Maybe you should try looking at the definition again. It's pretty short, isn't it? Everyone creates their own understandings for what capitalism implies. I choose to create a moral version of captialism that rejects making money off of force or fraud. You choose to create an immoral version of capitalism where force and fraud are rewarded. It is this immoral view of capitalism that you use to smear all of capitalism.
There's nothing about honesty or providing a fair exchange in the definition of capitalism.
To me, capitalism assumes honesty and exchange of value-for-value that the consensual participants consider fair.
It's all about acquisition. Capitalism is about getting as much money as possible through whatever means achieve it. Lies, deception, and fraud are what happens
The definition you gave contains none of these. You imposed them.
Do you believe that individual property rights are good or bad?
I fail to see how an economic theory should prevent (or cause) a dictatorship.
Communism is not merely an economic theory. It's also a political theory. Furthermore, you didn't answer my questions: Where do the tenets of communism state that the actions carried out by the brutal dictatorships were unjustified? How do the tenets of communism prevent a brutal dictatorship from arising?
I guess you don't read popular magazines like People, Fortune, Forbes, etc.
That's the rich celebrating the rich, if anything. My original statement stands: I do not see the poor ammassing to hold worship ceremonies for the rich. Instead, I see the opposite. Class envy is alive and well and is the feeling which feeds communism and all other leftist ideas.
Obviously you are ignorant. The only property rights that are restricted under communism are the rights to own the means of production.
I'm not ignorant, I just forgot. Communism maintains that one can only own what one can "directly use" for their state-assigned job.
That's different than saying you can't own property.
It's different from saying you can own no property, but it's the same as saying you can't own (non-state-approved) property.
Remember, I'm not talking about some regieme, I'm talking about actual communist theory (which I do not subscribe to.)
I argue that "communism" and "dictatorial regime" go hand-in-hand. They're two peas in a pod. One complements the other.
The workers there are slaves, nothing more, and now they can be exploited for profit.
You've hauled out one of the Leftist buzzwords ("exploitation"), and I'm just waiting for you to come out with the other ("greed"). If you ask 1,000 different people what "exploitation" is then you'll get 1,000 different answers. Exploitation, like greed, is a concept that is based totally in emotion and has no grounds in reason or evidence.
I had a professor in Organizational Psychology who once said that if you look at any org that has a union, and then look back in the history of the org, you will pretty much find out that they treated their workers badly enough to deserve the union (at that time.)
I agree: any company that has a union deserved to have it. If only the union would disband once their goals were acheived. Unions turn people into lazy thugs. Every union is nest of power-mad creeps.
Unions are *not* a great thing for organizations and are not really that great of a thing for workers. However, organizations have a lot of power over workers and if the conditions are right for abuse, uions are really the only proven remedy.
I agree. Unions are, at first, good. Then they become eternally shitty. I wish we had a better way than this.
For the record, I believe in free market capitalism tempered by democratic regulation.
Even the most pathetic deadbeat loser gets a vote. This is the flaw in "democratic regulation".
However, it is also a fact that capitalism itself is amoral and can be quite cruel.
I was expecting you to argue that capitalism is immoral, so you have surprised me again. Captialism is actually moral, not amoral. Captitalism can be cruel, depending on how you define the word. Is it cruel for a corporation to not give money to the poor?
Wages seek their own level and that's why we see a race to the bottom for which country can have the lowest wages, worst working conditions, and least regulation.
We see a race to the bottom only when there is a surplus of labor or a dearth of demand for it. Under other conditions, we see a race to the top.
The last thing we need is to compete for our jobs against slaves with guns to their backs.
This is an interesting issue, and I don't know how I feel about it. The freedom part of me wants to let anyone do whatever they want, provided that they do not de
You never did answer my question: How does doing something that is arbitrarily judged jail-worthy by the state equate to wanting a life where the threat and possibility of rape is commonplace? I'm not just talking about "murder and robbing liquor stores".
i'm not sure what universe you're living in but alan ralsky's version of capitalism is much closer to what we have here in this country than your version.
I'm saying what capitalism is. Whether or not others choose to follow it is their perogative. You seem to have your own definition of captialism, and I believe you equate it axiomatically with evil.
capitalist enterprises seek to take without rewarding or exchanging to maximize profits.
Your philosophy has little to do with rewarding merit and much to do with fulfilling need. It colors everything you say as much as my opposite philosophy colors what I say.
if you can get an inch for free why not take a mile and claim it's just an inch and beg for forgiveness if you get caught?
If you define captialism as evil, then you believe that earning as well as taking is "taking".
that's the capitalist way. it's alan ralsky's way.
It's much easier to attack your enemy than it is to attack his philosphy, isn't it? If you attack the philosophy you run the danger of entertaining its ideas. I am very familiar with your philosophy and I think most every bit of it stinks to high hell.
and the can-spam act is a bunch of bull. it was written by spammers, the dma, to protect their fiefdom and profits at the expense of the consumer.
"It was written by evil people to do more of their evil." Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
he only move left for consumers is to walk away from this type of marketplace.
One of the many cool things about capitalism is that it does not prevent you from making this choice. In fact, I invite you to walk away from the marketplace. You don't improve it, and your presense will not be missed.
legislators will not protect us. the courts will not protect us.
My ass your legislators won't "protect" you. What do you think every social program is except looting under duress of one group and giving the plunder to a poorer group where votes are exchanged for the service?
only we can protect us by refusing to do business with any person or company that does not abide by our standards of living.
Strangely enough, I agree with you here, but not in the way that I think you want me to agree with you. I also choose not to do business with companies that are unethical. It's unfortunate that we don't have infallible, benevolent angels here to police human behavior. Instead, all we have are other humans with their own motivations and philosophies that irritatingly don't always match our own.
In supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name putIn supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name put on a brutal dictatorship. on a brutal dictatorship.
Where do the tenets of communism state that the actions carried out by the brutal dictatorships were unjustified? How do the tenets of communism prevent a brutal dictatorship from arising?
In America, Capitalism is just a name placed on the worship and priveledge placed on weathy people - no matter how they got that way.
In America I don't see the poor amassing to hold worship ceremonies for the priveledged wealthy. In fact, I see the opposite.
Every large fortunte comes as a result of a crime, or someone found a way to game the system - like this Alan Ralsky.
The tenets of communism define that wealth is obtained through crime. Under communism, it is axiomatic.
Once you have money, it is easy to maintain wealth because of the "heads I win, tails you loose" laws put in place to protect large fortunes.
It is also easy because you could bury money in your backyard. That would be a very, very easy way to maintain wealth (actually lose it, considering market lending rates) that involves no laws at all. Those pesky laws, by the way, are the ones that protect individual property rights. You know as well as I that individual property rights are abolished under communism. They're *evil*, remember?
That reminds me: how do you feel about China moving to enshrine individual property rights in their constitution?
It's the society they want, we're just giving it to them.
How does doing something that is arbitrarily judged jail-worthy by the state equate to wanting a life where the threat and possibility of rape is commonplace?
There is nothing wrong at all with trying to support yourself as a spammer.
As long as you ignore the "theft" part of it.
Look at Big Tabacco for example
Stop trying to change the subject.
Letting Uncle Sam regulate much of anything is a generally a bad idea.
Allowing the state to enforce laws which prevent individuals from depriving other individuals of life, liberty, or property is a valid function of the state.
If you don't want some spamers crap flowing over your network do something for yourself for a change, drop a few packets, install a filter.
In other words, if someone steals your service, you should defend yourself but leave the thief unscathed so that he may contine his evil work.
However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.
The problem with wanting to round up "criminals" is that "crime" is arbitrarily defined by the state. Remember when everyone who drank alcohol was a "criminal" in the USA?
