Republicans (and Democrats) all over called Snowden a traitor and some even wanted him assassinated. Both parties are responsible for the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, and numerous other violations of the constitution and our liberties.
Face it. Both parties are filled with scumbags. I have no idea about control over the press, as the press does the government's bidding anyway.
No, you simply want a government that agrees with your personal priorities.
A working government respects the constitution and people's fundamental liberties. This is far, far, far, far, far more important than the silly economy. Without freedom, we are nothing.
It's not impossible; I don't buy or even play that shit. If people do, that's their own fault.
But I guess hackers take one alternate course of action: Break the DRM. But that still might end up with more people buying the game or noticing it, giving DRM-infested games undeserved attention. Other than that, I have no clue what to do.
Yes, absolutely. A person's individual positions matter more than worthless labels like "liberal," "conservative," "left," or "right." Few can even agree that position X is liberal or conservative, and it doesn't really matter.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that republicans are conservatives and democrats are liberals; both are just scumbags who want to ignore the constitution and infringe upon our fundamental liberties.
People should just stop buying products from companies that are hostile towards their own customers. If they don't, and they get screwed, part of the blame falls on them for buying from a scumbag company.
If you think that the federal government should stick to what the Constitution authorizes them to do, or that they tend to screw up, you will conclude that they shouldn't do many of the things Democrats want them to do - you'll be a Republican.
Where are these Republicans (or Democrats) that want to follow the constitution? All I see is them supporting the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, 'indecency' censorship, and about a million other unconstitutional policies. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly believe that either party wants to respect your freedoms or the constitution.
Black and white thinking is fairly important when it comes to law-making
No, it isn't. We decide things on an individual basis all the time. For instance, whether or not someone committed the crime they're being accused of. Those things have to be handled on an individual basis.
There's nothing impossible or bad about what I'm suggesting. Black-and-white thinking is, in this specific situation, idiotic, and for reasons I've already explained. Consider the context of the conversation before randomly jumping in.
Do you honestly believe that The One Party, which violates the highest law of the land and our fundamental liberties on a routine basis, is giving people what they want?*
In fact, voting system have been studied extensively, and there are only a few that are known and reasonable, and most of those have been implemented in other countries.
Indeed they have been studied. But even if we adopted another voting system, the US would still be different from other countries. You're oversimplifying the matter by implying we'd become exactly like other countries just by changing our voting system and giving third parties a viable chance.
Well, you keep demonstrating that you are ignorant and incapable of actually making an argument.
I've already given you my input. The One Party system brings candidates towards the center? Not a benefit; given the current state of affairs, the center is obviously bad. Also, it's a myth; both parties are authoritarian scumbags. The One Party system gives voters what they most want? If voting against someone rather than for someone and creating no viable competition that people actually like gives people what they want, then yes.
And even though I keep referring to the US as a two party system, there are minimal differences between the parties, so it's more like one.
Who decides whether they are "being scammed"? You?
Simple logic. Do you honestly believe that fooling people into voting for people solely based on hot button issues gives people what they most desire? Do you honestly believe that The One Party, which violates the highest law of the land and our fundamental liberties on a routine basis,
But let's say they're not being scammed. Let's say they want the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, free speech zones, protest permits, anti-mask laws, stop-and-frisk, preemptive warfare, the war on drugs, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, insane child pornography laws, heavy-handed copyright and patent laws, FCC censorship, DUI checkpoints, warrantless surveillance, and all the other unconstitutional and/or rights-violating policies. Let's just say they want all of that. Then they're dumber than I thought, and they should move to North Korea.
You keep demonstrating that the average American voter is smarter than you
Right. Because people who are apathetic about or support the above issues and keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags are smarter than me.
I just want someone who is capable of representing me to have a slight chance at victory; nothing more. The One Party has proven that it hates freedom and the constitution, so cross them out as an option.
If you honestly support the current state of affairs, then nothing you say will ever convince me. I'm on the side of viable choice here.
Ergo, you realize that it's the voters that have the final say, you just don't like the choices they are making.
