Get a teenage girl pregnant and that drasticly changes the options of how she's going to live her life
You mentioned nothing of pregnancy, and the same is true for people above 17. The mere fact that you sleep with someone does not mean they're going to get pregnant; there are ways to prevent that from happening.
You don't go around fucking what society sees as children without fucking up their lives if society finds out what that child was doing.
Society has many arbitrary, illogical rules. And by the way you made that sound, it's society that fucks up the lives of the 'children,' not the sex.
I don't care what anyone says; it's not as if people below 18 are innocent little snowflakes and that it's magically 'wrong' to have sexual intercourse with them.
And yet, if you give nobody any power, then you cannot prevent injustice.
And yet, you failed to read the very thing you quoted. "if you can help it" implies that you should only do so when absolutely necessary for society to function.
That's the interesting thing about beliefs though.
What's with this garbage? It doesn't even seem relevant to my original point.
And here's the thing that really pisses most people off: You aren't so different.
It's not that that statement makes me angry; it just makes me shrug. Even if it is true, it's utterly irrelevant. You don't give people powers that could easily be abused if you can help it because they will very likely abuse them.
(oh I know, you believe you do)
So... you say that I--someone you don't know--don't care about whether someone is innocent, but then go on to say that some people do care. Even if it didn't refer to me specifically, it still wouldn't make much sense to me.
While we're telling other people how they think or feel, I will say this: You don't really believe what you wrote. You might say you do, but you don't.
It's apparent now that you have no intention of answering one way or the other, so I'll stop asking.
I did answer, but for some reason, you don't seem to notice such things unless they're explicitly spelled out for you.
I really do hope that you think about what you're becoming. Such a cavalier disregard for the lives of people viewed as "other" is at the core of many atrocities, large and small.
You're just deflecting now. It is easy to make such statements. Now, stop trying to 'rationalize' the garbage you spewed forth and just admit the truth!
A man died and you went out of your way to refer to him as subhuman.
I don't care. The fact that you're taking this seriously is simply amusing. Do you make a habit out of taking everything other people say literally?
And if such a short, silly comment actually offended you (assuming it even did), then I have to say that that's rather... weak.
Think about that, and try to remember that even people who disagree with you are still people.
Really!? I had no idea.
And it's a bit more serious than mere disagreement, I would say.
Another cretin who took my comment seriously. It is obvious that TSA agents are people; I just think that they're rather slimy people. If just that much scares the piss out of you, then you're rather oversensitive, I think.
Your response to hearing that a man died was to claim he wasn't a person and that he deserved what he got.
Really? Was that truly what happened, or will I have to spell it out for you?
And the latter part wasn't even part of my comment; I said that I felt sorry for the six people who got injured, not that the TSA agent "deserved what he got."
So yeah, I'm glad to have the law enforcement agencies keep an eye on you.
Either I was joking, or I was stating an opinion that I have. If you seriously support government thugs violating people's rights because they hold opinions that you find disagreeable or make jokes that you find distasteful, then I think you need to be a bit more principled when it comes to freedom.
I find people who have a complete disregard for freedom, privacy, and the constitution to be a much greater threat than anyone who makes a joke or voices an opinion that some find disagreeable.
If there was a group of people declaring black people subhuman and celebrating their deaths, surely that group would warrant attention as well.
If such imbeciles were merely stating their opinions, then no, I don't think government thugs should harass them.
Please, I know no one ever admits to being wrong on the internet
You're the guy who was arguing in the other thread today that government workers are literally subhuman and deserving of death.
Are you positive that that's what I was actually arguing?
And the joke wasn't about government workers in general, but those who violate our rights.
But I am very, very glad to have them monitoring you.
Looks like we have a principled lover of freedom here!
You might find, if you're sufficiently honest with yourself
"Honest" meaning "Anything that artor3 agrees with."
that you're the one who is being "unreasonable".
I'm not even entirely sure what you're talking about. What I think is unreasonable is when government thugs are harassing people; surely you don't object to that? Your reply seems offtopic to me.
Like, say... giving them the death penalty? You're seriously dense to be able to spew forth such ridiculous logic in a serious manner, and then be able to tell me that I'm simply not understanding you.
They say that if you make it 20 years in jail that's like a lifetime.