Instead of throwing around the state-sanctioned "criminal" label, let's peg Alan for what he really is: he's a fraud and a thief. He steals other's bandwidth, service, and time. He uses fraud to hock his products. Both of these (defrauding and theft) run contrary to humans functioning in society as free and moral individuals.
Everyone is a selfish individual. There is no way to avoid it. Selfishness is an amoral concept.
and capitalism at its worst.
Fraud and looting, both of which are intrinsically part of spamming, are the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism is about exchanging value for value freely, not about taking others' property or using lies to make money.
But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.
This is one aspect of American culture that really disgusts me (and I'm American). So many of us believe that if you go to jail, then you deserve to be raped. It's such a common belief now that it's as if the punishment for crime were rape instead of prison, and prison is just the place where the punishment (rape) is carried out.
I greatly appreciate your offer to bring my son back something from Ukraine, that's very generous of you! To be honest, we have no ties back to the country of his birth. I was rather disgusted by Ukrainian culture (anti-black, anti-handicapped, if-you're-not-perfect-you're-scum), and I'm glad that my son won't have any part of it. He came to the USA when he was 15 months old and has no memories of his life in the orphanage.
I continued with this discussion with you and the many others who responded to my original complaint partially to see if this was an argument that I could win. If you were to read through some of the responses that I wrote to others who responded to me (how boring would that be?), you'll see my argument meander and mature.
I have noticed that people get *really* touchy when you ask them to change their language. I remember feeling exactly like this back in my Christian days when a black preacher led a group of us in a workshop claiming that saying things such as, "It was a dark day" and "he was the black sheep of the family" were racist against blacks. It didn't go over well with me.
At the same time, I do honestly believe that the reason that "gay" has become a perjorative among teenagers is because of the fact that youth of today live in a culture where gay-bashing is very common and normal. People claim that young people are more open to homosexuality, but I think that they're referring to young adults. The world of teenagers, particularly teenage males, is stridently gay-hating.
So I'm very pleased and surprised to see you offer up to be more careful how you use the word "gay". Honestly, I wasn't expecting anyone to be receptive to my message. We are slowly moving to a point where stupid things such as race and sexuality cease to be issues in our society. I credit you with helping make that happen.:)
"Certain strains of HIV target macrophages rather than T cells,"
Excuse me, but I thought the HIV/AIDS Priests have claimed that AIDS does *not* kill T-cells. Is this web site based on old information?
The skeptical position does not require any less proof than any other. AIDS researchers may not have proof that HIV causes AIDS, but they have strong evidence of corrolation. The onus is upon you to counter that evidence and offer your own on why AIDS should be different from other diseases in that its effects would not vary among people with different genetic makeups.
The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. You allege that HIV exists and that it causes AIDS. I don't believe that, and I am asking probing questions.
I am surprised to see you admit that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. Will you also admit that there is no proof for the existance of HIV as well? I'm wondering how far your candor will take you.
That's not a very open-minded way to enter an argument. If you're convinced that you are right, and nothing can sway that convication, than this discussion is pointless.
On the contrary, since I do not believe that HIV exists, entertaing your assumption is being very open-minded. I could, after all, have cut you off and asked you to show me that HIV exists. Come to think of it, why don't you do that now? Furthermore, it's not that I'm convinced that I'm right, but that I am not convinced that you are right. The difference is subtle and crucial.
You asked how I know that all the American "victims" of AIDS really did not die of AZT-poisoning. My response was that people were dying of AIDS long before AZT was introduced.
I will concede this point. How do you know that those people who died of AIDS *after* AZT was being used did not die of AZT poisioning? You still have not denied my claims that AZT is poison and has side effects that match the symptoms of AIDS.
Also, you fail to note that the mortality rate as a result of AIDS drugs has been *decreasing* with *increases* in the use of those drugs.
Which drugs? AZT? Protease inhibitors? Be specific.
I'm not denying (nor accepting) that claim. You said nothing about cofactors in the post to which I originally responded. You asked how I know that AIDS "victims" did not die of AZT-poisoning.
I won't let you hide behind that. Answer me: how do you know that AIDS sufferers' symptoms of AIDS were not caused by AIDS cofactors?
AIDS cases in Africa *were* tested. Not all of them, because that would be stupid. A representative sample was tested and the results were extrapolated to the general population.
Really? Is this the sole manner in which the number of AIDS cases in Africa were estimated, or were other methods also used?
Yes! That's generally how studies work.
I don't believe it. It seems logically flawed.
As of 1995, the percentage of AIDS cases transmitted through heterosexual contact was well over 20%.
Cite your source. You know as well as I that AIDS has remained almost completely confined to its original risk groups despite the claims that this was an "epidemic". If this is truly an epidemic, then wouldn't we be seeing much greater numbers of AIDS cases? Furthermore, why does KS occur almost exclusively among gay men?
Condom use in Africa is much, much lower than condom use in the United States.
And how did you measure this?
African culture is far less repressive about human sexuality than many others around the world.
You mean, "African cultures". Plural. It's convenient for your dogma to treat it as one culture, but it's not very honest.
Compare that to 0.61% for the US, and >25% for some African countries.
And how did you arrive at the 25% figure for Africa? You guessed!
Why is that so? Because Islamic culture is *extremely* repressive about sexuality!
That's one reason. Perhaps there are other reasons, too. What might they be?
I'm of the opinion that if you hadn't started right off in an accusatory attack, your message would have been better received. As I stated many posts ago, I would have apologized for my poor choice of words if you calmly pointed it out. When you begin a debate with an attack, all sides tend to get defensive. Now you may disagree with that, but that is how it affected me.
Well-put! You must understand that growing up gay isn't easy. I was on the lowest rung of the ladder, hiding, hoping that no one would find out. If I did, then I was doomed to an existance of pain and abuse. I could see just as well as anyone that "faggot" was the ultimate insult. It was this environment of fag-bashing that I believe led to the word "gay" being a perjorative among teenagers today. Now I have heard the word "gay" used only about 45 million times as a negative slur. When I read what you wrote, I snapped.
Is your son gay? Odds are, he's going to be straight, you know.
My guess is that I am the first gay parent you've ever met. I believe that you think you are sharing insightful and helpful things with me regarding my child and my being a gay parent. What you don't realize is your nuggets of wisdom are very old news to me. I've thought about these things many times. I didn't enter into the decision to be parent lightly.
That said, no shit my son is probably going to be straight. In fact, I hope that he is straight! I wouldn't want him to have to grow up gay. It's a very hard life, even with parents like me and my partner.
And how do you know I'm not a parent?
From the way that you talk. You come off like every other non-parent does. Who knows? I could be wrong, but that would surprise me.
And what makes you an expert at it? There's no prior qualifications or training needed to be a parent.
I never claimed to be an expert on parenting. I can't be an expert on it becuase no one can agree on what proper parenting is. Becoming a parent is like walking through a portal to another world from which there is no return. Everything changes, and those people from the "old world" who offer their well-intentioned and horribly-ignorant advice come off as annoying every single time. You will understand this when you become a parent.
By the way, of all of the people who responded to my original complaint, I think you are the most interesting.
And I repeat, my original use of the term was to mean effeminate.
That would have to be something you would explain later, as most kids understand "gay" to mean "the worst of the bad". You're trying to turn your use of the word into something harmless when you know as well as I that most any kid who hears the use of that word in the context that you used it in would have understood "completely undesirable", "odious", "worthy of being ridiculed", and all the other horrible things that "gay" connotes to teenagers today.
You are the one who applied the "all things shitty" meaning to it.
Incorrect. You know as well as I that many teenagers use "gay" to mean "the worst of the bad". It's the ultimate insult. I'm only stating the way that youth of today use the word.
When I requested you search for my posts on soc.motss (members of the same sex), it was just to try to lend some credibility to a statement that I'm not some homophobe or hate gay people,
I don't believe you're a homophobe or hate gay people, and I don't believe I made any accusations toward you. I am opposed to the use of the word "gay" to mean "negative, bad, stupid, pathetic" and everything that you and I know that teenagers use it to mean. Use used the word exactly as they would, and I called you on it.