Yes, but that's not much of a benefit if they're being scammed.
I have lived in several of those other countries with the voting systems and I can tell you from first hand experience: you don't know what you're talking about.
I said voting systems, not that we should emulate everything other countries do. If you don't like having choice and you want The One Party to rape your ass your entire life, the US's system is for you.
You're the typical wealthy privileged American who has no idea of how lucky he is, or how broken most other countries around the world are.
Once again, it's the bullshit "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad." logic. Don't pretend that it's not. The failings of the two party system are well known, and you need only observe the current situation to discover that it is not optimal. Adding more viable choices isn't considered a bad thing by non-authoritarians.
I disagree, but that's perhaps a matter of definition, and as you like to point out, words can entertain a variety of range of meanings. I think the presumption that a nurse must be a female and a doctor a male, for instance, clearly to be peddling sexist stereotypes.
Unless someone is telling men that they can't be nurses or acting against their ability to do so, I don't think there's any sexism. Just having an image of a female nurse pop into your head hurts no one and I do not see how that is sexist.
Observing that language may convey unspoken assumptions, or that there exist cultural assumption unrelfective taken for granted, implies brainwashing?!
I don't think it's absurd. Telling me that I don't even realize the existence of a problem that supposedly exists due to some nonsense in my culture makes it sound like I've been brainwashed to me.
I'm well aware of how it went down. However since the "problem" is not in the least subjective no amount of repetition will cure your statement of its want of relevance.
But whether something is a problem or not is subjective. You replied to my statement saying that I do not believe there is a problem saying that someone's beliefs can be wrong, making it sound as if you're saying that my belief that this isn't a problem can be wrong. If that was not how you intended to sound, I would've phrased it differently.
But even the problem itself is clearly subjective, or at least up for interpretation. Whether something is ambiguous or difficult to understand is subjective. Some people will understand it instantly, and others won't, regardless of how many possible interpretations (an interpretation is subjective of course) there are.
Indeed much ofn yours has been done using it, or?
Yes, but only because it's necessary. I live in a country where English is the primary language. If I had a choice to change it to something more logical, I would. I don't use it because I think it's beautiful, but because it still technically serves its purpose as a language (which isn't a very high bar anyway).
Perhaps there is some insight in there somewhere, but unlike OP's original misuse of man, I'm unable to grasp what you're getting at... who is "they?"
The person who wrote the text. They might be using familiar words, but might have defined them differently somewhere else, and so you couldn't just quote a random part of the text they wrote and fully understand it.
2) Note that even without gay marriage, gays have the same rights under the law as straights - any woman can marry any guy who agrees, and vice versa.
Bullshit again. I see this argument a lot, and it's as nonsensical as ever. They can't marry someone of their preferred sex, so no, they don't have the same rights. And this is a poor excuse for keeping consenting adults from marrying to begin with.
2b) Note that if "love" is a necessary and sufficient justification for making marriage legal, well, I can love two women. Or a woman and a man. Or two men. So why shouldn't it be legal to marry a threesome?
True. But that's the way democracy works, and it's not a bad system for two reasons. First, there is no better mechanism for having people engage in political speech; if you try to do it through regulation, those regulations will be hijacked by politicians for their own purposes and voters will get duped even more. Second, the campaign donors are pretty democratic because even large donations from lobbying organizations ultimately represent large numbers of small, individual choices.
It's a bad thing for reason already stated: Politicians will listen to those with the most money and then dupe people into thinking they're trying to do what voters want.
How is having more parties any better?
More choice. Choice is good in and of itself, and you can't call yourself democratic if you have two scumbags to choose from. It makes it so that someone you actually like has a realistic chance of winning.
If we had 20 parties to represent a wider spectrum of views, they would then go behind closed doors in Congress and engage in political horse trading that you would never even find out about.
Bullshit. That happens now anyway.
The way it is, our two party system works a little like the fair cake cutting problem: both parties are motivated to pick positions that get them about 50% of the voters.
And we already see that this is nothing good. They fuck over everyone.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is "X is worse than Y, so let's stick with Y until we figure out something better".
