So why is Leviticus used as the reason homosexuals are bad?
The reason Leviticus is used as an excuse to persecute homosexuals is because people are inherently uncomfortable with sexual concepts, and being homosexual is the current taboo. The bible repeatedly makes it clear that any whitelist/blacklist of rights/wrongs (slashdot should understand those words) is not the intent of the laws or any acceptable standard of behavior. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent people from saying "hah! look there! that's not ok!" or "well nothing says I'm not allowed to do this..." as if somehow the authors of the books were trying to present some kind of uncaring legalistic code of conduct. For example:
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
You can go your whole life without killing someone, and still be guilty of murder according to biblical philosophy. Basically, anyone who tries to use the bible as a way to slander homosexuals is only airing their own prejudices and has misunderstood the entire biblical presentation of what makes a person decent, which is your intentions and caring (not as easy a standard as you might think though), but nothing like "do X and you'll be a good/bad person".
It was added to the US constitution because state governments were unable to implement copy laws. If someone had copy protection in one state, then someone else could just ignore the copy law in another state.
Which leads to one among many arguments against copy law: it requires universal government to implement it. That should be a nail in the coffin of any legal policy.
In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
For you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard.
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
Christianity advocates persuasion and being an example. "Fundamentalist" christianity is actually very peaceful. That doesn't prevent very unpeaceful people from trying to commandeer a philosophy's good reputation and use it for to try to conquer others, but those types of people will use anything they can get their hands on.
Do you actually believe that there is no exercise of force involved on the part of the state? The force to physically kidnap a person to interrogate them? The force to keep them from leaving an interrogation? The force being threatened during the interrogation? The force of killing someone who ultimately won't comply? And yes, governments will ultimately kill you if you don't comply, no matter how trivial their complaint is. It goes (1) government complaint (2) refuse to pay fine (3) refuse to go to jail (4) killed.
The police are under assault. That's what happens when your job is violence and you don't have public support. It's one of the reasons why the principles of a republic are so important: if a bunch of self righteous crusaders in 27 states get marijuana outlawed across all 50 states, then in 23 states you end up with a police force enforcing laws that the local people do not want enforced. And so you get LA gangs and and no one defending their local police and they do indeed "come under assault". But they should be under assault. They should be very afraid to enforce laws that will make them unpopular.
Gendarme are an occupying force, that act as law enforcement on behalf of the occupier but generally don't fight in combat roles.
Sorry to be a bit rude, but you make it sound like you live in a world where cops enforce the law with smiles. And sorry to have to be that guy, but the police are the violent (combative) arm of governments and no choice of vocabulary will change that.
To call them gendarme rather than the soldiers of foreign tyrants is quite an amusing choice of words. It's a choice of words I doubt you would use when talking to the families who are abused by foreign soldiers and have no realistic means of defense or justice against them.
My point (that I realize no one will agree with because it's like trying to explain what's wrong with slavery to a slave owner) is that war will always create these situations, and it is what one is supporting when he supports war. Of course, in some cases war is preferable to a peaceful slavery, but pretending that war can be pleasant by using words like "gendarme" is a luxury of a country that sends war to other countries and hasn't had to pay for it locally yet.
Stop thinking the guys in the trenches bear primary responsibility for the commands of their political masters.
That seems to me a bit like saying "don't hold the arms and legs responsible for what the brain is ordering them to do". Why not hold them responsible? Sometimes you have to kill some pawns to get to the king, and in this case, perfectly willing voluntary pawns. We can hold everyone responsible for their own choices, there is no limit to the blame that can be passed around.
Did you really think the soldier did what they did because they wanted information? Nonsense. They did it because they are soldiers, and killing people nonchalantly is what soldiers' occupation is.
Saying that you'll deal with the brutality of soldiers in interrogations by sending in specialists is completely ignoring my point. When you are constantly sending soldiers in to other people's neighborhoods, you are responsible for them doing what soldiers will always do. Advocating for a specialists is like arguing "well, rape here is a major problem, but that's only because rapists aren't trained to gather information. We'll send in some professional hookers, and when they do it to you, then you'll enjoy it".
Send in as many specialists as you want. The soldiers thought the guy was a god damn taxi driver and tortured him to death anyway. This is what you vote for when you keep voting for "this isn't really a war" candidates.
That's strange. Nowhere in the constitution that I read did it mention that the government's job was to protect the safety of anyone, much less that protecting safety was a justification of exercise of unconstitutional government power.
But then again there seems to be this version of the constitution floating around that everyone else is using that I can't seem to get a copy of. Maybe it's on pirate bay. Oh wait that got temporarily shut down again...
Bullshit. VLSI code is almost always verified by finite models, and many processors are verified down to the level of mathematical axiom. Provably correct software code exists in small amounts, and it's emergence is inevitable.