And I know plenty of gay folk that use the term gay to mean effeminate, and it's not considered an insult either.
Actually, the gay folk I know who use that word use it to mean, "stereotypically gay". It's a different use of the word and is not intended to be negative.
You're on a losing crusade here.
I'm not on a crusade. I'm engaging in discussions on slashdot.
First off, language is fluent and changes over time,
Stop trying to change the subject.
But I believe you have bigger things to worry about regarding your son.
Excuse you, but what made you think that you needed to tell me this? Protecting my son from the fag-bashing slander which is so hideously prevalent in schools today is my number one priority. If you went to an American high school, then you know as well as I do that "faggot" is the absolute worst thing one could be or be labeled as. Gays are perceived as the lowest of the low and the most worthy of torment and abuse. It is because of this that the word "gay" has become synonymous with "bad".
Your efforts will be better served teaching him that this is coming and how best to deal with it.
Parenting advice from non-parents is worthless. When you become a parent you will understand this.
You can't protect him from the harshness and cruel reality of this world.
You're partially right and partially wrong. I can protect him from some of the harshness and cruelty of this world, but not all of it. In order to preserve my child's health, safety, and childhood, I have to make wise choices about where we live and with whom he interacts.
For example, mutated ccR5 protiens on the surface of cells protects against AIDS because it prevents the virus from recognizing and infecting the cell.
1. What is a mutated ccR5 protein? Mutated in which way?
2. Which cells are you referring to? The HIV/AIDS Priests have recently revised their position to claim that HIV does NOT kill T-cells.
Is this is the best you can do with "biological differences"? I'm not impressed. Keep in mind that I do not believe that HIV exists. I'm entertaining your assumption because I think your claim will eventually fail.
Since the phenomena of some people being more resistant to disease is so common, the existence of long term non-progressors is very weak evidence.
I disagree. The HIV/AIDS Priests have claimed that HIV will necessarily lead to AIDS. Are you countering that position? If some people are resistant to HIV, what, specifically, accounts for this resistance?
If you could prove why AIDS should be different from other viruses, in that it was not susceptible to genetic differences (more like a gun-shot to the head than the flu), then you'd have a more compelling argument.
I don't require a compelling argument. My position is skepticism, not believe. My position is, "I do not believe that HIV exists, nor do I believe that this alleged virus causes AIDS." HIV=AIDS is your position, and I am taking you to task on it.
Because people were dying of AIDS in the early 1980's, a decade before the introduction of AZT and other anti-AIDS drugs?
AZT was introduced in 1987, less than "a decade" before people were dying of AIDS. I see that you have not countered my claims that AZT does not prolong life and has side effects that match the symptoms of AIDS. Do you agree with these claims?
Furthermore, for those sufferers of AIDS before the introduction of AZT, how do you know that their symptoms of AIDS were not caused by AIDS cofactors? John Gallo originally denied the existence of AIDS cofactors but later revised his position.
Because studies do actually test people.
It matters not. You know as well as I that all of the millions of AIDS cases in Africa were not tested. If they were not tested, then how do we know that they have HIV?
In the first study, of 16,743 sexually active women at 396 locations, 24.5% were find to be infected. In the second study, of 8428 people in the general population, 11.4% were found to be infected.
Do you then conclude that those samples apply to the entire population? Furthermore, what tests were used to test the population? You know as well as I do that no "AIDS test" tests for the presence of the alleged virus.
Moreover, my dad works in public health, and has done many projects in Africa. From what he's told me, AIDS is definately a real problem there, and many people are dying from it, without ever getting expensive drug treatments.
Why is African AIDS so different from North American AIDS? Over there, it's a largely heterosexual problem. Over here, it has stayed almost completely confined to its original risk groups (promiscuous gay males and IV drug users). The HIV/AIDS Priests' explanation is something like this: "We can't expect those niggers over there in Africa not to fuck everything in sight." Will your explanation be less racist than theirs is?
yea dude, the answer to your question is right there. When you explain to your kid what peopel mean when they say "thats gay" tell them they mean "thats shitty" which is a slang reference to shit's real meaning: dookie.
Q: Why did he call that "gay"? A: What he means is, "That's shitty." Q: Does "gay" mean "shitty"? A: Well, no, not really. Q: Then why did he use the word "gay"?
Really, now, tell me why "gay" has become such a common-use term for "shitty"? How did that happen?
I believe you can do just as good of a job raising your kid as a traditional mother/father, as long as you don't try to over-protect and shelter your kid.
Parenting advice from non-parents is worthless. When you become a parent you will understand this.
I replayed it to transcribe it, and he definitely says faggy goth kid.
My bad.
But the fact you thought it was funny clinches it for me. It's OK to poke fun at others, like goths, as long as it's not your group.
I never claimed that it was not OK to make fun of gay people. I make fun of gay people, and I am a gay person. I repeat: I am opposed to the use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "all things shitty".
The beliefs in souls, heaven, hell, God, Satan, demons, angels, walking on water, talking donkeys, flaming swords, flaming and flying chariots, transfirguarions, resurrections, ascencions, demon-possessions, etc, etc, etc are all superstitious, irrational beliefs. There is no evidence to support any of them.
Oh, there is the Bible, you say! I have made a hobby of rational analysis of scripture. I know scripture better than most Christians. Would you like to discuss it with me?
The life of Jesus of Nazareth is a matter of historical record, backed up by thousands of written texts
You have been listening to your preacher too much. Outside of scripture, there are very few references to the life of this "Jesus" character. Most Christians are well-trained enough to spit out "Josephus" and "Tacitus" here, but few have actually read their words which actually mention a "Jesus". There is no way that there are "thousands" of written texts, unless you are actually referring to the thousands of contradictory manuscripts from which the Bible was compiled and then choosing to impose Jesus on the Old Testament.
The Bible is widely regarded as a work of literature and a chronicle of history in addition to being divinely inspired.
1. I am a gay man. The people who are most opposed to any kind of decent life for me are evangelical Christians who base their opposition in their Christian faith.
2. I am a gay adoptive parent. The people who are most opposed to my family are evangelical Chrsitains who base their opposition in their Christian faith.
3. I am a capitalist. Christians are opposed to any form of capitalism that they deem "immoral" (drugs, prostitution) even when there is nothing immoral about it.
4. Reason is the only way to knowledge. Christians oppose this, falsely claiming that faith and feelings lead to knowledge.
5. Christians are in massive support of the murderous, ineffective, and ridiculous War on Some Drugs.
6. Christians are in massive support of sending billions of dollars to Israel.
7. Christians are in massive support of using the force of government to teach their superstitions.
I can go on and on. Are you convinced that I see Christianity as a threat?
However stating that you don't "trumpet" your beliefs appears incorrect at this point.
I never claimed that I don't trumpet my beliefs. I claimed that I don't trumpet "truth" the way that the Christians do.
You have given one example. Can I inquire as to how this became many?
It never became many, it has always been many. Check this out.
Could you provide the bible verses that you are referring to?
Of course:
"then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same." Deut 15:17
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property" Ex 21:20-21
"I [the Lord] will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away" Joel 3:8
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men" Eph 6:5-7
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered" 1 Tim. 6:1
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord" Col. 3:22
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" 1 Peter 2:18,21
Did you also know that God demanded the slaughter of infants and children, including tearing up pregnant women?
You repeating "Argument by analogy" over and over again does not mean you have triumphed over my points, it just means you can cut an paste, or dont care that you sound like a broken record, and one skirting around the issue at that.
If you are arguing by analogy, then it means your points are invalid. Analogies are necessarily flawed, and I reject them all. No amount of griping on your part will make me accept your choice to invalidly argue by analogy.