There are a million voting systems better than ours. There are voting systems that are as simple as, "Pick as many as you want." Even that would improve the situation.
Seriously, it's impossible to be for a two party system and not be ignorant, so good day.
You can't be a Republican and dislike the government, or a Democrat for that matter. If you are, you're not principled, because both parties are filled with evil scumbags who infringe upon the constitution and our fundamental liberties. Voting for either is inexcusable.
Gay marriage is about adding a new right for everyone, not applying existing rights fairly. A gay man can marry a woman in any state
But they can't marry someone of the sex that they prefer like heterosexuals can.
I suppose not allowing interracial marriage was fine because they could just marry someone of the same race, so no one's rights were infringed upon. Bullshit.
but the "equal rights" argument for gay marriage doesn't hold up to legal realities.
No, you're just not thinking, and you're using the same stale arguments that have been debunked thousands of times over. Boring.
It's just religious garbage that's holding us back.
Abortion hurts the fetus.
If the fetus wasn't in someone else's body, this would not be a problem. But it is, so it's the person's choice. If you're not pro-choice, you're a hardcore authoritarian.
Personally, I'd like the US government just start by performing their basic fucking functions - create a budget*, pay the bills**, get basic fundamental responsibilities accomplished*** - before they spend their time trying to 'manage' cultural issues.
How about the most basic of basic functions? Follow the constitution.
Moreover, cultural issues are not only vague, expensive, and hard to manage
My suggestion would be - if we really want a government that works - is to set them aside.
I do want a government that works. I want a government that doesn't violate people's rights. I want a government that doesn't rely on religious reasoning to oppress parts of the populace and deny them the ability to marry. I want a government that respects people's right to control their bodies. All of these things are required in order for a government to work.
Well then, we shouldn't even pretend to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' We appear (and have always appeared) to be a country full of cowardly pretenders who think that fundamental freedoms and the constitution are less important than safety.
If they care "about the appearance of pleasing their voters" and they succeed, then the voters got what they want.
No, not necessarily. They may pretend to try, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed. Then they can just blame someone else and say they tried.
Nevertheless, voters hold the power, not wealthy capaign donors.
More campaign donor money = more ads = more ability to dupe voters who only listen to ads.
The two-party system is another red herring.
Not a red herring. It often causes people to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' rather than someone they truly agree with. This means that only hot button issues get paid attention to while the parties remain mostly the same on other fronts (such as violating our fundamental liberties with garbage like the NSA's mass surveillance and the TSA).
because it forces the parties to move to the center.
Bullshit. The center isn't always good, and as we see, both parties just ignore the highest law of the land and violate our fundamental liberties. Whether a position is good or not is 100% separate from whether it is left, right, or center. Those terms are almost meaningless.
Yes, in the US: US politicians will not generally go against what the majority of their constituents want.
Again, it's just appearance. They will pretend to try, but that is all. And, being ignorant, people are fooled.
In other democracies, politicians are much less answerable to voters
"X is worse than Y, so Y must be good!" has never and will never be very convincing. Being able to vote only for a single person causes all sorts of problems.
I agree that this is still ultimately the fault of the voters, since you still can vote third party and for good candidates, but our politicians are clearly scumbags who just take advantage of people's ignorance.
They care more about the appearance of pleasing their voters. If they can blame all the bad things that happen on someone else, while still having a horrendous record of voting for things their voters would never approve of, they can dodge blame, since people rarely do any research anyway. Plus, the two party system makes it even worse in the sense that, even if the voters don't really like you or your party, most will still vote for you as long as they think you're better than the other guy, since candidates from The One Party are seen as the only viable options. Sure, they can't do anything too horrendous, but they generally know where the line is, and they take advantage of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans (and Democrats) all over called Snowden a traitor and some even wanted him assassinated. Both parties are responsible for the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, and numerous other violations of the constitution and our liberties.
Face it. Both parties are filled with scumbags. I have no idea about control over the press, as the press does the government's bidding anyway.
few average Americans support it
I've seen no evidence that this is so. Most people are either apathetic to the idea of sacrificing fundamental liberties for safety, or support it.
