Instead of name calling, how about argue the points? At least back up your statements.
How is marriage a "right"? How am I a "homophobe" for arguing that it is NOT a right?
Marriage isn't something the government should even be involved with. But I guess I'm a homophobe, a racist, sexist or whatever hatemonger label you want to toss at me for DARING to say something isn't a right!
If you were interested in skipping the "bullshit", you would stick to the topic instead of trying to equivocate my position to that of southern slave owners. How is that not attacking the person?
Marriage is not a right -- and certainly not like freedom or liberty. I think it's silly to make it a right, treat it like a right and get all upset when it's "revoked". I'd rather see business of marriage out of the hands of government entirely and solely a religious practice. Let governments issue civil domestic partnership contracts universally.
Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
Pretty big leap to go from "MAY" as in the article you sort of cite (but obviously didn't read) to "ARE" as you claim. Unfortunately, this falls in line with your displayed inability to avoid logical fallacies. In the future, I would suggest when you include links to prove your point that you include a section of the article which will support you rather than just linking to something and doing the rhetorical equivalent of "SO THERE!"
Regardless, eye color is genetic, too. I can't WILL myself to have brown eyes if my eyes are green -- even if I declare I have the right to green eyes.
Sexual preference is not like race or ethnicity. Proof: A homosexual can choose to engage is heterosexual sex -- a black man cannot choose to be Hispanic.
Again, how are they exactly alike? Hint: A better "analogy" would be to equate sexual preference to gender, but even that is apples and oranges.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any sexual preference. My position is and has been that marriage is not a natural right, but a well defined institution with a long history in our culture. I object to changing what marriage is/means to fit someone elses agenda. Pretending it's a "right" doesn't make it so. Again, I think marriage should be out of any government involvement what-so-ever.
Why do we give tax breaks to home owners who put in solar panals? Or penalize via taxes smokers?
Taxes are both a carrot and stick for social behavior modification. It's a different topic.
Why does a heterosexual couple get rights of visitation in jails, hospitals etc. but not homosexuals ? If you are suggesting that this is wrong, I agree. What does that have to do with the topic?
This is one of the reasons that restricting the word "marry" to heterosexuals is problematic.
Now you've lost me. It's not limited to heterosexuals. It's limited to man and woman. It becomes problematic when you try to redefine marriage to be a "natural right" like freedom and liberty.
That's not splitting hairs, that's being stupid and completely missing the point of the entire debate.
Missing the point of the entire debate is to attempt to equate or confuse marriage (a legal/religious institution) with natural rights (such as freedom and liberty). They are, and should be different.
To attempt to redefine what "marriage" means reeks of Orwellian think-speak.
So... you also don't know the difference between legal rights and natural rights?
Freedom is a NATURAL right. It exists independent of law or politics -- regardless if someone is "legally" enslaved.
But, if it suits you to call me "evil" and create this fake image of me in favor of slavery, which you do with your "hell" "civil war" comments, fine. Your answer is to attack the person, not the argument. Got it.
Indeed. A specific instance of that general case would be saying that someone born in slavery to slave parents can't have their freedom taken away because they were never free to begin with. Most citizens of developed nations would vehemently disagree with that latter statement, which means that they disagree with the general form as well.
Freedom is a Natural Right. It exists independent of law or politics. That one can be "legally" enslaved does not mean they have not nor never had rights to freedom.
Your analogy is poor and displays a lack of understand of what "rights" are.
Said by a white man to a black man: "You already have the right to be black, I don't".
Is there a "right" to make pi = 3? Is there a "right" to make right angles 87 degrees?
The answer is NOT to redefine what marriage is -- it reeks of Orwellian think-speak and I think a good argument can be made that the attempt is "pathetic".
You said something somebody didn't have couldn't be taken away, no antecedent explicitly stated. In the context of natural rights, that's debatable, in the context of legal rihgts, it's a mistake or a lie.
Even in the context of "legal rihgts(sic)", a good argument can be made. In California, for instance, it was the courts who decided this right, which never existed before was somehow always there -- and the numerous efforts by the people of California to prevent it/stop it were each ignored by the courts. It finally took the people of California to change their constitution to prevent the courts from stretching reason to find this "new" right where it never existed.
And rather than address my points, you address my manner.