* Of course, the term "safe" has a limited meaning. A compiler can't read your mind but, to the extent that a language is well designed, it can prevent you from doing things that you could not have intended to do and force you to follow rules that will never allow certain common errors that result from people having limited memory.
Sometimes when trying to explain verified software I say "This is a correct program. It might not be the correct program you intended it to be, but your code is objectively not any correct program."
You gotta do what you gotta do. If someone was tied to terrorizing my neighborhood I would hang them from a chain, soak them with salt water, and zap them with a MIG Welder.
God I hope you aren't American. Because to any objective observer, it is the US who is terrorizing everyone else's neighborhoods. Do you apply the same standard to yourself?
They should just write a program that checks all possible passwords. Getting the hardware that can support that is the state's obligation. Hopefully it will find the password before the sun explodes.
Your idea of freedom is incredibly remedial, and I would appreciate if you don't attempt to impose that definition of freedom on anyone else.
Btw, the problem with outlawing shouting "fire" in a movie theatre is that is bases a law on actions rather than intent. That is always a mistake. Always. But it is a very insidious way to create "exceptions" to constitutional rights. And quite effective, because I am stuck in a world where no one can reason that far.
The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:
You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.
+5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?
You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.
You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.
Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy and sell elections. And you know the saying, if you aren't the customer, then you are the product. You aren't buying an election from them? Then you are the product.
He could have just joined the government. People always assume that government workers are angels and that the rest of the citizens are not to be trusted.
Really, if it is too dangerous for the general population to know, then it is too dangerous for a government worker to know. If it scares you that a random journalist got a list of every single firearms license holder, then it should scare you just as much that random government workers have access to that same information.
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
--Thomas Jefferson
In principle, unless everyone is safe to know it, then then government cannot be allowed to know either. Do you really trust that bonehead bully that became a cop? Do you really trust your senators with inside legislative information (think insider trading) who won't publicize their private policy meetings? Everyone or no one.
Slashdot Mirror
So why is Leviticus used as the reason homosexuals are bad?
The reason Leviticus is used as an excuse to persecute homosexuals is because people are inherently uncomfortable with sexual concepts, and being homosexual is the current taboo. The bible repeatedly makes it clear that any whitelist/blacklist of rights/wrongs (slashdot should understand those words) is not the intent of the laws or any acceptable standard of behavior. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent people from saying "hah! look there! that's not ok!" or "well nothing says I'm not allowed to do this..." as if somehow the authors of the books were trying to present some kind of uncaring legalistic code of conduct. For example:
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
You can go your whole life without killing someone, and still be guilty of murder according to biblical philosophy. Basically, anyone who tries to use the bible as a way to slander homosexuals is only airing their own prejudices and has misunderstood the entire biblical presentation of what makes a person decent, which is your intentions and caring (not as easy a standard as you might think though), but nothing like "do X and you'll be a good/bad person".
It was added to the US constitution because state governments were unable to implement copy laws. If someone had copy protection in one state, then someone else could just ignore the copy law in another state.
Which leads to one among many arguments against copy law: it requires universal government to implement it. That should be a nail in the coffin of any legal policy.
Intellectual property was created for the benefit of society.
No. It wasn't.
And is EXACTLY the same as Christianity.
No, it really isn't.
In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
For you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard.
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
Christianity advocates persuasion and being an example. "Fundamentalist" christianity is actually very peaceful. That doesn't prevent very unpeaceful people from trying to commandeer a philosophy's good reputation and use it for to try to conquer others, but those types of people will use anything they can get their hands on.
Whoa. They had quality testers?
Do you actually believe that there is no exercise of force involved on the part of the state? The force to physically kidnap a person to interrogate them? The force to keep them from leaving an interrogation? The force being threatened during the interrogation? The force of killing someone who ultimately won't comply? And yes, governments will ultimately kill you if you don't comply, no matter how trivial their complaint is. It goes (1) government complaint (2) refuse to pay fine (3) refuse to go to jail (4) killed.
Yeah, the police feel they are under assault.
The police are under assault. That's what happens when your job is violence and you don't have public support. It's one of the reasons why the principles of a republic are so important: if a bunch of self righteous crusaders in 27 states get marijuana outlawed across all 50 states, then in 23 states you end up with a police force enforcing laws that the local people do not want enforced. And so you get LA gangs and and no one defending their local police and they do indeed "come under assault". But they should be under assault. They should be very afraid to enforce laws that will make them unpopular.
Gendarme are an occupying force, that act as law enforcement on behalf of the occupier but generally don't fight in combat roles.
Sorry to be a bit rude, but you make it sound like you live in a world where cops enforce the law with smiles. And sorry to have to be that guy, but the police are the violent (combative) arm of governments and no choice of vocabulary will change that.
