I'm not saying your case rests on ad hominems and using the word "equality" to support your biases when it suits you, but that is the way you are contending for it.
Marriage is solely a societal mechanism? I'm telling you, I wasn't thinking at all about society when I married my wife. As far as I'm concerned "society" is a pretext for uppity people impose their herd mentality on others. Often when they're in the minority.
To say that it's a biased gift to a certain group of people is simply false. Someone wants to stay home and the other wishes to work. Suppose they both decide to work 20 hours a week instead. Then (all things being equal) they end up sending same amount to the IRS as if they had a "marriage benefit" (which in actuality costs something post Bush tax cuts). Are you saying there's a meaningful difference that one person should be discouraged from staying home while the other works?
I am happily married for almost 10 years. I don't think these tribes are as happy as you think. Most tribes with "open marriages" and "children in common" have average life expectancies of 7 or 8 and rampant rape problems.
Maybe in your experience married people seem unhappy, but that isn't my experience, and I think you should reconsider why people that don't have notions of marriages and families do not prosper.
I believe it was Barack Obama who said in an IL debate that ethics and morality are inseparably linked.
As someone who voted against him twice I'm inclined to agree. Civics/ethics approximates how you would want to be treated (e.g. you probably don't want to be murdered, to be stolen from, etc). Treating others the way you want to be treated is the foundation of morality.
The reason why no one in Europe cares what party is next to a person's name is because all European parties stand for the same thing: bigger government, restricting personal freedom, increase taxes, etc.
As an American liberal and conservative (however you define them) mean polar opposite things. But then the conservative Cameron (in Europe) forms an alliance with the liberal party? In Europe Angela Merkel is a conservative, but she's also a liberal.
So when it gets reported that one of these bland-ist politicians did something that favors one side, people (in the US and Europe) say, "So what? Both sides are the same."
What does make headlines is when a European head of state supports an American who stands for something. So when Tony Blair supported Bush, there were riots in the streets. I personally witnessed them (as an American abroad in Oxford).
This camera really belonged to someone. As I recall certain people within NASA allowed this fellow (an astronaut, I think) to keep it. NASA also gives other things stickers, honorary coins, salaries, etc. to its employees, by the way, which tax payers have lost all claims on.
Eventually the Obama administration confiscated it under its general policy of confiscating everything it can get away with (dinosaur bones, archeological relics from other countries, lots and lots of gold coins) because -unlike the Soviets of yore who allowed private citizens to actually own some non-land property- the Obama administration does not want individuals to have private property.
The US government did nothing to maintain or keep track of this camera all those years. That was done by this guy. If another country has it in their hands, never, never give it back to the turkeys who stole it first. So, yeah, I agree with Klaus.
Whatever claims are made in the report (factual, estimates, speculation, etc) rests on the trust you give those people. After the IPCC said snow was thawing at an incredible rate based on the 3rd hand testimony of some mountain hiker, people are finding it very difficult to trust these people.
Calling the climate gate emails (where the scientists admitting they had trouble finding reasons to keep out their opponents from publications and hiding the decline in temperatures) an email hack is like calling the Deepthroat testimony a privacy breech. Maybe Nixon's privacy did get breeched, but... well... there's a bigger story in there.
Predispositions go both ways, my friend, and I think you made up your mind a while back. Anytime I hear the word "proof" where there are two sides, I think someone is grabbing the mantle of objectivity so they can ram their pre-digested opinions down someone else's throat. The same thing goes for public policing of these opinions and playing games with the burden of proof. Most Americans see the shenanigans here, and I certainly don't see myself ever believing in AGW.
I think it was Freud (not a Christian as far as I know) who said in Civilization and its Discontents that you can not have purpose without religion. Freud instead proposed finding happiness, but (as he himself would say) it is impossible to know if someone in another time found happiness. Some of the details I've heard from his life do not indicate to me that he succeeded, but I'll grant that I'm a third party.