No, you simply want a government that agrees with your personal priorities.
A working government respects the constitution and people's fundamental liberties. This is far, far, far, far, far more important than the silly economy. Without freedom, we are nothing.
Since when do they care about the 1st amendment, or any part of the constitution?
Do you speak for everyone in the world? Interesting.
It's not impossible; I don't buy or even play that shit. If people do, that's their own fault.
But I guess hackers take one alternate course of action: Break the DRM. But that still might end up with more people buying the game or noticing it, giving DRM-infested games undeserved attention. Other than that, I have no clue what to do.
Are they ill defined?
Yes, absolutely. A person's individual positions matter more than worthless labels like "liberal," "conservative," "left," or "right." Few can even agree that position X is liberal or conservative, and it doesn't really matter.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that republicans are conservatives and democrats are liberals; both are just scumbags who want to ignore the constitution and infringe upon our fundamental liberties.
People should just stop buying products from companies that are hostile towards their own customers. If they don't, and they get screwed, part of the blame falls on them for buying from a scumbag company.
If you think that the federal government should stick to what the Constitution authorizes them to do, or that they tend to screw up, you will conclude that they shouldn't do many of the things Democrats want them to do - you'll be a Republican.
Where are these Republicans (or Democrats) that want to follow the constitution? All I see is them supporting the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, 'indecency' censorship, and about a million other unconstitutional policies. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly believe that either party wants to respect your freedoms or the constitution.
But it is. He's a patriot, and merely breaking unjust laws shouldn't disqualify him from anything.
Black and white thinking is fairly important when it comes to law-making
No, it isn't. We decide things on an individual basis all the time. For instance, whether or not someone committed the crime they're being accused of. Those things have to be handled on an individual basis.
There's nothing impossible or bad about what I'm suggesting. Black-and-white thinking is, in this specific situation, idiotic, and for reasons I've already explained. Consider the context of the conversation before randomly jumping in.
It's strange how the bogeymen groups known as "liberals" and "conservatives" are apparently some sort of ill-defined hivemind.
Do you honestly believe that The One Party, which violates the highest law of the land and our fundamental liberties on a routine basis, is giving people what they want?*
In fact, voting system have been studied extensively, and there are only a few that are known and reasonable, and most of those have been implemented in other countries.
Indeed they have been studied. But even if we adopted another voting system, the US would still be different from other countries. You're oversimplifying the matter by implying we'd become exactly like other countries just by changing our voting system and giving third parties a viable chance.
Well, you keep demonstrating that you are ignorant and incapable of actually making an argument.
I've already given you my input. The One Party system brings candidates towards the center? Not a benefit; given the current state of affairs, the center is obviously bad. Also, it's a myth; both parties are authoritarian scumbags. The One Party system gives voters what they most want? If voting against someone rather than for someone and creating no viable competition that people actually like gives people what they want, then yes.
And even though I keep referring to the US as a two party system, there are minimal differences between the parties, so it's more like one.
Who decides whether they are "being scammed"? You?
Simple logic. Do you honestly believe that fooling people into voting for people solely based on hot button issues gives people what they most desire? Do you honestly believe that The One Party, which violates the highest law of the land and our fundamental liberties on a routine basis,
But let's say they're not being scammed. Let's say they want the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, free speech zones, protest permits, anti-mask laws, stop-and-frisk, preemptive warfare, the war on drugs, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, insane child pornography laws, heavy-handed copyright and patent laws, FCC censorship, DUI checkpoints, warrantless surveillance, and all the other unconstitutional and/or rights-violating policies. Let's just say they want all of that. Then they're dumber than I thought, and they should move to North Korea.
You keep demonstrating that the average American voter is smarter than you
Right. Because people who are apathetic about or support the above issues and keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags are smarter than me.
I just want someone who is capable of representing me to have a slight chance at victory; nothing more. The One Party has proven that it hates freedom and the constitution, so cross them out as an option.
