Re:Yes, we should give up because it is hard..
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 1
There are other hard things we could consider doing, such as eliminating carbon emissions are establishing peace in the Middle East.
Arguably both much harder than a mere trip to Mars, but IMO much more valuable to the human race as well.
I think people like to fantasize about the "reset" button; kinda like the "what if i could start over?" question we ask ourselves. What if we had a new world, without wars over religion or without arguments about if carbon emissions affect the planet or not. What if? That's why we entertain the idea, even if it's years or even impossible. We probably will never get there, but it seem we're sort of hoping to move where people don't know our name before the old place blows itself up.
As for the baker, you didnt hear about the baker being forced to pay over 100 grand to a lesbian couple because they refused to bake them a custom cake???? google is your friend, and for someone who is caught up on LGBTQDFHSDTHUA++ you should be well aware of that case
I am quite aware of the case and I find your use of "LGBTQDFHSDTHUA++" a tad insulting. Touche, you blasted back and got to hit some collateral damage (I'm a T and the B in that elongated insult). Bravo! Punitive damages don't always go to the plaintiff and the final amount is yet to be determined last i heard; second, it's still not classified as a 'hate crime', it's a discrimination suit. Nobody was arrested. They just lost the case in a civil suit that without the plaintiffs, would have amounted to no charges against the baker whatsoever. No hate, just ignorance.
As for your argument of comparing crimes where both parties are gay (or black); they're just crimes. About the only thing I can help to support your argument is that I don't have complete fandom from the LG community as being quite confident in their own sexuality lack understanding in mine. Indeed, there may well be a case of someone in those two communities attacking one in mine, but I have never heard of it,,,and i live here. As for being unjustly being charged because it turns out the ass you were fighting happened to be black or gay, perhaps you should just stay out of fights altogether; it might just be the way you talk that pisses people off,
Now pass that g**damn blunt before i hit you with one of my heels, mr. "ganja"dude! (if you cant take a 'toke joke', don't advertise your drunkenness)
how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?
The liberty to marry.
Also, when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union.
Another liberty protected by the invalidation of the sodomy laws of the US
Lastly, the words of the constitution do not grant unlimited flexibility. If we want to change the 14th amendment or any amendment to the Constitution then the people need to step up and work with their own states and legislatures (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) to do this. This is what the amendment process is for.
It does grant us protection from the State governments. I find your statement misleading as you try to pretend the State legislation isn't a government as well.
If judges can change laws to fit their "interpretation" of what the original writers meant then we no longer govern ourselves but are at the mercy of judges to tell govern for us.
No law was changed. it was written (not interpreted) to protect citizens from being denied when they shouldn't be...and upheld,
The 14th amendment defines who citizens are and that we cannot be denied equal protection. It's not a list of items. Hence, if one couple can marry, all couples can marry....and States cannot deny them, whether by popular vote or legislation. That's the fundamental part you're looking for?
The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base...
And if they stopped handing out marriage certificates to heterosexuals as well, then it would still be equal,
What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.
There are current laws forbidding specifically polygamy and bigotry in addition to incest relationships (registered or not for marriage). These would have to be individually challenged, but . Churches don't have to perform any ceremony, but registering a ceremony at another church of choice is now allowed. That's what the ruling balanced. Practicing a ceremony is still protected and pastors/rabbis won't be sued for limiting their practice because the marrying couple can find ordained ministers off of craigslist. geez
i see where your fixation on that these rights you speak of are granted by a person's "Creator", but assuming that their Creator and God are one and the same. There may be disagreement on whether they are or even whom they are, but all have equal access to the mentioned inalienable rights as well as future rights made by men.
And yet the "three great religions" [,,,] says that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Where do rights come from again?
Those marriages said they couldn't marry each other and counted them as nonvalid, One said interracial wasn't a marriage. They were marriage ceremonies then, they are mere ceremonies then. The rights come from the fact there are more than those three "great" religions. Even atheism, by definitive, is a religion; also equally protected under the same law that prevents the establishment from declaring the "lack of a god" as a hold over equal rights. If you have a right to register your ceremony, i have a right to register mine.