Your manner WAS your point. You had no other point other than to make a personal attack. You all but say this yourself:
I know and consciously choose when to lower myself to an ad hominem level and accept all responsibility for it
The commenter you were responding to was asking about taking away Forge (2456)'s right to marriage, meaning his/her right to marry a heterosexual partner. That right has historically existed. Comparing a heterosexual who can't marry the person they love and a homosexual who can'y marry the person they love is a valid comparison.
I disagree. I believe it is not a valid comparison. I think the problem is you and others are considering the term "marriage" to mean something today that it did not mean historically.
This isn't about suppressing rights of a minority group -- it's about the creation of a NEW right -- one that didn't exist before -- and in so doing fundamentally change what the meaning of the term/word "marriage" is. I'm all for civil and legal equality for those who are "married" and domestic partners, but I'm against changing what "marriage" means.
1) You've little understanding what rights are. Particularly the difference between Legal and Natural rights. 2) You engage in name calling and threats of violence against those with whom you disagree. 3) Demonstrate little understanding of logical fallacies.
Let's see... You attempt to:
o brow beat me o talk down to me o imply I'm illogical o imply I'm stupid o threaten anybody who further disagrees with you
Do you want to discuss the topic, or attack the person?
Let's take away your ability to marry, and then see if you might be so inclined to lash out in any way. Perhaps when your loved one is dying in the hospital, and you are not allowed to go see her. Would you sit quietly by? I doubt it.
How can something be taken away which really hasn't existed historically? I can use a similar argument: "Let's take away your ability to fly by flapping your arms..."
And to split hairs, homosexuals currently have the right to marry. A homosexual man can marry any woman who sees fit agree, and a homosexual woman can marry any man who sees fit to agree. As a heterosexual man, I do not have the right to marry any man. Seems pretty clear and equally applied. Man marries Woman.
From my point of view, the state/government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. It should be a religious state. Just have civil contracts to define "partners" rights.
Well, you are more insightful than you thought you are. Lenin came to power most of all because he promised to withdraw from the First World War, something the provisional government of Kerensky also promised but never did.
Are you wacked? This is exactly why he SHOULDN'T have received the prize.
Chamberlain SHOULDN'T have wont the prize either, yet he did. And the world got WWII and all it's children (all the cold-war related conflicts). Good intentions are not enough. And if you can't see parallels between Chamberlain's 1930's England and Obama's US, you are being blind -- Willfully blind. "Savior of modern Europe (The Observer - 1938)" my aunt's patootie.
I think my 9 year old son may possibly deserve the prize, but it's too early to say.
Seriously? 8 months in to an administration which has failed to do most of what it promised? With a supra-majority? After a senate "career" which to be GENEROUS would be to claim it was nearly worthless (how many "present" votes did he cast? How many did he miss?)
Obama will no more bring "peace" to the middle east than Nixon brought peace to Vietnam and Cambodia -- but I agree, if he DOES pull this particular hat out of a rabbit, then yes -- he would deserve it.
If the award was about intentions, why not award it to Lenin, Hoover or the Pope? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
While it may give you a "false" sense that your system is SECURE, when added with other precautions it will reduce the odds of getting "owned" -- as part of a comprehensive security plan. If your ONLY security is running ssh on port 10225 (or whatever), then I agree with you. Bad idea.
Running on a non-standard port will in the very least dramatically reduce your chances of getting hit by any zero-day exploits (give you a chance to fix/update ssh that bots are trying to exploit). It certainly reduces the amount of "noise" I need to sift through in my logs on a daily basis.
It might also help to run a trigger (like port sentry) to kill access to any IP attempting to connect to port 22.
I find that many of the teenagers I've met and several twenty-somethings with little or no "religious upbringing" have little interest in where humans came from -- but more interest in where's the next "fun" thing to do. Not to imply that the older crowd (of which, I'm a member) aren't much better.
Don't blame peoples faith on the current lack of interest in science. It certainly didn't stop the progress of science. And if you want to argue it did, I'd suggest you read up on Alfred Wegener, Edward Witten and Antoine Lavoisier, for example. They provided novel and new theories in their respective fields and were roundly criticized. Hell, Witten couldn't get post-grad PhD candidates to work with him because his work was so unpopular. All poo-poo'd by the scientific community.