If you honestly support the current state of affairs, then nothing you say will ever convince me. I'm on the side of viable choice here.
Ergo, you realize that it's the voters that have the final say, you just don't like the choices they are making.
Yes, but that's not much of a benefit if they're being scammed.
I have lived in several of those other countries with the voting systems and I can tell you from first hand experience: you don't know what you're talking about.
I said voting systems, not that we should emulate everything other countries do. If you don't like having choice and you want The One Party to rape your ass your entire life, the US's system is for you.
You're the typical wealthy privileged American who has no idea of how lucky he is, or how broken most other countries around the world are.
Once again, it's the bullshit "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad." logic. Don't pretend that it's not. The failings of the two party system are well known, and you need only observe the current situation to discover that it is not optimal. Adding more viable choices isn't considered a bad thing by non-authoritarians.
I disagree, but that's perhaps a matter of definition, and as you like to point out, words can entertain a variety of range of meanings. I think the presumption that a nurse must be a female and a doctor a male, for instance, clearly to be peddling sexist stereotypes.
Unless someone is telling men that they can't be nurses or acting against their ability to do so, I don't think there's any sexism. Just having an image of a female nurse pop into your head hurts no one and I do not see how that is sexist.
Observing that language may convey unspoken assumptions, or that there exist cultural assumption unrelfective taken for granted, implies brainwashing?!
I don't think it's absurd. Telling me that I don't even realize the existence of a problem that supposedly exists due to some nonsense in my culture makes it sound like I've been brainwashed to me.
I'm well aware of how it went down. However since the "problem" is not in the least subjective no amount of repetition will cure your statement of its want of relevance.
But whether something is a problem or not is subjective. You replied to my statement saying that I do not believe there is a problem saying that someone's beliefs can be wrong, making it sound as if you're saying that my belief that this isn't a problem can be wrong. If that was not how you intended to sound, I would've phrased it differently.
But even the problem itself is clearly subjective, or at least up for interpretation. Whether something is ambiguous or difficult to understand is subjective. Some people will understand it instantly, and others won't, regardless of how many possible interpretations (an interpretation is subjective of course) there are.
Indeed much ofn yours has been done using it, or?
Yes, but only because it's necessary. I live in a country where English is the primary language. If I had a choice to change it to something more logical, I would. I don't use it because I think it's beautiful, but because it still technically serves its purpose as a language (which isn't a very high bar anyway).
Perhaps there is some insight in there somewhere, but unlike OP's original misuse of man, I'm unable to grasp what you're getting at ... who is "they?"
The person who wrote the text. They might be using familiar words, but might have defined them differently somewhere else, and so you couldn't just quote a random part of the text they wrote and fully understand it.
2) Note that even without gay marriage, gays have the same rights under the law as straights - any woman can marry any guy who agrees, and vice versa.
Bullshit again. I see this argument a lot, and it's as nonsensical as ever. They can't marry someone of their preferred sex, so no, they don't have the same rights. And this is a poor excuse for keeping consenting adults from marrying to begin with.
2b) Note that if "love" is a necessary and sufficient justification for making marriage legal, well, I can love two women. Or a woman and a man. Or two men. So why shouldn't it be legal to marry a threesome?
It should be. The end.
Did you think I'd object?
True. But that's the way democracy works, and it's not a bad system for two reasons. First, there is no better mechanism for having people engage in political speech; if you try to do it through regulation, those regulations will be hijacked by politicians for their own purposes and voters will get duped even more. Second, the campaign donors are pretty democratic because even large donations from lobbying organizations ultimately represent large numbers of small, individual choices.
It's a bad thing for reason already stated: Politicians will listen to those with the most money and then dupe people into thinking they're trying to do what voters want.
How is having more parties any better?
More choice. Choice is good in and of itself, and you can't call yourself democratic if you have two scumbags to choose from. It makes it so that someone you actually like has a realistic chance of winning.
If we had 20 parties to represent a wider spectrum of views, they would then go behind closed doors in Congress and engage in political horse trading that you would never even find out about.
Bullshit. That happens now anyway.
