>> As much as I like to think I'm a special little snowflake...
Who says you can't? You can see yourself that way. I won't look down on you for that.
>> I wouldn't care, since I wouldn't exist
Then all murder is justified since the people who are murdered aren't here anymore.
>> my mom would have had a different kid she'd love just as much.
That might be true, and things like that do happen, but have you considered the lengths you're proposing to get to that point? If you have a plan (which in itself may be legitimate) but you pursue it to the point of snuffing out the life of defenseless infants, maybe you should let life work its course and stop trying to play God.
You're not going to succeed at becoming God. You might succeed at becoming the instance of a special snowflake to someone.
And the minions said, "No, you don't need to punish us for all eternity. Nothing you do can harm us as much as the despair, guilt, anxiety, and intellectual posturing we foster on ourselves."
Sure, I think people should be fire-able for bad judgement (that's not going to last much longer, though).
But does voting a certain way make it clear that someone has bad judgement in a fire-able kind of way? That's hard to separate from the Russians sending their political enemies to Siberia for "re-education" and then saying they had bad judgement.
Good/bad judgement is subjective, and, to me, this is like the executive board sending out X rated pictures of themselves and then firing the CEO because he refused to go along with it. Fire the board!
How many people out there are genuinely using the internet to research whether or not there is a God?
Friend, I'm telling you that is a small, small number.
People make that choice based entirely around how they want to live. The ones who use information/reasoning end up wobbly (and Bertrand Russell admitted it saying "the stupid are cocksure".
People are using the internet to access porn, because that's how they want to live (on some level anyway), and it's not how I want to live.
honest question: by "progressive" are you saying the writing details scientific information the general population isn't aware of, or do you mean that in a political way?
Companies should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason, but the "vagaries of contemporary employment" here means he wasn't towing a political line in his personal life.
Even though that should be (and is) legal, it concerns me when people get fired for their personal beliefs.
I think I had some awareness of the concepts you are describing, but the numerical details you shared go a long way to helping me understand the trade offs.
You're on a slippery slope. The Guardian is already calling for legalized pedophilia. Are you going to "evolve" on the issue if people say your line in the sand makes you sound like a religious nutjob?
I stand corrected on the bigamy/bigotry thing. Thanks for setting me straight.
You're saying it is OK to call some practices moral and "bigotry" to call other practices immoral.
It sounds like bigotry is just someone you disagree with. That's how Mark Twain defined bigotry, btw.
Clearly you don't think people should agree with the lines you're drawing on the sheer power of the ad hominems you're making (troll, bigot, etc)? Right? That's a thin way to place your bets.
I wouldn't look at the history of the Hapsburgs and walk away saying that it justified incest. If you're suggesting incest in general is OK (as was the Guardian), I think you are only considering the outmost surface of things. If you think you would be OK with your parents having sex with you, you really don't know yourself very well.
>> The fathers of Western civilization in ancient Greece would say "hell yes". Personally, I couldn't care less.
Well, the children of those fathers ain't reading the Symposium any more. And one of those guys (Aristotle) said homosexuality is what happens when kids aren't loved very much. Couldn't have said it better myself.
>> The state shouldn't be involved in marriage or any other religious ceremony/status.
That's a simple answer, which I usually like, but what happens when your spouse dies? Does all her wealth go to the State? Somehow I don't think you'd be too pleased with that one. What if you want to work and your spouse doesn't? Should you be allowed to balance our your tax liability between the two of you? If not you're encouraging one person (who might be trying to raise children) to work 20 hrs/wk and the spouse to also work 20 hrs/wk to get around the tax law and the government collects the same amount of money. From a purely civil perspective, I think the government has to get involved (unfortunatly), but I am honestly open to alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
>> As much as I like to think I'm a special little snowflake...
Who says you can't? You can see yourself that way. I won't look down on you for that.
>> I wouldn't care, since I wouldn't exist
Then all murder is justified since the people who are murdered aren't here anymore.
>> my mom would have had a different kid she'd love just as much.
That might be true, and things like that do happen, but have you considered the lengths you're proposing to get to that point? If you have a plan (which in itself may be legitimate) but you pursue it to the point of snuffing out the life of defenseless infants, maybe you should let life work its course and stop trying to play God.
You're not going to succeed at becoming God. You might succeed at becoming the instance of a special snowflake to someone.
And the minions said, "No, you don't need to punish us for all eternity. Nothing you do can harm us as much as the despair, guilt, anxiety, and intellectual posturing we foster on ourselves."
Sure, I think people should be fire-able for bad judgement (that's not going to last much longer, though).
But does voting a certain way make it clear that someone has bad judgement in a fire-able kind of way? That's hard to separate from the Russians sending their political enemies to Siberia for "re-education" and then saying they had bad judgement.