In fact, is there anything in the law that requires the Nine to be judges or even lawyers? If Scalia resigns from that body of nine unelected lawyers, I put forth my name as a candidate for the post. I'm not a judge or lawyer (well, except when I'm playing a game, where I'm usually the one reviewing the rulebook when a rule disagreement occurs.)
Appropriately, IANAL, but i have the understanding that most positions do require that; especially unelected positions as they go through a review process and would be brought up during any public questioning; especially since most of those positions are for life. Elected positions, however might have more lenient requirements. (since ianal, this could be backwards or required at all levels). That said, i tend to agree the often favorably view that at the very least any judge seated should have at least practiced law once in their lifetime to have a proper understanding how our legal system works, especially with regards to due process and other important understandings/interpretations of existing laws.
So the complaint is that it simplifies technical reports and briefings. Should we also "work to get rid of" telephones because they simplify communication? Sure, the telephone has merits, when it has become a poor substitute for longer, face-to-face conversations.
Sounds more like the writer at the Washington Post is just a bad presenter and doesn't know how to use simple tools for simple work (incompetent) because it didn't help them be lazy enough.
Why is A's right to free speech less important than B's right to life?
You just answered your own question. Life outweighs action. While A maintains the right to yell "fire", A is likely to be held liable for any harm inflicted upon B (and C, and D, and, etc.) by the action of A. The individual rights of multiple A, B, C's (and so on) make up what we call society in that they socialize with each other. Society has created courts when rights contradict.
I don't believe in inalienable rights
Then you should review its definition. Whether you believe in them or not, they can't be taken away from you.
The whole concept...angry men angry they can't get control of others. Nobody cares except other angry men that feel they have no control. Why don't they have control? Because they're not worthy to wield me in the first place.
And don't forget the manufacturer. They can't even get it right. Are there any vehicles that don't have one or more recalls issued for them, for all kinds of fun reasons like the ignition key turning to off [and locking the steering wheel in place] while the car is in motion, or the steering wheel coming off, engine revving or turning off spontaneously, transmission shifting incorrectly, brakes failing, air bags deploying [or not].
I think you just happened on the real purpose of the provision. The manufacturers don't want to be held accountable or even liable for their mistakes (recalls) if they can prove you or your un-certified mechanic changed out the alternator (which probably was defective, too; and why it failed in the first place). Essentially, the provision is akin to the "warranty voided if seal is broken" that appears on a lot of electronics.
The copyright act still allows you to copy your own tapes, cd's, dvd's, and material for personal use. You just can't redistribute for profit. So unless they can prove you are somehow mass producing your car, i think the courts will agree.
....you could tell companies like Nestle to stop bottling it for profit and make THEM move out. Why does a foreign company get more than local farmers? Or not have to ration at all?
Any law created is to pursue those they have jurisdiction. In this case, its citizens. Any company that uses remote users have VPNs. Any browser that 'can' use TOR will becomethat allows remote users use a VPN. This will put any company that does works or resides in the US at risk. If you use TOR to browse, this will allow them to
" The whole premise of democracy is that we are, collectively, smarter than any of us individually."
.
Actually, the opposite; which is why most democracies are representative democracies. The masses are too easily swayed with sometimes a mob-like frenzy. The premise to be precise is that everyone gets a say, intelligence being the least of the factors of why to vote one way or another.
In other words, some skeptics are not calling the science non-scientific, but rather the science with one climate change theory is ignoring other scientific theories lumping them with zealots.
And i am skeptical about the science, which is science. Other scientists are also skeptical. But the insult is when trying to debate the validity of the data from the science in its relation to cause and effect, especially when the recorded data is such a small miniscule portion of the timespan of the subject itself (earth), relatively with an even smaller portion of coinciding timeframes that neglect the larger non coinciding timeframes, the skepticism suddenly becomes laffable and ignored because of the inability of other skeptics (religion) to express themselves.
I went through this issue as a Comcast customer and feel your pain. Do you have an abuse@yourdomain.com registered with WHOIS? I found this was a requirement as domains started using subscriptions similar to Spamhaus. The alternative is to get the whitelist options as required by RFC from the technical administrator listed in THEIR whois.:)
Slashdot Mirror
There are other hard things we could consider doing, such as eliminating carbon emissions are establishing peace in the Middle East.
Arguably both much harder than a mere trip to Mars, but IMO much more valuable to the human race as well.