The way it is, our two party system works a little like the fair cake cutting problem: both parties are motivated to pick positions that get them about 50% of the voters.
And we already see that this is nothing good. They fuck over everyone.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is "X is worse than Y, so let's stick with Y until we figure out something better".
There are a million voting systems better than ours. There are voting systems that are as simple as, "Pick as many as you want." Even that would improve the situation.
Seriously, it's impossible to be for a two party system and not be ignorant, so good day.
You can't be a Republican and dislike the government, or a Democrat for that matter. If you are, you're not principled, because both parties are filled with evil scumbags who infringe upon the constitution and our fundamental liberties. Voting for either is inexcusable.
Gay marriage is about adding a new right for everyone, not applying existing rights fairly. A gay man can marry a woman in any state
But they can't marry someone of the sex that they prefer like heterosexuals can.
I suppose not allowing interracial marriage was fine because they could just marry someone of the same race, so no one's rights were infringed upon. Bullshit.
but the "equal rights" argument for gay marriage doesn't hold up to legal realities.
No, you're just not thinking, and you're using the same stale arguments that have been debunked thousands of times over. Boring.
It's just religious garbage that's holding us back.
Abortion hurts the fetus.
If the fetus wasn't in someone else's body, this would not be a problem. But it is, so it's the person's choice. If you're not pro-choice, you're a hardcore authoritarian.
Personally, I'd like the US government just start by performing their basic fucking functions - create a budget*, pay the bills**, get basic fundamental responsibilities accomplished*** - before they spend their time trying to 'manage' cultural issues.
How about the most basic of basic functions? Follow the constitution.
Moreover, cultural issues are not only vague, expensive, and hard to manage
My suggestion would be - if we really want a government that works - is to set them aside.
I do want a government that works. I want a government that doesn't violate people's rights. I want a government that doesn't rely on religious reasoning to oppress parts of the populace and deny them the ability to marry. I want a government that respects people's right to control their bodies. All of these things are required in order for a government to work.
Well then, we shouldn't even pretend to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' We appear (and have always appeared) to be a country full of cowardly pretenders who think that fundamental freedoms and the constitution are less important than safety.
If they care "about the appearance of pleasing their voters" and they succeed, then the voters got what they want.
No, not necessarily. They may pretend to try, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed. Then they can just blame someone else and say they tried.
Nevertheless, voters hold the power, not wealthy capaign donors.
More campaign donor money = more ads = more ability to dupe voters who only listen to ads.
The two-party system is another red herring.
Not a red herring. It often causes people to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' rather than someone they truly agree with. This means that only hot button issues get paid attention to while the parties remain mostly the same on other fronts (such as violating our fundamental liberties with garbage like the NSA's mass surveillance and the TSA).
because it forces the parties to move to the center.
Bullshit. The center isn't always good, and as we see, both parties just ignore the highest law of the land and violate our fundamental liberties. Whether a position is good or not is 100% separate from whether it is left, right, or center. Those terms are almost meaningless.
Yes, in the US: US politicians will not generally go against what the majority of their constituents want.
Again, it's just appearance. They will pretend to try, but that is all. And, being ignorant, people are fooled.
In other democracies, politicians are much less answerable to voters
"X is worse than Y, so Y must be good!" has never and will never be very convincing. Being able to vote only for a single person causes all sorts of problems.
I agree that this is still ultimately the fault of the voters, since you still can vote third party and for good candidates, but our politicians are clearly scumbags who just take advantage of people's ignorance.
The keyword is "all." Non-human animals will often initiate sexual acts of their own volition. They don't need speech.
They care more about the appearance of pleasing their voters. If they can blame all the bad things that happen on someone else, while still having a horrendous record of voting for things their voters would never approve of, they can dodge blame, since people rarely do any research anyway. Plus, the two party system makes it even worse in the sense that, even if the voters don't really like you or your party, most will still vote for you as long as they think you're better than the other guy, since candidates from The One Party are seen as the only viable options. Sure, they can't do anything too horrendous, but they generally know where the line is, and they take advantage of that.
So no, not the US.