Remember when gay meant happy? Why did you have to go and make it mean homosexual? Same argument you are making. Boo-hoo, so someone took a word and gave it a new definition, gays themselves are guilty of that.
No one can be blamed for making "gay" mean whatever people currently use it to mean. I can't see how I am making the argument that you are attributing to me. I repeat: I oppose the wanton use of the word "gay" to mean "shitty". You have never denied that the word is used this way. Your argument is one of "get over it!"
I think your argument lacks logic.
My argument may very well lack logic. I am human, after all. So why don't you engage your brain and point out where my logic fails? Claiming is so much easier than proving, isn't it?
Yes I believe your son will be able to tell his friends about his family. I believe he will be able to diferentiate between meanings and infer intent.
It is you, not I, who keeps bringing up "intent" and "words mean different things". To me, this is about how my son will think his peers view gay people. I think most teenagers have an extremely negative view of gay people, and this is why most teenagers use the word "gay" as a perjorative.
"MOOOOOMMY I CANT SLEEP!! Why oh WHY did they use the word present to mean gifts AND to show things to people,
Except that we aren't talking about "present", we're talking about "gay". You're arguing by analogy again.
Remember the girl that was suspended for wearing her religious head scarf? Or the boy for kissing a fellow kindergardner?
Argument by analogy.
Because stupid people do stupid things everywhere does not mean that everyone is out to get you.
This is not about people doing stupid things, nor do I believe that everyone is out to get me (ad hominem). A State Supreme Court Justice of Alamaba issued a ruling stating that gay people are evil and inherently unfit to raise children. He received massive support for his statements among evangelical Christians. Gay adoption is at the forefront of controversy.
Rather pompous of you to assume that I have no concern for anything not directly affecting my life.
I made no such claim.
I think you're creating more of a potential conflict crusading like you are on the subject.
Crusading? I thought I was posting to slashdot.
Whats the point in setting up the child to believe every time someone uses the word, no matter the intent it is a viscious brutal thing.
What makes you think this is my intent?
Would it make more sence to let him know that multiple meanings are common and if it was obviously not inteded as a negative statement towards homosexuals then not to take it as one.
I thought you argued that he would figure this out on his own.
In my book intent triumps anyday. Seems like you are looking for battles to pick when there are none.
How am I supposed to know that a person's intent is good? Even when a person may be called on using the word "gay" in it's perjorative meaning, they can always claim that they "didn't mean anything negative by it" in order to save face. Except that, in your book, I shouldn't call anyone on it, right? I should just assume that no one harbors any ill will toward gay people and let them throw the word "gay" around with its well-understood meaning of "the ultimate in shittiness".
Why don't you ask, "What makes you belief that?" instead?
That would certainly suit you better, wouldn't it? In any case, I've already heard every reason for why a person believes in (whatever flavor of) Christianity. The single real reason is because they have abandoned reason.
Why do I belief in this "stupid thing"? Well when you and I die... if I'm wrong... I've lost nothing. If I'm right.... well then I fear for your soul.
Argument by force (in the form of Pascal's Wager).
I agree with everything you have written, and it was well-put. Welcome to my friend list.:)
I think I put poorly what I was trying to argue. I was arguing against mocking Christians for being Christians. I was arguing for attacking their beliefs... in a probing and questioning way. Christianity, like all superstitions, will succumb under rational criticism. Whether or not the Christian in quesiton will also succumb ot reason is another matter altogheter.
And they don't call 'em "personal beliefs" for nothing. People will get very combative when you start discussing their beliefs in a critical way. It's an indirect way of saying, "What does it make you if you choose to believe this stupid thing?"
Since your post and the previous one were both AC, I will assume that I am responding to the same person I was responding to before.
Yeah, and remember when bad all of the sudden bad meant good? Or that the word "present" has multiple meanings?
Argument by analogy, twice.
Oh wait, no, kids are smart and although you may not be able to differentiate between meanings I'll bet your son can.
I'm sure he will be able to differentiate between different meanings of words, but that's not the issue. He will see that people use "gay" to mean "bad". Why was "gay" chosen to mean this and its use tolerated if not for the fact that homosexuality has traditionally been seen as something evil and repugnant (for really stupid, superstitious reasons)?
Now lets get back to the idea that we must stop using the word gay in that way because what will you tell your poor boy when the kids start using its slang meaning.
No, you must stop using the word "gay" in that way because it is hurtful. The example with my son was merely one example. Tell me, what do you think it's like growing up gay?
Think of this, do the parents of tubby Timmy go on a rampage to stop the usage of the word fat because it might make things hard for their child?
Argument by analogy.
So to answer your question as to what do you tell your child, you tell him this: Sometimes when people use the word present it means moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future;
Argument by analogy. Answer my question: do you think my son will be willing to share with his peers that his family is gay after he sees his friends decry everything negative as "gay"? How do you suppose his friends will respond to that?
Maybe you'll be surprised and your son will teach you a thing or two some day: "Dad, don't get your panties in a twist, he wasn't referring to HOMOSEXUALS, he was just upset that there were no presents present.
Maybe that could happen. Or, alternatively, something worse could happen. Consider the case in Louisiana where a boy was punished by his school's administration because he dared tell another student that he has "two mommies". You don't seem to realize that my family is at the forefront of controversy for no good reason, and I must protect my family. I know that you feel like, "Well, it's not happening to me, so what the fuck do I care?"
Believe me, if this is the most of your worries about raising a child I think you must lead a more blessed life than the rest of us.
Making sure that my son is safe is at the forefront of my concerns. Educating others about the hurtful and stupid things they say that happen to make (and have made) my life worse for no good reason is part of that concern.
I took the step of summarizing your entire argument.
I believe in the scientific method. HIV/AIDS has much more to do with ego and money than it does with science. Did you know that AIDS funding has twice as much money per sufferer than does cancer, even though the number of cancer fatalities dwarfs the number of AIDS fatalities?
Basically, you're offended that all knowledgeable medical and research personnel know that engaging in stupid behavior can kill you
Ad verecundiam. Furthermore, it's not just "stupid behavior" but blood transfusions and in virto which can pass the alleged HIV. You need to get your dogma straight.
so you're looking for any way to dignify your choice of actions.
Ad hominem.
Guess what, murderer
Ad hominem.
that doesn't make HIV any less deadly. It only makes ignorant folk feel immortal.
You are assuming the point in dispute. I do not think that HIV exists.
I can believe that an overdose of drugs won't kill me, and I can make websites to convince other people, but blowing a gram of meth will still stop my heart whether I believe it or not.
Non sequitur.
I chose the word "murderer" deliberately. You and your neo-fascist PC ilk are foisting a death sentence on those gullible enough to buy into your non-scientific "feel good" crap.
Strangely enough, I hate political correctness. Why did you group me with them (and give me yet another ad hominem)?
Every kid who visits that site and walks away believing that it's OK to go back to retro-partying in bathhouses won't give him a deadly disease is a kid that you have killed.
I'm willing to take that chance, and I am certainly not alone. No one believes any more that AZT prolonged life, and its life-destroying properties were well-documented decades before AIDS hit the scene. I don't believe in many AIDS deaths, but I believe that many people were killed due to AZT poisoning.
Your efforts to intimidate me will fail.
Sleep well, asshole. I hope your kid is smart enough to listen to the scientific and medical community and reject your lies when he's old enough to escape your brainwashing.
There is definately brainwashing involved, and it's certainly not coming from me. My position is skepticism, and HIV/AIDS is a religion. You are treating me just like the Catholic church treated its heretics: with hatred.
Slashdot Mirror
Try looking up the definition of capitalism:
Maybe you should try looking at the definition again. It's pretty short, isn't it? Everyone creates their own understandings for what capitalism implies. I choose to create a moral version of captialism that rejects making money off of force or fraud. You choose to create an immoral version of capitalism where force and fraud are rewarded. It is this immoral view of capitalism that you use to smear all of capitalism.
