So? If you have chosen for the lesser evil, then it is still incumbent upon you to simply admit it, lest people mistrust your integrity.
Using a form of 'I detest the lesser evil but...' followed by a defense of said evil is simply being to cowardly to admit it right out. That's what I'm objecting to, not the mere fact that he chose sides in the first place.
After all, he could have posted a passionate attack on Little England and the Daily Heil who cause this poisoned atmosphere, but he didn't do so, now did he?,/P.
Perhaps this is an appropriate quote:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
The day an art book containing reproductions of renaissance paintings with naked cherubs in them gets pulled for kiddie porn is the day I can see this concern. Until then it's just the usual libertard ranting.
A law making it illegal to photograph the "intimate parts" of women and children in public. What could go wrong? [Link to photograph of 'Manneken Pis' in Brussesl]
Yes, because a prohibition on the wilful taking of photographs of intimate parts of living human beings is the same as a prohibition on photographing statues.
Do you have to work at being this moronic, or does it come naturally?
No, Tim Cook should be praised because he stood up to the right-wing idiots and told them where to stuff it, instead of treating them like an equal partner in a sensible debate.
The right-wing thinktanks have been flooding debates with PR puff pieces (also known as 'lies') instead of facts, and it is high time they got called on it.
so because "white, libertarian men" decide they want to support something, does that automatically make it bad or wrong?
Not directly. However, since 'white, libertarian men' are without fail complete idiots, it is a good reason to treat anything they espouse with some extra levels of scepticism.
Because that's the logical endpoint of denying womens' agency.
It's not my fault your statement literally translates to "When a woman says no, she means yes." It's right there in your own words, so you might want to look up what strawman means.
It's not the mere fact that you can't just be an 'ass hat' that is the problem. What is the problem is that employers communicate these things among each other (that is how you gain a reputation, and that is collusion), forcing employees to put up with inane questions on interviews for fear of losing an opportunity.
And if you can't see that this is a power imbalance that can only be fixed by taking collective action on the employees end, then congratulations, you're an idiot. Go read some Adam Smith to educate yourself.
Apparently very few women want to be software devs
Given the rampant misogyny on display in the tech world, especially on discussion sites like this, would you want to become a sofware dev, were you a woman?
As it so happens, I qualify my statements if qualifiers are relevant, instead of making dumb generalisations. And note that I posted numbers supporting my qualifications, whereas you have not produced anything but bare assertions.
First hand experience. You, in contrast, seem to be the kind of moron who mistakes self-serving misinformation by US political groups for sound factual information.
Again you demonstrate your great intelligence; as my username might hint, I actually was born and live in Europe. Whereas your professed knowledge sounds suspiciously like the ravings of the right wing echo chamber.
I think it's fairly obvious who's the rational one here.
Apparently Eric has decided he has been out of the public eye too long, as he posts yet another self-aggrandizing screed on a mailing list.
Seriously, after the kernel configuration debacle and his hysterical rants on the Fedora list, does anyone take this man seriously anymore? Look at how he represents himself: an expert on source control systems, whose highest achievement is moving troff to a git repo. It's kconfig all over again.
In this case, religious people are using the power of the State to compel their followers to stick to the dogma. In every civilised country on this planet that is seen as an unconscionable violation of the separation of Church and State.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop listening to the right-wing echo chamber.
So? If you have chosen for the lesser evil, then it is still incumbent upon you to simply admit it, lest people mistrust your integrity.
Using a form of 'I detest the lesser evil but ...' followed by a defense of said evil is simply being to cowardly to admit it right out. That's what I'm objecting to, not the mere fact that he chose sides in the first place.
After all, he could have posted a passionate attack on Little England and the Daily Heil who cause this poisoned atmosphere, but he didn't do so, now did he?,/P.
Perhaps this is an appropriate quote:
The day an art book containing reproductions of renaissance paintings with naked cherubs in them gets pulled for kiddie porn is the day I can see this concern. Until then it's just the usual libertard ranting.
In other words, you are perfectly fine with censorship and eavesdropping. That was what I said in the first place, wasn't it?
Anytime anyone uses the 'A but B' form, they mean they agree with B but just don't have the integrity to admit it explicitly.
Yes, because a prohibition on the wilful taking of photographs of intimate parts of living human beings is the same as a prohibition on photographing statues.
Do you have to work at being this moronic, or does it come naturally?
No, Tim Cook should be praised because he stood up to the right-wing idiots and told them where to stuff it, instead of treating them like an equal partner in a sensible debate.
The right-wing thinktanks have been flooding debates with PR puff pieces (also known as 'lies') instead of facts, and it is high time they got called on it.
Not directly. However, since 'white, libertarian men' are without fail complete idiots, it is a good reason to treat anything they espouse with some extra levels of scepticism.
"Not using the actual proof, do you have any proof that these laws work?"
Fuck you. I'm not going to discuss things with people who start out by stacking the deck in their favour.
Yes, it does. Now my counterquestion: if that social power is heavily skewed against minorities, is it a bad thing to skew it to more of a balance?
Ever heard of the 'tu quoque' fallacy?
I don't. Why don't you provide a link to said debunking?
Because that's the logical endpoint of denying womens' agency.
It's not my fault your statement literally translates to "When a woman says no, she means yes." It's right there in your own words, so you might want to look up what strawman means.
"I know she said no, but she totally meant yes"
That's some real questionable reasoning you're showing there.
It's not the mere fact that you can't just be an 'ass hat' that is the problem. What is the problem is that employers communicate these things among each other (that is how you gain a reputation, and that is collusion), forcing employees to put up with inane questions on interviews for fear of losing an opportunity.
And if you can't see that this is a power imbalance that can only be fixed by taking collective action on the employees end, then congratulations, you're an idiot. Go read some Adam Smith to educate yourself.
And yet, even when faced with such obvious collusion by employers, and the power difference this creates, most techies are still violently anti-union.
Dunning-Kruger is alive and well, it seems.
That's a whole lot of crazy there, but not a lot of original thought.
Using 'political correctness' just proves that you're an asshole looking for excuses for your bigotry, and not open to any discussion at all.
Given the rampant misogyny on display in the tech world, especially on discussion sites like this, would you want to become a sofware dev, were you a woman?
Actually, you did.
What's with bigots being so tender that they can't stand being called out on their bigotry?
Of course, given your username, the balance of probability says you're just playing a bigot to troll.
It is by far not the only correct response.
Laws like in the EU that forbid selling of private information without prior consent is another possibility.
As it so happens, I qualify my statements if qualifiers are relevant, instead of making dumb generalisations. And note that I posted numbers supporting my qualifications, whereas you have not produced anything but bare assertions.
Again you demonstrate your great intelligence; as my username might hint, I actually was born and live in Europe. Whereas your professed knowledge sounds suspiciously like the ravings of the right wing echo chamber.
I think it's fairly obvious who's the rational one here.
Apparently Eric has decided he has been out of the public eye too long, as he posts yet another self-aggrandizing screed on a mailing list.
Seriously, after the kernel configuration debacle and his hysterical rants on the Fedora list, does anyone take this man seriously anymore? Look at how he represents himself: an expert on source control systems, whose highest achievement is moving troff to a git repo. It's kconfig all over again.
Almost all EU nations cover contraception partially, and the majority offers comprehensive (up to 100%) coverage.
In short, you're wrong. Where do you get your knowledge of Europe from? Talk radio?
In this case, religious people are using the power of the State to compel their followers to stick to the dogma. In every civilised country on this planet that is seen as an unconscionable violation of the separation of Church and State.