Anyway, I suppose it would be difficult to reflect on and recognize the deep/paradoxical things in life without positing a relationship between soul and body as spirit or someone who laid it all down on your behalf. What do you have to celebrate? Nietzsche's approach was to have a kind of existential/reflective view of things that led him to the point where he viewed it be better to not have been born (see The Birth of Tragedy), and then he went and died from syphilis. A lot of my secular friends skipped the reflective part and just jumped straight into hedonism. Is there a meaningful difference between those two paths?
I'm not suggesting Nietzsche was some monolithic entity or that every secularist must follow down his path (i.e. trying to find a deep meaning in life eventually living a prodigal lifestyle), but I would be interested in hearing where someone could depart from that without taking the leap of faith toward the Ethical/Religious sphere of existence.
Slashdot Mirror
You're saying Prop 8 isn't much different than penalizing people for being black.
But I can just as easily say it's more like discriminating against pedophilia (something, I hope, we all agree is bad).
Hmm ... wasn't aware of that one.
I don't know about a fun read. If I was still drowning, I wouldn't laugh at a life preserver that got tossed my way.
I'm not saying your case rests on ad hominems and using the word "equality" to support your biases when it suits you, but that is the way you are contending for it.
In other words when someone criticizes a group you like it's useful.
Or are you saying that if I choose to not hire a lazy person I am being racist against lazy people?
"The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny."
...".
... Etc ...
I would have still married my wife if we couldn't have kids. I'm not sure how a person can make a monolithic statement about "the purpose of X
What is the purpose of a key for Benjamin Franklin? Etc
Do you think it was OK for Obama to be against homosexuality when he ran for office in 2008?
If this is not an easy question for you, then there is a valid reason to bring it up.
Marriage is solely a societal mechanism? I'm telling you, I wasn't thinking at all about society when I married my wife. As far as I'm concerned "society" is a pretext for uppity people impose their herd mentality on others. Often when they're in the minority.
To say that it's a biased gift to a certain group of people is simply false. Someone wants to stay home and the other wishes to work. Suppose they both decide to work 20 hours a week instead. Then (all things being equal) they end up sending same amount to the IRS as if they had a "marriage benefit" (which in actuality costs something post Bush tax cuts). Are you saying there's a meaningful difference that one person should be discouraged from staying home while the other works?
I am happily married for almost 10 years. I don't think these tribes are as happy as you think. Most tribes with "open marriages" and "children in common" have average life expectancies of 7 or 8 and rampant rape problems.
Maybe in your experience married people seem unhappy, but that isn't my experience, and I think you should reconsider why people that don't have notions of marriages and families do not prosper.
If the CEO was against pedophilia would it be wrong to call for a boycott?
If not, then you are simply speaking out in favor of a double-standard.
I believe it was Barack Obama who said in an IL debate that ethics and morality are inseparably linked.
As someone who voted against him twice I'm inclined to agree. Civics/ethics approximates how you would want to be treated (e.g. you probably don't want to be murdered, to be stolen from, etc). Treating others the way you want to be treated is the foundation of morality.
What if I have religious beliefs against polygamy and pedophilia and want a policy change that would ostracize part of the population?
>> Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.
If you think of pedophilia as a bad thing, are you now a bigot?
What about polygamy? (Which is sort of ironic because bigotry can mean someone who marries multiple people).
What if I think people should not be allowed to marry abstract ideas? Is it hate speech to say I disagree with that practice?
I think that one went over my head.
Which spot in the Bible were you thinking of?
As Mark Twain said, a bigot is just someone who disagrees with you.
You, sir, have trouble accepting that other people disagree with you.
+1 for random romaji
The only thing worse than allowing bribing with campaign contributions is allowing my pocket to be picked to fund these campaigns.
You're not the only one ...
The reason why no one in Europe cares what party is next to a person's name is because all European parties stand for the same thing: bigger government, restricting personal freedom, increase taxes, etc.