There's nothing about honesty or providing a fair exchange in the definition of capitalism.
To me, capitalism assumes honesty and exchange of value-for-value that the consensual participants consider fair.
It's all about acquisition. Capitalism is about getting as much money as possible through whatever means achieve it. Lies, deception, and fraud are what happens
The definition you gave contains none of these. You imposed them.
Do you believe that individual property rights are good or bad?
I fail to see how an economic theory should prevent (or cause) a dictatorship.
Communism is not merely an economic theory. It's also a political theory. Furthermore, you didn't answer my questions: Where do the tenets of communism state that the actions carried out by the brutal dictatorships were unjustified? How do the tenets of communism prevent a brutal dictatorship from arising?
I guess you don't read popular magazines like People, Fortune, Forbes, etc.
That's the rich celebrating the rich, if anything. My original statement stands: I do not see the poor ammassing to hold worship ceremonies for the rich. Instead, I see the opposite. Class envy is alive and well and is the feeling which feeds communism and all other leftist ideas.
Obviously you are ignorant. The only property rights that are restricted under communism are the rights to own the means of production.
I'm not ignorant, I just forgot. Communism maintains that one can only own what one can "directly use" for their state-assigned job.
That's different than saying you can't own property.
It's different from saying you can own no property, but it's the same as saying you can't own (non-state-approved) property.
Remember, I'm not talking about some regieme, I'm talking about actual communist theory (which I do not subscribe to.)
I argue that "communism" and "dictatorial regime" go hand-in-hand. They're two peas in a pod. One complements the other.
The workers there are slaves, nothing more, and now they can be exploited for profit.
You've hauled out one of the Leftist buzzwords ("exploitation"), and I'm just waiting for you to come out with the other ("greed"). If you ask 1,000 different people what "exploitation" is then you'll get 1,000 different answers. Exploitation, like greed, is a concept that is based totally in emotion and has no grounds in reason or evidence.
I had a professor in Organizational Psychology who once said that if you look at any org that has a union, and then look back in the history of the org, you will pretty much find out that they treated their workers badly enough to deserve the union (at that time.)
I agree: any company that has a union deserved to have it. If only the union would disband once their goals were acheived. Unions turn people into lazy thugs. Every union is nest of power-mad creeps.
Unions are *not* a great thing for organizations and are not really that great of a thing for workers. However, organizations have a lot of power over workers and if the conditions are right for abuse, uions are really the only proven remedy.
I agree. Unions are, at first, good. Then they become eternally shitty. I wish we had a better way than this.
For the record, I believe in free market capitalism tempered by democratic regulation.
Even the most pathetic deadbeat loser gets a vote. This is the flaw in "democratic regulation".
However, it is also a fact that capitalism itself is amoral and can be quite cruel.
I was expecting you to argue that capitalism is immoral, so you have surprised me again. Captialism is actually moral, not amoral. Captitalism can be cruel, depending on how you define the word. Is it cruel for a corporation to not give money to the poor?
Wages seek their own level and that's why we see a race to the bottom for which country can have the lowest wages, worst working conditions, and least regulation.
We see a race to the bottom only when there is a surplus of labor or a dearth of demand for it. Under other conditions, we see a race to the top.
The last thing we need is to compete for our jobs against slaves with guns to their backs.
This is an interesting issue, and I don't know how I feel about it. The freedom part of me wants to let anyone do whatever they want, provided that they do not de
You never did answer my question: How does doing something that is arbitrarily judged jail-worthy by the state equate to wanting a life where the threat and possibility of rape is commonplace? I'm not just talking about "murder and robbing liquor stores".
i'm not sure what universe you're living in but alan ralsky's version of capitalism is much closer to what we have here in this country than your version.
I'm saying what capitalism is. Whether or not others choose to follow it is their perogative. You seem to have your own definition of captialism, and I believe you equate it axiomatically with evil.
capitalist enterprises seek to take without rewarding or exchanging to maximize profits.
Your philosophy has little to do with rewarding merit and much to do with fulfilling need. It colors everything you say as much as my opposite philosophy colors what I say.
if you can get an inch for free why not take a mile and claim it's just an inch and beg for forgiveness if you get caught?
If you define captialism as evil, then you believe that earning as well as taking is "taking".
that's the capitalist way. it's alan ralsky's way.
It's much easier to attack your enemy than it is to attack his philosphy, isn't it? If you attack the philosophy you run the danger of entertaining its ideas. I am very familiar with your philosophy and I think most every bit of it stinks to high hell.
and the can-spam act is a bunch of bull. it was written by spammers, the dma, to protect their fiefdom and profits at the expense of the consumer.
"It was written by evil people to do more of their evil." Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
he only move left for consumers is to walk away from this type of marketplace.
One of the many cool things about capitalism is that it does not prevent you from making this choice. In fact, I invite you to walk away from the marketplace. You don't improve it, and your presense will not be missed.
legislators will not protect us. the courts will not protect us.
My ass your legislators won't "protect" you. What do you think every social program is except looting under duress of one group and giving the plunder to a poorer group where votes are exchanged for the service?
only we can protect us by refusing to do business with any person or company that does not abide by our standards of living.
Strangely enough, I agree with you here, but not in the way that I think you want me to agree with you. I also choose not to do business with companies that are unethical. It's unfortunate that we don't have infallible, benevolent angels here to police human behavior. Instead, all we have are other humans with their own motivations and philosophies that irritatingly don't always match our own.
In supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name putIn supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name put on a brutal dictatorship. on a brutal dictatorship.
Where do the tenets of communism state that the actions carried out by the brutal dictatorships were unjustified? How do the tenets of communism prevent a brutal dictatorship from arising?
In America, Capitalism is just a name placed on the worship and priveledge placed on weathy people - no matter how they got that way.
In America I don't see the poor amassing to hold worship ceremonies for the priveledged wealthy. In fact, I see the opposite.
Every large fortunte comes as a result of a crime, or someone found a way to game the system - like this Alan Ralsky.
The tenets of communism define that wealth is obtained through crime. Under communism, it is axiomatic.
Once you have money, it is easy to maintain wealth because of the "heads I win, tails you loose" laws put in place to protect large fortunes.
It is also easy because you could bury money in your backyard. That would be a very, very easy way to maintain wealth (actually lose it, considering market lending rates) that involves no laws at all. Those pesky laws, by the way, are the ones that protect individual property rights. You know as well as I that individual property rights are abolished under communism. They're *evil*, remember?
That reminds me: how do you feel about China moving to enshrine individual property rights in their constitution?
It's the society they want, we're just giving it to them.
How does doing something that is arbitrarily judged jail-worthy by the state equate to wanting a life where the threat and possibility of rape is commonplace?
There is nothing wrong at all with trying to support yourself as a spammer.
As long as you ignore the "theft" part of it.
Look at Big Tabacco for example
Stop trying to change the subject.
Letting Uncle Sam regulate much of anything is a generally a bad idea.
Allowing the state to enforce laws which prevent individuals from depriving other individuals of life, liberty, or property is a valid function of the state.
If you don't want some spamers crap flowing over your network do something for yourself for a change, drop a few packets, install a filter.
In other words, if someone steals your service, you should defend yourself but leave the thief unscathed so that he may contine his evil work.
However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.
The problem with wanting to round up "criminals" is that "crime" is arbitrarily defined by the state. Remember when everyone who drank alcohol was a "criminal" in the USA?
Instead of throwing around the state-sanctioned "criminal" label, let's peg Alan for what he really is: he's a fraud and a thief. He steals other's bandwidth, service, and time. He uses fraud to hock his products. Both of these (defrauding and theft) run contrary to humans functioning in society as free and moral individuals.