Good/bad judgement is subjective, and, to me, this is like the executive board sending out X rated pictures of themselves and then firing the CEO because he refused to go along with it. Fire the board!
Interesting. Thanks.
How many people out there are genuinely using the internet to research whether or not there is a God?
Friend, I'm telling you that is a small, small number.
People make that choice based entirely around how they want to live. The ones who use information/reasoning end up wobbly (and Bertrand Russell admitted it saying "the stupid are cocksure".
People are using the internet to access porn, because that's how they want to live (on some level anyway), and it's not how I want to live.
Deduction carries 100% logical strength, but I don't think you can apply pure math to answer the question of whether or not God is.
Sounds like the scientists who are employed to defend your opinions sort of embarrassed you, and this is somehow Ben Stein's fault.
honest question: by "progressive" are you saying the writing details scientific information the general population isn't aware of, or do you mean that in a political way?
Exactly. Why not let all cultures die. I wouldn't miss it.
That's what the puritans sort of tried to do. I think they had a good idea.
If I had to decide between wearing a shirt with a picture of Jay-Z in neon colors or a plain solid-color shirt, it's a no-brainer.
WASPs is partly a racial term, btw. Looks like you're pointing the finger at an ethnicity, which, last I checked, folks had no control over.
Companies should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason, but the "vagaries of contemporary employment" here means he wasn't towing a political line in his personal life.
Even though that should be (and is) legal, it concerns me when people get fired for their personal beliefs.
What about your active attempt to limit his right to donate to the cause of his preference?
Is that an issue to you or do you just want to biasedly censor people?
Wow. That is very interesting.
I think I had some awareness of the concepts you are describing, but the numerical details you shared go a long way to helping me understand the trade offs.
"Russia and China have religious people in them, and it's fine until they do something that those countries feel is a threat to the governments power"
They're bulldozing churches in China.
Are church buildings somehow a threat to the goverment's power?
If by "makes them realize that there is another way of thinking", you mean porn, then I agree.
I use the internet a lot, but I don't see anything inspirational about it.
On your death bed are you going to look back and say, "I'm so glad I got to surf the web."?
Not me.
I had heard nuclear fission reactions have a loss of ~ 1%, but matter/antimatter collisions have a loss of very near to 100%.
Is that highschool physics hearsay?
Disagree on the "fair amount of it" part. You could probably destroy the solar system with a tennis ball amount of antimatter.
How is it that you can do all that name calling and still say I'm the one guilty of hating?
Thirty years ago you would have been saying no one sane is calling for legally recognized homosexual marriages.
(btw: pedophilia doesn't necessarily mean it's against their wishes, but it's still wrong in my unwavering opinion)
Government has to draw the line somewhere. It's not obvious.
You're on a slippery slope. The Guardian is already calling for legalized pedophilia. Are you going to "evolve" on the issue if people say your line in the sand makes you sound like a religious nutjob?
I stand corrected on the bigamy/bigotry thing. Thanks for setting me straight.
You're saying it is OK to call some practices moral and "bigotry" to call other practices immoral.
It sounds like bigotry is just someone you disagree with. That's how Mark Twain defined bigotry, btw.
Clearly you don't think people should agree with the lines you're drawing on the sheer power of the ad hominems you're making (troll, bigot, etc)? Right? That's a thin way to place your bets.
Ah, in that case, I'm not sure I would laugh either.
We are, after all, wagering with our own lives.
Grouping racism in with people who are uncomfortable around muslims is a qualitative thing and therefore a matter of perspective.
Not sure I understand how your question relates. Might just be I didn't take the time to understand it. Apologies if so.
Fair enough.
Maybe we will meet up again!
>> So they're Royalists?
I wouldn't look at the history of the Hapsburgs and walk away saying that it justified incest. If you're suggesting incest in general is OK (as was the Guardian), I think you are only considering the outmost surface of things. If you think you would be OK with your parents having sex with you, you really don't know yourself very well.
>> The fathers of Western civilization in ancient Greece would say "hell yes". Personally, I couldn't care less.
Well, the children of those fathers ain't reading the Symposium any more. And one of those guys (Aristotle) said homosexuality is what happens when kids aren't loved very much. Couldn't have said it better myself.
>> The state shouldn't be involved in marriage or any other religious ceremony/status.
That's a simple answer, which I usually like, but what happens when your spouse dies? Does all her wealth go to the State? Somehow I don't think you'd be too pleased with that one. What if you want to work and your spouse doesn't? Should you be allowed to balance our your tax liability between the two of you? If not you're encouraging one person (who might be trying to raise children) to work 20 hrs/wk and the spouse to also work 20 hrs/wk to get around the tax law and the government collects the same amount of money. From a purely civil perspective, I think the government has to get involved (unfortunatly), but I am honestly open to alternatives.