As an American liberal and conservative (however you define them) mean polar opposite things. But then the conservative Cameron (in Europe) forms an alliance with the liberal party? In Europe Angela Merkel is a conservative, but she's also a liberal.
So when it gets reported that one of these bland-ist politicians did something that favors one side, people (in the US and Europe) say, "So what? Both sides are the same."
What does make headlines is when a European head of state supports an American who stands for something. So when Tony Blair supported Bush, there were riots in the streets. I personally witnessed them (as an American abroad in Oxford).
Because an anti-gun legislator got busted.
You are aware the Guardian has been editorializing in favor of legalizing and promoting incest, right?
...
Should elementary school teachers be free to sleep with their students? Some do!
Should the state honor legal marriages between people and abstract ideas?
You have to draw the line somewhere
This camera really belonged to someone. As I recall certain people within NASA allowed this fellow (an astronaut, I think) to keep it. NASA also gives other things stickers, honorary coins, salaries, etc. to its employees, by the way, which tax payers have lost all claims on.
Eventually the Obama administration confiscated it under its general policy of confiscating everything it can get away with (dinosaur bones, archeological relics from other countries, lots and lots of gold coins) because -unlike the Soviets of yore who allowed private citizens to actually own some non-land property- the Obama administration does not want individuals to have private property.
The US government did nothing to maintain or keep track of this camera all those years. That was done by this guy. If another country has it in their hands, never, never give it back to the turkeys who stole it first. So, yeah, I agree with Klaus.
What age range are you in? What tech stack?
(Not suggesting anything, just curious)
If China's economy gets all the air sucked out of it to build a moon base, they will be far less competitive economically with the US.
A win for the US, but I feel bad for the poor people in China.
Might as well be the weekly world news.
... well ... there's a bigger story in there.
Whatever claims are made in the report (factual, estimates, speculation, etc) rests on the trust you give those people. After the IPCC said snow was thawing at an incredible rate based on the 3rd hand testimony of some mountain hiker, people are finding it very difficult to trust these people.
Calling the climate gate emails (where the scientists admitting they had trouble finding reasons to keep out their opponents from publications and hiding the decline in temperatures) an email hack is like calling the Deepthroat testimony a privacy breech. Maybe Nixon's privacy did get breeched, but
Predispositions go both ways, my friend, and I think you made up your mind a while back. Anytime I hear the word "proof" where there are two sides, I think someone is grabbing the mantle of objectivity so they can ram their pre-digested opinions down someone else's throat. The same thing goes for public policing of these opinions and playing games with the burden of proof. Most Americans see the shenanigans here, and I certainly don't see myself ever believing in AGW.
I think the East Anglia Institute put the burden of proof on the people who think humans are making the world hotter.
I'm not saying that claim rests on ad hominems, naked assertions, etc. but that is the way you are contending for it.
I think it was Freud (not a Christian as far as I know) who said in Civilization and its Discontents that you can not have purpose without religion. Freud instead proposed finding happiness, but (as he himself would say) it is impossible to know if someone in another time found happiness. Some of the details I've heard from his life do not indicate to me that he succeeded, but I'll grant that I'm a third party.
Anyway, I suppose it would be difficult to reflect on and recognize the deep/paradoxical things in life without positing a relationship between soul and body as spirit or someone who laid it all down on your behalf. What do you have to celebrate? Nietzsche's approach was to have a kind of existential/reflective view of things that led him to the point where he viewed it be better to not have been born (see The Birth of Tragedy), and then he went and died from syphilis. A lot of my secular friends skipped the reflective part and just jumped straight into hedonism. Is there a meaningful difference between those two paths?
I'm not suggesting Nietzsche was some monolithic entity or that every secularist must follow down his path (i.e. trying to find a deep meaning in life eventually living a prodigal lifestyle), but I would be interested in hearing where someone could depart from that without taking the leap of faith toward the Ethical/Religious sphere of existence.
I never heard anyone say secularism saved their life.