Six of one...
In 2009 Slashdot turned into an internet libertarian website targeted to IT personnel. Didn't you get that memo?
I've found that I play better the drunker I get. After ten beers the zero-G heart transplant was a breeze.