He's an excellent example of a selfish individual
Everyone is a selfish individual. There is no way to avoid it. Selfishness is an amoral concept.
and capitalism at its worst.
Fraud and looting, both of which are intrinsically part of spamming, are the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism is about exchanging value for value freely, not about taking others' property or using lies to make money.
But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.
This is one aspect of American culture that really disgusts me (and I'm American). So many of us believe that if you go to jail, then you deserve to be raped. It's such a common belief now that it's as if the punishment for crime were rape instead of prison, and prison is just the place where the punishment (rape) is carried out.
I greatly appreciate your offer to bring my son back something from Ukraine, that's very generous of you! To be honest, we have no ties back to the country of his birth. I was rather disgusted by Ukrainian culture (anti-black, anti-handicapped, if-you're-not-perfect-you're-scum), and I'm glad that my son won't have any part of it. He came to the USA when he was 15 months old and has no memories of his life in the orphanage.
:)
I continued with this discussion with you and the many others who responded to my original complaint partially to see if this was an argument that I could win. If you were to read through some of the responses that I wrote to others who responded to me (how boring would that be?), you'll see my argument meander and mature.
I have noticed that people get *really* touchy when you ask them to change their language. I remember feeling exactly like this back in my Christian days when a black preacher led a group of us in a workshop claiming that saying things such as, "It was a dark day" and "he was the black sheep of the family" were racist against blacks. It didn't go over well with me.
At the same time, I do honestly believe that the reason that "gay" has become a perjorative among teenagers is because of the fact that youth of today live in a culture where gay-bashing is very common and normal. People claim that young people are more open to homosexuality, but I think that they're referring to young adults. The world of teenagers, particularly teenage males, is stridently gay-hating.
So I'm very pleased and surprised to see you offer up to be more careful how you use the word "gay". Honestly, I wasn't expecting anyone to be receptive to my message. We are slowly moving to a point where stupid things such as race and sexuality cease to be issues in our society. I credit you with helping make that happen.
You can learn about ccR5 at this website.
I started reading the web page and read this:
"Certain strains of HIV target macrophages rather than T cells,"
Excuse me, but I thought the HIV/AIDS Priests have claimed that AIDS does *not* kill T-cells. Is this web site based on old information?
The skeptical position does not require any less proof than any other. AIDS researchers may not have proof that HIV causes AIDS, but they have strong evidence of corrolation. The onus is upon you to counter that evidence and offer your own on why AIDS should be different from other diseases in that its effects would not vary among people with different genetic makeups.
The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. You allege that HIV exists and that it causes AIDS. I don't believe that, and I am asking probing questions.
I am surprised to see you admit that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. Will you also admit that there is no proof for the existance of HIV as well? I'm wondering how far your candor will take you.
That's not a very open-minded way to enter an argument. If you're convinced that you are right, and nothing can sway that convication, than this discussion is pointless.
On the contrary, since I do not believe that HIV exists, entertaing your assumption is being very open-minded. I could, after all, have cut you off and asked you to show me that HIV exists. Come to think of it, why don't you do that now? Furthermore, it's not that I'm convinced that I'm right, but that I am not convinced that you are right. The difference is subtle and crucial.
You asked how I know that all the American "victims" of AIDS really did not die of AZT-poisoning. My response was that people were dying of AIDS long before AZT was introduced.
I will concede this point. How do you know that those people who died of AIDS *after* AZT was being used did not die of AZT poisioning? You still have not denied my claims that AZT is poison and has side effects that match the symptoms of AIDS.
Also, you fail to note that the mortality rate as a result of AIDS drugs has been *decreasing* with *increases* in the use of those drugs.
Which drugs? AZT? Protease inhibitors? Be specific.
I'm not denying (nor accepting) that claim. You said nothing about cofactors in the post to which I originally responded. You asked how I know that AIDS "victims" did not die of AZT-poisoning.
I won't let you hide behind that. Answer me: how do you know that AIDS sufferers' symptoms of AIDS were not caused by AIDS cofactors?
AIDS cases in Africa *were* tested. Not all of them, because that would be stupid. A representative sample was tested and the results were extrapolated to the general population.
Really? Is this the sole manner in which the number of AIDS cases in Africa were estimated, or were other methods also used?
Yes! That's generally how studies work.
I don't believe it. It seems logically flawed.
As of 1995, the percentage of AIDS cases transmitted through heterosexual contact was well over 20%.
Cite your source. You know as well as I that AIDS has remained almost completely confined to its original risk groups despite the claims that this was an "epidemic". If this is truly an epidemic, then wouldn't we be seeing much greater numbers of AIDS cases? Furthermore, why does KS occur almost exclusively among gay men?
Condom use in Africa is much, much lower than condom use in the United States.
And how did you measure this?
African culture is far less repressive about human sexuality than many others around the world.
You mean, "African cultures". Plural. It's convenient for your dogma to treat it as one culture, but it's not very honest.
Compare that to 0.61% for the US, and >25% for some African countries.
And how did you arrive at the 25% figure for Africa? You guessed!
Why is that so? Because Islamic culture is *extremely* repressive about sexuality!
That's one reason. Perhaps there are other reasons, too. What might they be?
I'm of the opinion that if you hadn't started right off in an accusatory attack, your message would have been better received. As I stated many posts ago, I would have apologized for my poor choice of words if you calmly pointed it out. When you begin a debate with an attack, all sides tend to get defensive. Now you may disagree with that, but that is how it affected me.
Well-put! You must understand that growing up gay isn't easy. I was on the lowest rung of the ladder, hiding, hoping that no one would find out. If I did, then I was doomed to an existance of pain and abuse. I could see just as well as anyone that "faggot" was the ultimate insult. It was this environment of fag-bashing that I believe led to the word "gay" being a perjorative among teenagers today. Now I have heard the word "gay" used only about 45 million times as a negative slur. When I read what you wrote, I snapped.
Is your son gay? Odds are, he's going to be straight, you know.
My guess is that I am the first gay parent you've ever met. I believe that you think you are sharing insightful and helpful things with me regarding my child and my being a gay parent. What you don't realize is your nuggets of wisdom are very old news to me. I've thought about these things many times. I didn't enter into the decision to be parent lightly.
That said, no shit my son is probably going to be straight. In fact, I hope that he is straight! I wouldn't want him to have to grow up gay. It's a very hard life, even with parents like me and my partner.
And how do you know I'm not a parent?
From the way that you talk. You come off like every other non-parent does. Who knows? I could be wrong, but that would surprise me.
And what makes you an expert at it? There's no prior qualifications or training needed to be a parent.
I never claimed to be an expert on parenting. I can't be an expert on it becuase no one can agree on what proper parenting is. Becoming a parent is like walking through a portal to another world from which there is no return. Everything changes, and those people from the "old world" who offer their well-intentioned and horribly-ignorant advice come off as annoying every single time. You will understand this when you become a parent.
By the way, of all of the people who responded to my original complaint, I think you are the most interesting.
And I repeat, my original use of the term was to mean effeminate.
That would have to be something you would explain later, as most kids understand "gay" to mean "the worst of the bad". You're trying to turn your use of the word into something harmless when you know as well as I that most any kid who hears the use of that word in the context that you used it in would have understood "completely undesirable", "odious", "worthy of being ridiculed", and all the other horrible things that "gay" connotes to teenagers today.
You are the one who applied the "all things shitty" meaning to it.
Incorrect. You know as well as I that many teenagers use "gay" to mean "the worst of the bad". It's the ultimate insult. I'm only stating the way that youth of today use the word.
When I requested you search for my posts on soc.motss (members of the same sex), it was just to try to lend some credibility to a statement that I'm not some homophobe or hate gay people,
I don't believe you're a homophobe or hate gay people, and I don't believe I made any accusations toward you. I am opposed to the use of the word "gay" to mean "negative, bad, stupid, pathetic" and everything that you and I know that teenagers use it to mean. Use used the word exactly as they would, and I called you on it.