The problem is FAITH, it's HUMAN NATURE. GROUPS don't like the status quo challenged. If it's faith being challenged by science, established science being challenged by newer theories, or science being challenged by faith, it doesn't matter.
1) have an overinflated sense of how much they are worth in the current market and/or
1) That's a guess on your part unsupported by any citations 2) People unemployed generally *WILL* take a cut in what they were USED to making when the alternative is making either zero or unemployment which generally pays less then they would make working.
2) aren't much better than the H1-Bs.
1) Your argument is -- well. Silly. 2) How can it be better bringing in "not much better" outside labor when the labor pool does exist here already? 3) You need to review how H1-Bs are SUPPOSED to work.
So... what you are saying is that the UN should threaten IRAN to REMOVE sanctions and encourage trade and offer technology if they dare develop nukes?
Frankly, the UN is impotent to do or enforce anything. That the UN can't even enforce 15 min time limits on speeches to the GA.
What's the goal? No nukes for Iran? Free trade won't stop it. Is the goal a more "democratic" and free Iran? It appears that years of sanctions hasn't stopped the movement in that direction.
I think in the end, Israel will decide it needs to take out Iran's reactors for it's security. They'll take the heat for it, like they did when they blasted Iraq. And the "game" will continue.
Lets assume you are correct. Who's to say a warmer earth is bad? It wasn't long ago we were told we were heading in to a new ice age. Climate cycles actually suggest we are (were) heading down that path. Wouldn't we WANT to warm the earth?
Ice age aside, wouldn't an increased crop growth durations help battle famine? Who's to say the effects will have a negative impact? Lets study the impact rather than demand we do stuff that will destroy not just the developed worlds economy, but potentially starve millions when the industrial world can no longer afford to produce food and medicine on the current scale.
What I'm hearing you say is that there are non-solar theories to explain these warming trends on these planets, et al.
Triton (weird mix up) is not thought to be warming due to "changes in it's surface reflectivity", but possibly due to it's rotation cycle (it's "summer" there).
Mars, as stated, is theorized to be, at least in part, due to it's rotational anomalies. We also have slight variations in earths obliquity -- and precession. What are the effects of summers when the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun (less ocean surface area getting warmed -- as it is now) as to when the southern hemisphere is closer (more ocean, less land)?
We also have increased solar activity.
It would be silly to use such arguments to attempt to refute anthropogenic global warming as a "hoax". It would in my opinion, likewise be silly to insist it is solely anthropogenic because there are non-solar theories to explain the above warming trends off earth. I believe a better argument would be to focus on the effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of name calling, how about argue the points? At least back up your statements.
How is marriage a "right"? How am I a "homophobe" for arguing that it is NOT a right?
Marriage isn't something the government should even be involved with. But I guess I'm a homophobe, a racist, sexist or whatever hatemonger label you want to toss at me for DARING to say something isn't a right!
If you were interested in skipping the "bullshit", you would stick to the topic instead of trying to equivocate my position to that of southern slave owners. How is that not attacking the person?
Marriage is not a right -- and certainly not like freedom or liberty. I think it's silly to make it a right, treat it like a right and get all upset when it's "revoked". I'd rather see business of marriage out of the hands of government entirely and solely a religious practice. Let governments issue civil domestic partnership contracts universally.
Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
Pretty big leap to go from "MAY" as in the article you sort of cite (but obviously didn't read) to "ARE" as you claim. Unfortunately, this falls in line with your displayed inability to avoid logical fallacies. In the future, I would suggest when you include links to prove your point that you include a section of the article which will support you rather than just linking to something and doing the rhetorical equivalent of "SO THERE!"
Regardless, eye color is genetic, too. I can't WILL myself to have brown eyes if my eyes are green -- even if I declare I have the right to green eyes.
Sexual preference is not like race or ethnicity. Proof: A homosexual can choose to engage is heterosexual sex -- a black man cannot choose to be Hispanic.
Again, how are they exactly alike? Hint: A better "analogy" would be to equate sexual preference to gender, but even that is apples and oranges.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any sexual preference. My position is and has been that marriage is not a natural right, but a well defined institution with a long history in our culture. I object to changing what marriage is/means to fit someone elses agenda. Pretending it's a "right" doesn't make it so. Again, I think marriage should be out of any government involvement what-so-ever.
Why does a man marrying a woman get a tax break ?