So the risk of dying in prison is apparently somewhat higher; therefore, the death penalty is the same as letting them die naturally? Perhaps the risk is higher, but not everyone (and by that I mean "most people") randomly dies in prison for reasons that wouldn't have happened otherwise, so your point is rather moot. The death penalty merely ensures their death, and they likely won't live as long than if they were allowed to die naturally. Time doesn't care whether or not you're in prison; it kills everyone either way.
Not everyone understands this.
Just like not everyone understands that 1 + 1 = 3, and they shouldn't; it's nonsense. If you were merely saying that you personally believe the death penalty is ultimately a good thing, that would be one thing; trying to say that murdering someone and letting them die with time are the same is rather insane.
I have a feeling some law courses would help you understand.
I have a feeling that the law has little to do with logic; we have the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, and tons of other garbage that can attest to that.
Many nonsensical things were "common sense" in the past. Calling something "common sense" only makes any sense at all when that something is common and makes sense. Unfortunately, it's always useless to do so.
it's because you clearly lack background in this area that you are clueless.
That's what I believe you are.
In fact you even admitted it saying that you haven't decided this yet.
Admitted what?
What's preposterous is you not realizing that either way something is being done to someone.
If I stab someone, that's the same as letting time 'kill' them because they would have died either way. That is your logic. The mere fact that they're locked in prison has nothing to do with their death; the simple fact is, it's time that 'kills' them off, and that would have happened regardless of whether they went to prison or not.
Saying that giving them the death penalty is the same as them dying naturally in prison is simply asinine.
I just want you to admit it causes their death
What? You mean... time? The thing that 'kills' everyone regardless of whether or not they're in prison? It's not prison that kills them, my dear nigoola.
That's why I said you aren't thinking about it the right way.
I don't like what you consider to be "the right way"; I think it's rather illogical.
Maybe you are just totally oblivious to what someone goes through being put into a cage for 30+ years?
Just because you or others would rather die than be in prison doesn't mean that applies to everyone; don't choose for other people.
In other words, mindlessly go along with the status quo whether or not it makes any sense. I believe them to be irrational fools, and there's nothing that will change that.
Whether it's impolite or not is subjective, I suppose. Trying to pretend that 'swear words' are somehow objectively different or bad is just silly and irrational, but most people are both of those things, so it's not much of a surprise.
Language has meanings beyond denotation
As I explained already, all I care about is that someone gets out the message they want to convey and that I can understand what they wanted to convey; I think anything else is irrational.
A word like "fuck" is generally considered unacceptable in "polite company".
Well, I disagree with people who believe that merely using a word is "impolite," which is simply an ambiguous term to begin with.
If some people want to arbitrarily decide that certain words are 'bad,' then I suppose I can't stop them, but what I can do is think of them as irrational fools.
The first one communicates more, so it's simply a bad example. I am not offended by the mere use of 'swear words.'
And obviously, the messages are simply different. You could rephrase that second one to "Get out." or something such as that and the example would be just as poor.
Which statement would you rather hear: "Great work today; take the rest of the day off!" or "Fuck off." ?
The first one communicates more, so it's simply a bad example. I am not offended by the mere use of 'swear words.'
but their meanings can be incredibly important.
What the person actually means and how easy it is to understand them is far more important than their choice of words. If someone can convey their message by using 'swear words,' then so be it; I'm not offended by it in the least. All I care about is that I can understand what they mean.
You may not like that certain words have negative connotations (which I find odd, if that's the case), but that doesn't mean others feel the same way.
It is simply irrational to be offended by the words themselves, much like the anti-sex nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a teenage girl pregnant and that drasticly changes the options of how she's going to live her life
You mentioned nothing of pregnancy, and the same is true for people above 17. The mere fact that you sleep with someone does not mean they're going to get pregnant; there are ways to prevent that from happening.
You don't go around fucking what society sees as children without fucking up their lives if society finds out what that child was doing.
Society has many arbitrary, illogical rules. And by the way you made that sound, it's society that fucks up the lives of the 'children,' not the sex.
I don't care what anyone says; it's not as if people below 18 are innocent little snowflakes and that it's magically 'wrong' to have sexual intercourse with them.
And yet, if you give nobody any power, then you cannot prevent injustice.
And yet, you failed to read the very thing you quoted. "if you can help it" implies that you should only do so when absolutely necessary for society to function.
That's the interesting thing about beliefs though.
What's with this garbage? It doesn't even seem relevant to my original point.