And I know plenty of gay folk that use the term gay to mean effeminate, and it's not considered an insult either.
Actually, the gay folk I know who use that word use it to mean, "stereotypically gay". It's a different use of the word and is not intended to be negative.
You're on a losing crusade here.
I'm not on a crusade. I'm engaging in discussions on slashdot.
First off, language is fluent and changes over time,
Stop trying to change the subject.
But I believe you have bigger things to worry about regarding your son.
Excuse you, but what made you think that you needed to tell me this? Protecting my son from the fag-bashing slander which is so hideously prevalent in schools today is my number one priority. If you went to an American high school, then you know as well as I do that "faggot" is the absolute worst thing one could be or be labeled as. Gays are perceived as the lowest of the low and the most worthy of torment and abuse. It is because of this that the word "gay" has become synonymous with "bad".
Your efforts will be better served teaching him that this is coming and how best to deal with it.
Parenting advice from non-parents is worthless. When you become a parent you will understand this.
You can't protect him from the harshness and cruel reality of this world.
You're partially right and partially wrong. I can protect him from some of the harshness and cruelty of this world, but not all of it. In order to preserve my child's health, safety, and childhood, I have to make wise choices about where we live and with whom he interacts.
For example, mutated ccR5 protiens on the surface of cells protects against AIDS because it prevents the virus from recognizing and infecting the cell.
1. What is a mutated ccR5 protein? Mutated in which way?
2. Which cells are you referring to? The HIV/AIDS Priests have recently revised their position to claim that HIV does NOT kill T-cells.
Is this is the best you can do with "biological differences"? I'm not impressed. Keep in mind that I do not believe that HIV exists. I'm entertaining your assumption because I think your claim will eventually fail.
Since the phenomena of some people being more resistant to disease is so common, the existence of long term non-progressors is very weak evidence.
I disagree. The HIV/AIDS Priests have claimed that HIV will necessarily lead to AIDS. Are you countering that position? If some people are resistant to HIV, what, specifically, accounts for this resistance?
If you could prove why AIDS should be different from other viruses, in that it was not susceptible to genetic differences (more like a gun-shot to the head than the flu), then you'd have a more compelling argument.
I don't require a compelling argument. My position is skepticism, not believe. My position is, "I do not believe that HIV exists, nor do I believe that this alleged virus causes AIDS." HIV=AIDS is your position, and I am taking you to task on it.
Because people were dying of AIDS in the early 1980's, a decade before the introduction of AZT and other anti-AIDS drugs?
AZT was introduced in 1987, less than "a decade" before people were dying of AIDS. I see that you have not countered my claims that AZT does not prolong life and has side effects that match the symptoms of AIDS. Do you agree with these claims?
Furthermore, for those sufferers of AIDS before the introduction of AZT, how do you know that their symptoms of AIDS were not caused by AIDS cofactors? John Gallo originally denied the existence of AIDS cofactors but later revised his position.
Because studies do actually test people.
It matters not. You know as well as I that all of the millions of AIDS cases in Africa were not tested. If they were not tested, then how do we know that they have HIV?
In the first study, of 16,743 sexually active women at 396 locations, 24.5% were find to be infected. In the second study, of 8428 people in the general population, 11.4% were found to be infected.
Do you then conclude that those samples apply to the entire population? Furthermore, what tests were used to test the population? You know as well as I do that no "AIDS test" tests for the presence of the alleged virus.
Moreover, my dad works in public health, and has done many projects in Africa. From what he's told me, AIDS is definately a real problem there, and many people are dying from it, without ever getting expensive drug treatments.
Why is African AIDS so different from North American AIDS? Over there, it's a largely heterosexual problem. Over here, it has stayed almost completely confined to its original risk groups (promiscuous gay males and IV drug users). The HIV/AIDS Priests' explanation is something like this: "We can't expect those niggers over there in Africa not to fuck everything in sight." Will your explanation be less racist than theirs is?
yea dude, the answer to your question is right there. When you explain to your kid what peopel mean when they say "thats gay" tell them they mean "thats shitty" which is a slang reference to shit's real meaning: dookie.
Q: Why did he call that "gay"?
A: What he means is, "That's shitty."
Q: Does "gay" mean "shitty"?
A: Well, no, not really.
Q: Then why did he use the word "gay"?
Really, now, tell me why "gay" has become such a common-use term for "shitty"? How did that happen?
I believe you can do just as good of a job raising your kid as a traditional mother/father, as long as you don't try to over-protect and shelter your kid.
Parenting advice from non-parents is worthless. When you become a parent you will understand this.
I replayed it to transcribe it, and he definitely says faggy goth kid.
My bad.
But the fact you thought it was funny clinches it for me. It's OK to poke fun at others, like goths, as long as it's not your group.
I never claimed that it was not OK to make fun of gay people. I make fun of gay people, and I am a gay person. I repeat: I am opposed to the use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "all things shitty".
There's nothing irrational about Christianity.
The beliefs in souls, heaven, hell, God, Satan, demons, angels, walking on water, talking donkeys, flaming swords, flaming and flying chariots, transfirguarions, resurrections, ascencions, demon-possessions, etc, etc, etc are all superstitious, irrational beliefs. There is no evidence to support any of them.
Oh, there is the Bible, you say! I have made a hobby of rational analysis of scripture. I know scripture better than most Christians. Would you like to discuss it with me?
The life of Jesus of Nazareth is a matter of historical record, backed up by thousands of written texts
You have been listening to your preacher too much. Outside of scripture, there are very few references to the life of this "Jesus" character. Most Christians are well-trained enough to spit out "Josephus" and "Tacitus" here, but few have actually read their words which actually mention a "Jesus". There is no way that there are "thousands" of written texts, unless you are actually referring to the thousands of contradictory manuscripts from which the Bible was compiled and then choosing to impose Jesus on the Old Testament.
The Bible is widely regarded as a work of literature and a chronicle of history in addition to being divinely inspired.
Ad numeram.
You claim to be guided by reason, yet disparage the existence of truth.
I did not disparage or deny the existance of truth. I stated that I don't trumpet "truth" the way the Christians do.
Why does Christianity present a threat to you?
1. I am a gay man. The people who are most opposed to any kind of decent life for me are evangelical Christians who base their opposition in their Christian faith.
2. I am a gay adoptive parent. The people who are most opposed to my family are evangelical Chrsitains who base their opposition in their Christian faith.
3. I am a capitalist. Christians are opposed to any form of capitalism that they deem "immoral" (drugs, prostitution) even when there is nothing immoral about it.
4. Reason is the only way to knowledge. Christians oppose this, falsely claiming that faith and feelings lead to knowledge.
5. Christians are in massive support of the murderous, ineffective, and ridiculous War on Some Drugs.
6. Christians are in massive support of sending billions of dollars to Israel.
7. Christians are in massive support of using the force of government to teach their superstitions.
I can go on and on. Are you convinced that I see Christianity as a threat?
However stating that you don't "trumpet" your beliefs appears incorrect at this point.
I never claimed that I don't trumpet my beliefs. I claimed that I don't trumpet "truth" the way that the Christians do.
You have given one example. Can I inquire as to how this became many?
It never became many, it has always been many. Check this out.
Could you provide the bible verses that you are referring to?
Of course:
"then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same." Deut 15:17
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property" Ex 21:20-21
"I [the Lord] will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away" Joel 3:8
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men" Eph 6:5-7
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered" 1 Tim. 6:1
"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord" Col. 3:22
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your master with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also those who are harsh....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" 1 Peter 2:18,21
Did you also know that God demanded the slaughter of infants and children, including tearing up pregnant women?
You repeating "Argument by analogy" over and over again does not mean you have triumphed over my points, it just means you can cut an paste, or dont care that you sound like a broken record, and one skirting around the issue at that.