Why do we give tax breaks to home owners who put in solar panals? Or penalize via taxes smokers?
Taxes are both a carrot and stick for social behavior modification. It's a different topic.
Why does a heterosexual couple get rights of visitation in jails, hospitals etc. but not homosexuals ?
If you are suggesting that this is wrong, I agree. What does that have to do with the topic?
This is one of the reasons that restricting the word "marry" to heterosexuals is problematic.
Now you've lost me. It's not limited to heterosexuals. It's limited to man and woman. It becomes problematic when you try to redefine marriage to be a "natural right" like freedom and liberty.
Missing the point of the entire debate is to attempt to equate or confuse marriage (a legal/religious institution) with natural rights (such as freedom and liberty). They are, and should be different.
To attempt to redefine what "marriage" means reeks of Orwellian think-speak.
So... you also don't know the difference between legal rights and natural rights?
Freedom is a NATURAL right. It exists independent of law or politics -- regardless if someone is "legally" enslaved.
But, if it suits you to call me "evil" and create this fake image of me in favor of slavery, which you do with your "hell" "civil war" comments, fine. Your answer is to attack the person, not the argument. Got it.
It's a shame. You started out rational, too.
Snarkalert:
So, in your mind then, putting words in people's mouths (straw man) isn't a logically fallacy? /EndSnarkAlert.
Shall we start with the basics?
How is race like homosexuality?
Freedom is a Natural Right. It exists independent of law or politics. That one can be "legally" enslaved does not mean they have not nor never had rights to freedom.
Your analogy is poor and displays a lack of understand of what "rights" are.
Pathetic?
Said by a white man to a black man: "You already have the right to be black, I don't".
Is there a "right" to make pi = 3? Is there a "right" to make right angles 87 degrees?
The answer is NOT to redefine what marriage is -- it reeks of Orwellian think-speak and I think a good argument can be made that the attempt is "pathetic".
Even in the context of "legal rihgts(sic)", a good argument can be made. In California, for instance, it was the courts who decided this right, which never existed before was somehow always there -- and the numerous efforts by the people of California to prevent it/stop it were each ignored by the courts. It finally took the people of California to change their constitution to prevent the courts from stretching reason to find this "new" right where it never existed.
Your manner WAS your point. You had no other point other than to make a personal attack. You all but say this yourself:
I know and consciously choose when to lower myself to an ad hominem level and accept all responsibility for it
So, I did address your point.
I disagree. I believe it is not a valid comparison. I think the problem is you and others are considering the term "marriage" to mean something today that it did not mean historically.
This isn't about suppressing rights of a minority group -- it's about the creation of a NEW right -- one that didn't exist before -- and in so doing fundamentally change what the meaning of the term/word "marriage" is. I'm all for civil and legal equality for those who are "married" and domestic partners, but I'm against changing what "marriage" means.
1) You've little understanding what rights are. Particularly the difference between Legal and Natural rights.
2) You engage in name calling and threats of violence against those with whom you disagree.
3) Demonstrate little understanding of logical fallacies.
Let's see... You attempt to:
o brow beat me
o talk down to me
o imply I'm illogical
o imply I'm stupid
o threaten anybody who further disagrees with you
Do you want to discuss the topic, or attack the person?
How can something be taken away which really hasn't existed historically? I can use a similar argument: "Let's take away your ability to fly by flapping your arms..."
And to split hairs, homosexuals currently have the right to marry. A homosexual man can marry any woman who sees fit agree, and a homosexual woman can marry any man who sees fit to agree. As a heterosexual man, I do not have the right to marry any man. Seems pretty clear and equally applied. Man marries Woman.
From my point of view, the state/government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. It should be a religious state. Just have civil contracts to define "partners" rights.
Are you wacked? This is exactly why he SHOULDN'T have received the prize.
Chamberlain SHOULDN'T have wont the prize either, yet he did. And the world got WWII and all it's children (all the cold-war related conflicts). Good intentions are not enough. And if you can't see parallels between Chamberlain's 1930's England and Obama's US, you are being blind -- Willfully blind. "Savior of modern Europe (The Observer - 1938)" my aunt's patootie.
I think my 9 year old son may possibly deserve the prize, but it's too early to say.
Seriously? 8 months in to an administration which has failed to do most of what it promised? With a supra-majority? After a senate "career" which to be GENEROUS would be to claim it was nearly worthless (how many "present" votes did he cast? How many did he miss?)