I think people like to fantasize about the "reset" button; kinda like the "what if i could start over?" question we ask ourselves. What if we had a new world, without wars over religion or without arguments about if carbon emissions affect the planet or not. What if? That's why we entertain the idea, even if it's years or even impossible. We probably will never get there, but it seem we're sort of hoping to move where people don't know our name before the old place blows itself up.
They said the same thing years ago about the moon. Nobody went anywhere.
As for the baker, you didnt hear about the baker being forced to pay over 100 grand to a lesbian couple because they refused to bake them a custom cake???? google is your friend, and for someone who is caught up on LGBTQDFHSDTHUA++ you should be well aware of that case
I am quite aware of the case and I find your use of "LGBTQDFHSDTHUA++" a tad insulting. Touche, you blasted back and got to hit some collateral damage (I'm a T and the B in that elongated insult). Bravo! Punitive damages don't always go to the plaintiff and the final amount is yet to be determined last i heard; second, it's still not classified as a 'hate crime', it's a discrimination suit. Nobody was arrested. They just lost the case in a civil suit that without the plaintiffs, would have amounted to no charges against the baker whatsoever. No hate, just ignorance.
As for your argument of comparing crimes where both parties are gay (or black); they're just crimes. About the only thing I can help to support your argument is that I don't have complete fandom from the LG community as being quite confident in their own sexuality lack understanding in mine. Indeed, there may well be a case of someone in those two communities attacking one in mine, but I have never heard of it,,,and i live here. As for being unjustly being charged because it turns out the ass you were fighting happened to be black or gay, perhaps you should just stay out of fights altogether; it might just be the way you talk that pisses people off,
Now pass that g**damn blunt before i hit you with one of my heels, mr. "ganja"dude! (if you cant take a 'toke joke', don't advertise your drunkenness)
how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?
The liberty to marry.
Also, when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union.
Another liberty protected by the invalidation of the sodomy laws of the US
Lastly, the words of the constitution do not grant unlimited flexibility. If we want to change the 14th amendment or any amendment to the Constitution then the people need to step up and work with their own states and legislatures (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) to do this. This is what the amendment process is for.
It does grant us protection from the State governments. I find your statement misleading as you try to pretend the State legislation isn't a government as well.
If judges can change laws to fit their "interpretation" of what the original writers meant then we no longer govern ourselves but are at the mercy of judges to tell govern for us.
No law was changed. it was written (not interpreted) to protect citizens from being denied when they shouldn't be...and upheld,
The 14th amendment defines who citizens are and that we cannot be denied equal protection. It's not a list of items. Hence, if one couple can marry, all couples can marry....and States cannot deny them, whether by popular vote or legislation. That's the fundamental part you're looking for?
The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base...
And if they stopped handing out marriage certificates to heterosexuals as well, then it would still be equal,
What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.
There are current laws forbidding specifically polygamy and bigotry in addition to incest relationships (registered or not for marriage). These would have to be individually challenged, but . Churches don't have to perform any ceremony, but registering a ceremony at another church of choice is now allowed. That's what the ruling balanced. Practicing a ceremony is still protected and pastors/rabbis won't be sued for limiting their practice because the marrying couple can find ordained ministers off of craigslist. geez
i see where your fixation on that these rights you speak of are granted by a person's "Creator", but assuming that their Creator and God are one and the same. There may be disagreement on whether they are or even whom they are, but all have equal access to the mentioned inalienable rights as well as future rights made by men.
And yet the "three great religions" [,,,] says that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Where do rights come from again?
Those marriages said they couldn't marry each other and counted them as nonvalid, One said interracial wasn't a marriage. They were marriage ceremonies then, they are mere ceremonies then. The rights come from the fact there are more than those three "great" religions. Even atheism, by definitive, is a religion; also equally protected under the same law that prevents the establishment from declaring the "lack of a god" as a hold over equal rights. If you have a right to register your ceremony, i have a right to register mine.
In fact, is there anything in the law that requires the Nine to be judges or even lawyers? If Scalia resigns from that body of nine unelected lawyers, I put forth my name as a candidate for the post. I'm not a judge or lawyer (well, except when I'm playing a game, where I'm usually the one reviewing the rulebook when a rule disagreement occurs.)