If you are arguing by analogy, then it means your points are invalid. Analogies are necessarily flawed, and I reject them all. No amount of griping on your part will make me accept your choice to invalidly argue by analogy.
Remember when gay meant happy? Why did you have to go and make it mean homosexual? Same argument you are making. Boo-hoo, so someone took a word and gave it a new definition, gays themselves are guilty of that.
No one can be blamed for making "gay" mean whatever people currently use it to mean. I can't see how I am making the argument that you are attributing to me. I repeat: I oppose the wanton use of the word "gay" to mean "shitty". You have never denied that the word is used this way. Your argument is one of "get over it!"
I think your argument lacks logic.
My argument may very well lack logic. I am human, after all. So why don't you engage your brain and point out where my logic fails? Claiming is so much easier than proving, isn't it?
Yes I believe your son will be able to tell his friends about his family. I believe he will be able to diferentiate between meanings and infer intent.
It is you, not I, who keeps bringing up "intent" and "words mean different things". To me, this is about how my son will think his peers view gay people. I think most teenagers have an extremely negative view of gay people, and this is why most teenagers use the word "gay" as a perjorative.
"MOOOOOMMY I CANT SLEEP!! Why oh WHY did they use the word present to mean gifts AND to show things to people,
Except that we aren't talking about "present", we're talking about "gay". You're arguing by analogy again.
Remember the girl that was suspended for wearing her religious head scarf? Or the boy for kissing a fellow kindergardner?
Argument by analogy.
Because stupid people do stupid things everywhere does not mean that everyone is out to get you.
This is not about people doing stupid things, nor do I believe that everyone is out to get me (ad hominem). A State Supreme Court Justice of Alamaba issued a ruling stating that gay people are evil and inherently unfit to raise children. He received massive support for his statements among evangelical Christians. Gay adoption is at the forefront of controversy.
Rather pompous of you to assume that I have no concern for anything not directly affecting my life.
I made no such claim.
I think you're creating more of a potential conflict crusading like you are on the subject.
Crusading? I thought I was posting to slashdot.
Whats the point in setting up the child to believe every time someone uses the word, no matter the intent it is a viscious brutal thing.
What makes you think this is my intent?
Would it make more sence to let him know that multiple meanings are common and if it was obviously not inteded as a negative statement towards homosexuals then not to take it as one.
I thought you argued that he would figure this out on his own.
In my book intent triumps anyday. Seems like you are looking for battles to pick when there are none.
How am I supposed to know that a person's intent is good? Even when a person may be called on using the word "gay" in it's perjorative meaning, they can always claim that they "didn't mean anything negative by it" in order to save face. Except that, in your book, I shouldn't call anyone on it, right? I should just assume that no one harbors any ill will toward gay people and let them throw the word "gay" around with its well-understood meaning of "the ultimate in shittiness".
You continue to argue, "You s
Why don't you ask, "What makes you belief that?" instead?
That would certainly suit you better, wouldn't it? In any case, I've already heard every reason for why a person believes in (whatever flavor of) Christianity. The single real reason is because they have abandoned reason.
Why do I belief in this "stupid thing"? Well when you and I die... if I'm wrong... I've lost nothing. If I'm right.... well then I fear for your soul.
Argument by force (in the form of Pascal's Wager).
I agree with everything you have written, and it was well-put. Welcome to my friend list. :)
... in a probing and questioning way. Christianity, like all superstitions, will succumb under rational criticism. Whether or not the Christian in quesiton will also succumb ot reason is another matter altogheter.
I think I put poorly what I was trying to argue. I was arguing against mocking Christians for being Christians. I was arguing for attacking their beliefs
And they don't call 'em "personal beliefs" for nothing. People will get very combative when you start discussing their beliefs in a critical way. It's an indirect way of saying, "What does it make you if you choose to believe this stupid thing?"
Again, well put!
Since your post and the previous one were both AC, I will assume that I am responding to the same person I was responding to before.
Yeah, and remember when bad all of the sudden bad meant good? Or that the word "present" has multiple meanings?
Argument by analogy, twice.
Oh wait, no, kids are smart and although you may not be able to differentiate between meanings I'll bet your son can.
I'm sure he will be able to differentiate between different meanings of words, but that's not the issue. He will see that people use "gay" to mean "bad". Why was "gay" chosen to mean this and its use tolerated if not for the fact that homosexuality has traditionally been seen as something evil and repugnant (for really stupid, superstitious reasons)?
Now lets get back to the idea that we must stop using the word gay in that way because what will you tell your poor boy when the kids start using its slang meaning.
No, you must stop using the word "gay" in that way because it is hurtful. The example with my son was merely one example. Tell me, what do you think it's like growing up gay?
Think of this, do the parents of tubby Timmy go on a rampage to stop the usage of the word fat because it might make things hard for their child?
Argument by analogy.
So to answer your question as to what do you tell your child, you tell him this: Sometimes when people use the word present it means moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future;
Argument by analogy. Answer my question: do you think my son will be willing to share with his peers that his family is gay after he sees his friends decry everything negative as "gay"? How do you suppose his friends will respond to that?
Maybe you'll be surprised and your son will teach you a thing or two some day: "Dad, don't get your panties in a twist, he wasn't referring to HOMOSEXUALS, he was just upset that there were no presents present.
Maybe that could happen. Or, alternatively, something worse could happen. Consider the case in Louisiana where a boy was punished by his school's administration because he dared tell another student that he has "two mommies". You don't seem to realize that my family is at the forefront of controversy for no good reason, and I must protect my family. I know that you feel like, "Well, it's not happening to me, so what the fuck do I care?"
Believe me, if this is the most of your worries about raising a child I think you must lead a more blessed life than the rest of us.
Making sure that my son is safe is at the forefront of my concerns. Educating others about the hurtful and stupid things they say that happen to make (and have made) my life worse for no good reason is part of that concern.
I took the step of summarizing your entire argument.
I believe in the scientific method. HIV/AIDS has much more to do with ego and money than it does with science. Did you know that AIDS funding has twice as much money per sufferer than does cancer, even though the number of cancer fatalities dwarfs the number of AIDS fatalities?
Basically, you're offended that all knowledgeable medical and research personnel know that engaging in stupid behavior can kill you
Ad verecundiam. Furthermore, it's not just "stupid behavior" but blood transfusions and in virto which can pass the alleged HIV. You need to get your dogma straight.
so you're looking for any way to dignify your choice of actions.
Ad hominem.
Guess what, murderer
Ad hominem.
that doesn't make HIV any less deadly. It only makes ignorant folk feel immortal.
You are assuming the point in dispute. I do not think that HIV exists.
I can believe that an overdose of drugs won't kill me, and I can make websites to convince other people, but blowing a gram of meth will still stop my heart whether I believe it or not.
Non sequitur.
I chose the word "murderer" deliberately. You and your neo-fascist PC ilk are foisting a death sentence on those gullible enough to buy into your non-scientific "feel good" crap.
Strangely enough, I hate political correctness. Why did you group me with them (and give me yet another ad hominem)?
Every kid who visits that site and walks away believing that it's OK to go back to retro-partying in bathhouses won't give him a deadly disease is a kid that you have killed.
I'm willing to take that chance, and I am certainly not alone. No one believes any more that AZT prolonged life, and its life-destroying properties were well-documented decades before AIDS hit the scene. I don't believe in many AIDS deaths, but I believe that many people were killed due to AZT poisoning.
Your efforts to intimidate me will fail.
Sleep well, asshole. I hope your kid is smart enough to listen to the scientific and medical community and reject your lies when he's old enough to escape your brainwashing.
There is definately brainwashing involved, and it's certainly not coming from me. My position is skepticism, and HIV/AIDS is a religion. You are treating me just like the Catholic church treated its heretics: with hatred.