It's not a right at all, but a privilege. I don't believe in inherent rights to begin with. Rights do not vanish with time.
And here's the thing that really pisses most people off: You aren't so different.
It's not that that statement makes me angry; it just makes me shrug. Even if it is true, it's utterly irrelevant. You don't give people powers that could easily be abused if you can help it because they will very likely abuse them.
(oh I know, you believe you do)
So... you say that I--someone you don't know--don't care about whether someone is innocent, but then go on to say that some people do care. Even if it didn't refer to me specifically, it still wouldn't make much sense to me.
While we're telling other people how they think or feel, I will say this: You don't really believe what you wrote. You might say you do, but you don't.
It's apparent now that you have no intention of answering one way or the other, so I'll stop asking.
I did answer, but for some reason, you don't seem to notice such things unless they're explicitly spelled out for you.
I really do hope that you think about what you're becoming. Such a cavalier disregard for the lives of people viewed as "other" is at the core of many atrocities, large and small.
I have to admit... that is impressive.
You're just deflecting now.
You're just deflecting now. It is easy to make such statements. Now, stop trying to 'rationalize' the garbage you spewed forth and just admit the truth!
A man died and you went out of your way to refer to him as subhuman.
I don't care. The fact that you're taking this seriously is simply amusing. Do you make a habit out of taking everything other people say literally?
And if such a short, silly comment actually offended you (assuming it even did), then I have to say that that's rather... weak.
Think about that, and try to remember that even people who disagree with you are still people.
Really!? I had no idea.
And it's a bit more serious than mere disagreement, I would say.
Being good members of society, however, they do not.
How does that make one a "good" member of society? Abiding by silly, arbitrary rules automatically makes you "good"?
The NSA is garbage, however.
Yes; I think that TSA worker was an alien. Clearly that comment was meant to be taken seriously, and not just a jab at the TSA.
Another cretin who took my comment seriously. It is obvious that TSA agents are people; I just think that they're rather slimy people. If just that much scares the piss out of you, then you're rather oversensitive, I think.
The implication, clear as day, is that the seventh person, the man who died, doesn't count as a person and doesn't get your sympathy.
Exactly; I never said anything about him 'deserving' it, just that I didn't care.
The fact that you're taking that comment literally (or trying) and seriously is rather odd to me.
It seems that you're now ashamed of what you said and unwilling to own up to it
I don't think that's a proper interpretation of my reply.
Your response to hearing that a man died was to claim he wasn't a person and that he deserved what he got.
Really? Was that truly what happened, or will I have to spell it out for you?
And the latter part wasn't even part of my comment; I said that I felt sorry for the six people who got injured, not that the TSA agent "deserved what he got."
So yeah, I'm glad to have the law enforcement agencies keep an eye on you.
Either I was joking, or I was stating an opinion that I have. If you seriously support government thugs violating people's rights because they hold opinions that you find disagreeable or make jokes that you find distasteful, then I think you need to be a bit more principled when it comes to freedom.
I find people who have a complete disregard for freedom, privacy, and the constitution to be a much greater threat than anyone who makes a joke or voices an opinion that some find disagreeable.
If there was a group of people declaring black people subhuman and celebrating their deaths, surely that group would warrant attention as well.
If such imbeciles were merely stating their opinions, then no, I don't think government thugs should harass them.
Please, I know no one ever admits to being wrong on the internet
That would include you.
You're the guy who was arguing in the other thread today that government workers are literally subhuman and deserving of death.
Are you positive that that's what I was actually arguing?
And the joke wasn't about government workers in general, but those who violate our rights.
But I am very, very glad to have them monitoring you.
Looks like we have a principled lover of freedom here!
You might find, if you're sufficiently honest with yourself
"Honest" meaning "Anything that artor3 agrees with."
that you're the one who is being "unreasonable".
I'm not even entirely sure what you're talking about. What I think is unreasonable is when government thugs are harassing people; surely you don't object to that? Your reply seems offtopic to me.
Frankly, such a disposition on the part of the NSA is reasonable
I don't think government thugs harassing people is at all "reasonable."
Oh, I think those bureaucrats and the people who support this nonsense are garbage as well.
But you can't remove the blame from the people who actually violate people's rights. "I was just doing my job" is no excuse.
Oh, and as it turns out, your last ball really wasn't your last.
You took an action against that other person.