Appropriately, IANAL, but i have the understanding that most positions do require that; especially unelected positions as they go through a review process and would be brought up during any public questioning; especially since most of those positions are for life. Elected positions, however might have more lenient requirements. (since ianal, this could be backwards or required at all levels). That said, i tend to agree the often favorably view that at the very least any judge seated should have at least practiced law once in their lifetime to have a proper understanding how our legal system works, especially with regards to due process and other important understandings/interpretations of existing laws.
So the complaint is that it simplifies technical reports and briefings. Should we also "work to get rid of" telephones because they simplify communication? Sure, the telephone has merits, when it has become a poor substitute for longer, face-to-face conversations. Sounds more like the writer at the Washington Post is just a bad presenter and doesn't know how to use simple tools for simple work (incompetent) because it didn't help them be lazy enough.
Why is A's right to free speech less important than B's right to life?
You just answered your own question. Life outweighs action. While A maintains the right to yell "fire", A is likely to be held liable for any harm inflicted upon B (and C, and D, and, etc.) by the action of A. The individual rights of multiple A, B, C's (and so on) make up what we call society in that they socialize with each other. Society has created courts when rights contradict.
I don't believe in inalienable rights
Then you should review its definition. Whether you believe in them or not, they can't be taken away from you.
The whole concept...angry men angry they can't get control of others. Nobody cares except other angry men that feel they have no control. Why don't they have control? Because they're not worthy to wield me in the first place.
And don't forget the manufacturer. They can't even get it right. Are there any vehicles that don't have one or more recalls issued for them, for all kinds of fun reasons like the ignition key turning to off [and locking the steering wheel in place] while the car is in motion, or the steering wheel coming off, engine revving or turning off spontaneously, transmission shifting incorrectly, brakes failing, air bags deploying [or not].
I think you just happened on the real purpose of the provision. The manufacturers don't want to be held accountable or even liable for their mistakes (recalls) if they can prove you or your un-certified mechanic changed out the alternator (which probably was defective, too; and why it failed in the first place). Essentially, the provision is akin to the "warranty voided if seal is broken" that appears on a lot of electronics.
The copyright act still allows you to copy your own tapes, cd's, dvd's, and material for personal use. You just can't redistribute for profit. So unless they can prove you are somehow mass producing your car, i think the courts will agree.
as are suspicious activities. In police states, such as the U.S.,objections are enough to provoke probable cause.
....you could tell companies like Nestle to stop bottling it for profit and make THEM move out. Why does a foreign company get more than local farmers? Or not have to ration at all?
I prefer the farmers move out. Those assholes use 60% of the water.
Where the fuck do you think your food comes from? The grocery just uses a magic hat to make it appear? Are you THAT fucking stupid??!!
"People are not patentable. " .....yet
Any law created is to pursue those they have jurisdiction. In this case, its citizens. Any company that uses remote users have VPNs. Any browser that 'can' use TOR will becomethat allows remote users use a VPN. This will put any company that does works or resides in the US at risk. If you use TOR to browse, this will allow them to
...so the saying goes.
" The whole premise of democracy is that we are, collectively, smarter than any of us individually." . Actually, the opposite; which is why most democracies are representative democracies. The masses are too easily swayed with sometimes a mob-like frenzy. The premise to be precise is that everyone gets a say, intelligence being the least of the factors of why to vote one way or another.
In other words, some skeptics are not calling the science non-scientific, but rather the science with one climate change theory is ignoring other scientific theories lumping them with zealots.
And i am skeptical about the science, which is science. Other scientists are also skeptical. But the insult is when trying to debate the validity of the data from the science in its relation to cause and effect, especially when the recorded data is such a small miniscule portion of the timespan of the subject itself (earth), relatively with an even smaller portion of coinciding timeframes that neglect the larger non coinciding timeframes, the skepticism suddenly becomes laffable and ignored because of the inability of other skeptics (religion) to express themselves.
Jedi mind trick: "These are not the placebos you are looking for..."
I went through this issue as a Comcast customer and feel your pain. Do you have an abuse@yourdomain.com registered with WHOIS? I found this was a requirement as domains started using subscriptions similar to Spamhaus. The alternative is to get the whitelist options as required by RFC from the technical administrator listed in THEIR whois. :)