To call them gendarme rather than the soldiers of foreign tyrants is quite an amusing choice of words. It's a choice of words I doubt you would use when talking to the families who are abused by foreign soldiers and have no realistic means of defense or justice against them.
My point (that I realize no one will agree with because it's like trying to explain what's wrong with slavery to a slave owner) is that war will always create these situations, and it is what one is supporting when he supports war. Of course, in some cases war is preferable to a peaceful slavery, but pretending that war can be pleasant by using words like "gendarme" is a luxury of a country that sends war to other countries and hasn't had to pay for it locally yet.
Stop thinking the guys in the trenches bear primary responsibility for the commands of their political masters.
That seems to me a bit like saying "don't hold the arms and legs responsible for what the brain is ordering them to do". Why not hold them responsible? Sometimes you have to kill some pawns to get to the king, and in this case, perfectly willing voluntary pawns. We can hold everyone responsible for their own choices, there is no limit to the blame that can be passed around.
Did you really think the soldier did what they did because they wanted information? Nonsense. They did it because they are soldiers, and killing people nonchalantly is what soldiers' occupation is.
Saying that you'll deal with the brutality of soldiers in interrogations by sending in specialists is completely ignoring my point. When you are constantly sending soldiers in to other people's neighborhoods, you are responsible for them doing what soldiers will always do. Advocating for a specialists is like arguing "well, rape here is a major problem, but that's only because rapists aren't trained to gather information. We'll send in some professional hookers, and when they do it to you, then you'll enjoy it".
Send in as many specialists as you want. The soldiers thought the guy was a god damn taxi driver and tortured him to death anyway. This is what you vote for when you keep voting for "this isn't really a war" candidates.
That's strange. Nowhere in the constitution that I read did it mention that the government's job was to protect the safety of anyone, much less that protecting safety was a justification of exercise of unconstitutional government power.
But then again there seems to be this version of the constitution floating around that everyone else is using that I can't seem to get a copy of. Maybe it's on pirate bay. Oh wait that got temporarily shut down again...
And provably correct code is still a pipe dream.
Bullshit. VLSI code is almost always verified by finite models, and many processors are verified down to the level of mathematical axiom. Provably correct software code exists in small amounts, and it's emergence is inevitable.
* Of course, the term "safe" has a limited meaning. A compiler can't read your mind but, to the extent that a language is well designed, it can prevent you from doing things that you could not have intended to do and force you to follow rules that will never allow certain common errors that result from people having limited memory.
Sometimes when trying to explain verified software I say "This is a correct program. It might not be the correct program you intended it to be, but your code is objectively not any correct program."
You gotta do what you gotta do. If someone was tied to terrorizing my neighborhood I would hang them from a chain, soak them with salt water, and zap them with a MIG Welder.
God I hope you aren't American. Because to any objective observer, it is the US who is terrorizing everyone else's neighborhoods. Do you apply the same standard to yourself?
Damn. This is why the US being forever at war is so disgusting. This is what happens when you send soldiers on bully missions.
They should just write a program that checks all possible passwords. Getting the hardware that can support that is the state's obligation. Hopefully it will find the password before the sun explodes.
That would be from my favorite Shakespeare :
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
The Tragedy of Julius Casear, Act 1, Scene 2, Cassius persuading Brutus that Caesar has become so popular that Rome and the citizens suffer
"For the luls" takes on a whole new meaning then...
In Dutch, the plural of driver (bestuurder) is bestuurders
Best Turder? Why can't we have such awesome words in English?
I, for one, welcome our new E-Mag spectrum overlords.
Your idea of freedom is incredibly remedial, and I would appreciate if you don't attempt to impose that definition of freedom on anyone else.
Btw, the problem with outlawing shouting "fire" in a movie theatre is that is bases a law on actions rather than intent. That is always a mistake. Always. But it is a very insidious way to create "exceptions" to constitutional rights. And quite effective, because I am stuck in a world where no one can reason that far.
The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:
You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.
+5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?
You can say that again. I think the monopoly that is television is the biggest obstacle to 3rd party candidates.
You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.
You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.
Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy and sell elections. And you know the saying, if you aren't the customer, then you are the product. You aren't buying an election from them? Then you are the product.
He could have just joined the government. People always assume that government workers are angels and that the rest of the citizens are not to be trusted.
Really, if it is too dangerous for the general population to know, then it is too dangerous for a government worker to know. If it scares you that a random journalist got a list of every single firearms license holder, then it should scare you just as much that random government workers have access to that same information.
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
--Thomas Jefferson
In principle, unless everyone is safe to know it, then then government cannot be allowed to know either. Do you really trust that bonehead bully that became a cop? Do you really trust your senators with inside legislative information (think insider trading) who won't publicize their private policy meetings? Everyone or no one.