Like, say... giving them the death penalty? You're seriously dense to be able to spew forth such ridiculous logic in a serious manner, and then be able to tell me that I'm simply not understanding you.
They say that if you make it 20 years in jail that's like a lifetime.
So the risk of dying in prison is apparently somewhat higher; therefore, the death penalty is the same as letting them die naturally? Perhaps the risk is higher, but not everyone (and by that I mean "most people") randomly dies in prison for reasons that wouldn't have happened otherwise, so your point is rather moot. The death penalty merely ensures their death, and they likely won't live as long than if they were allowed to die naturally. Time doesn't care whether or not you're in prison; it kills everyone either way.
Not everyone understands this.
Just like not everyone understands that 1 + 1 = 3, and they shouldn't; it's nonsense. If you were merely saying that you personally believe the death penalty is ultimately a good thing, that would be one thing; trying to say that murdering someone and letting them die with time are the same is rather insane.
I have a feeling some law courses would help you understand.
I have a feeling that the law has little to do with logic; we have the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, and tons of other garbage that can attest to that.
So we put the blame on films, we put the blame on videogames, we put the blame on sex, we put the blame on hocus pocus etc
You forgot to mention that we put the blame on guns.
I feel for the six people who were injured.
and common sense.
Many nonsensical things were "common sense" in the past. Calling something "common sense" only makes any sense at all when that something is common and makes sense. Unfortunately, it's always useless to do so.
Sorry but I'm no FOSSie or zealot, all I care about is "does it work?"
That's truly a shame.
and Steam works and works well.
At controlling you, keeping you in blissful ignorance, and hiding away its functionality; not exactly something to be proud of.
You're still here?
That was my first thought. What an eyesore.
it's because you clearly lack background in this area that you are clueless.
That's what I believe you are.
In fact you even admitted it saying that you haven't decided this yet.
Admitted what?
What's preposterous is you not realizing that either way something is being done to someone.
If I stab someone, that's the same as letting time 'kill' them because they would have died either way. That is your logic. The mere fact that they're locked in prison has nothing to do with their death; the simple fact is, it's time that 'kills' them off, and that would have happened regardless of whether they went to prison or not.
Saying that giving them the death penalty is the same as them dying naturally in prison is simply asinine.
I just want you to admit it causes their death
What? You mean... time? The thing that 'kills' everyone regardless of whether or not they're in prison? It's not prison that kills them, my dear nigoola.
That's why I said you aren't thinking about it the right way.
I don't like what you consider to be "the right way"; I think it's rather illogical.
Maybe you are just totally oblivious to what someone goes through being put into a cage for 30+ years?
Just because you or others would rather die than be in prison doesn't mean that applies to everyone; don't choose for other people.
In other words, mindlessly go along with the status quo whether or not it makes any sense. I believe them to be irrational fools, and there's nothing that will change that.
Whether it's impolite or not is subjective, I suppose. Trying to pretend that 'swear words' are somehow objectively different or bad is just silly and irrational, but most people are both of those things, so it's not much of a surprise.
Language has meanings beyond denotation
As I explained already, all I care about is that someone gets out the message they want to convey and that I can understand what they wanted to convey; I think anything else is irrational.
A word like "fuck" is generally considered unacceptable in "polite company".
Well, I disagree with people who believe that merely using a word is "impolite," which is simply an ambiguous term to begin with.
If some people want to arbitrarily decide that certain words are 'bad,' then I suppose I can't stop them, but what I can do is think of them as irrational fools.
The first one communicates more, so it's simply a bad example. I am not offended by the mere use of 'swear words.'
And obviously, the messages are simply different. You could rephrase that second one to "Get out." or something such as that and the example would be just as poor.
They're a string of letters that form a meaning.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Which statement would you rather hear: "Great work today; take the rest of the day off!" or "Fuck off." ?
The first one communicates more, so it's simply a bad example. I am not offended by the mere use of 'swear words.'
but their meanings can be incredibly important.
What the person actually means and how easy it is to understand them is far more important than their choice of words. If someone can convey their message by using 'swear words,' then so be it; I'm not offended by it in the least. All I care about is that I can understand what they mean.
You may not like that certain words have negative connotations (which I find odd, if that's the case), but that doesn't mean others feel the same way.
It is simply irrational to be offended by the words themselves, much like the anti-sex nonsense.