Obama will no more bring "peace" to the middle east than Nixon brought peace to Vietnam and Cambodia -- but I agree, if he DOES pull this particular hat out of a rabbit, then yes -- he would deserve it.
If the award was about intentions, why not award it to Lenin, Hoover or the Pope? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I would argue that it is a good idea.
While it may give you a "false" sense that your system is SECURE, when added with other precautions it will reduce the odds of getting "owned" -- as part of a comprehensive security plan. If your ONLY security is running ssh on port 10225 (or whatever), then I agree with you. Bad idea.
Running on a non-standard port will in the very least dramatically reduce your chances of getting hit by any zero-day exploits (give you a chance to fix/update ssh that bots are trying to exploit). It certainly reduces the amount of "noise" I need to sift through in my logs on a daily basis.
It might also help to run a trigger (like port sentry) to kill access to any IP attempting to connect to port 22.
.
There. Fixed that for you.
Ug... Change "The problem is FAITH" to "The problem isn't FAITH". Failed to proof.
I find that many of the teenagers I've met and several twenty-somethings with little or no "religious upbringing" have little interest in where humans came from -- but more interest in where's the next "fun" thing to do. Not to imply that the older crowd (of which, I'm a member) aren't much better.
Don't blame peoples faith on the current lack of interest in science. It certainly didn't stop the progress of science. And if you want to argue it did, I'd suggest you read up on Alfred Wegener, Edward Witten and Antoine Lavoisier, for example. They provided novel and new theories in their respective fields and were roundly criticized. Hell, Witten couldn't get post-grad PhD candidates to work with him because his work was so unpopular. All poo-poo'd by the scientific community.
The problem is FAITH, it's HUMAN NATURE. GROUPS don't like the status quo challenged. If it's faith being challenged by science, established science being challenged by newer theories, or science being challenged by faith, it doesn't matter.
All written on vellum.
1) That's a guess on your part unsupported by any citations
2) People unemployed generally *WILL* take a cut in what they were USED to making when the alternative is making either zero or unemployment which generally pays less then they would make working.
1) Your argument is -- well. Silly.
2) How can it be better bringing in "not much better" outside labor when the labor pool does exist here already?
3) You need to review how H1-Bs are SUPPOSED to work.
That 3% would take a huge cut out of the IT unemployment figures...
So... what you are saying is that the UN should threaten IRAN to REMOVE sanctions and encourage trade and offer technology if they dare develop nukes?
Frankly, the UN is impotent to do or enforce anything. That the UN can't even enforce 15 min time limits on speeches to the GA.
What's the goal? No nukes for Iran? Free trade won't stop it. Is the goal a more "democratic" and free Iran? It appears that years of sanctions hasn't stopped the movement in that direction.
I think in the end, Israel will decide it needs to take out Iran's reactors for it's security. They'll take the heat for it, like they did when they blasted Iraq. And the "game" will continue.
Lets assume you are correct. Who's to say a warmer earth is bad? It wasn't long ago we were told we were heading in to a new ice age. Climate cycles actually suggest we are (were) heading down that path. Wouldn't we WANT to warm the earth?
Ice age aside, wouldn't an increased crop growth durations help battle famine? Who's to say the effects will have a negative impact? Lets study the impact rather than demand we do stuff that will destroy not just the developed worlds economy, but potentially starve millions when the industrial world can no longer afford to produce food and medicine on the current scale.
Just sayin...
And?
What I'm hearing you say is that there are non-solar theories to explain these warming trends on these planets, et al.
Triton (weird mix up) is not thought to be warming due to "changes in it's surface reflectivity", but possibly due to it's rotation cycle (it's "summer" there).
Mars, as stated, is theorized to be, at least in part, due to it's rotational anomalies. We also have slight variations in earths obliquity -- and precession. What are the effects of summers when the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun (less ocean surface area getting warmed -- as it is now) as to when the southern hemisphere is closer (more ocean, less land)?
We also have increased solar activity.
It would be silly to use such arguments to attempt to refute anthropogenic global warming as a "hoax". It would in my opinion, likewise be silly to insist it is solely anthropogenic because there are non-solar theories to explain the above warming trends off earth. I believe a better argument would be to focus on the effect.