Because the virus doesn't necessarily work the same way in each person? There are significant biological differences between people, and a minority of the population may have differences that make them less susceptible to the effects of the virus.
Which biological differences would make some people less susceptible to the alleged virus?
Because there are millions of people in Africa that are dying of AIDS even though they don't have access to the AZT drug?
1. I was talking about US AIDS cases. How do you know that all of the "AIDS victims" in the USA did not die of AZT poisioning?
2. The "millions of people" dying of AIDS in Africa were *estimated* to have AIDS, not tested. How do you know that they are not dying of malnutrition?
So, it's bad to use a common idiom that isn't offensive to anyone except those wanting to be offended,
This is "blame-the-victim" mentality. "You're offended because you want to be!"
but it's OK to spread a lie that could kill someone (HIV doesn't cause AIDS? WTF!)?
No one has shown that HIV exists. None of the HIV tests actually test for the presense of HIV. The HIV/AIDS Priests originally stated that HIV causes AIDS by killing T-cells, but now they say that HIV does *not* kill T-cells. All of the AIDS drugs are toxic, and their side effects match the very symptoms of AIDS. WTF indeed!
Not a single person noticed the OP's slang usage of "gay" until you made a big deal about it,
I know. it's so easy to not be offended when you're not the one being targetted, isn't it?
and even then it's hardly the end of the world.
It's a threat to my family and that's bad enough for me.
Some teen who finds the site you link to, reads and believes it, and follows up by doing some risky stuff could very well die.
Really? Are you sure? How do you account for what the HIV/AIDS Priests call "long-term non-progressors"? Furthermore, how do you know that all of the "AIDS victims" did not actually die of AZT poisioning?
You, sir, have a seriously fucked set of priorities.
I could say the same thing about you, but how would that help? You can be smug and condescending all you want, but the facts will show that you are the one in the wrong.
Or perhaps you could look at the contextual clues and gather the intent of the word.
The intent was "shitty" and the word "gay" was used. This is the way it's always used. Play Everquest of DaOC for one day and you'll see how many people throw out "this is gayness!" and "dude, u r gay". It is used to mean the worst of the bad.
With so many people out there actively trying to promote hatred why go after someone that was obviously not intending to promote anti-gay sentiments?
What do you think I should tell my son when he asks me why someone called something "gay" when they meant "bad"? Do you think he will be as accepting as you are with the, "Oh, he didn't mean anything negative by it" excuse? Do you think my son will want to tell his potential friends that he has a gay family?
I can also remember a fellow in college that would call me 'little cracker girl' and he wasn't referring to saltines. But I'd take the later any day because he said it playfully, with no harm intended, and I took it as an act of respect. Kind of a "I respect you enough to know you are wise enough to derive my intent, and have enough of a sense of humor not to sue me".
You are describing the use of derisive names in a playful manner, and that is not what I am against. I am against the use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "the worst of the worst".
Not to mention that words can change/have multiple meanings. It's not as if homosexuals have dibs on the word 'gay'.
We both know what the word means when it is used.
For someone that seems to be promoting tolerance and understanding, you sure seem to be lacking in your own medicine.
I don't promote tolerance or understanding (for the sake of tolerance and understanding). I don't tolerate child rape, and I don't understand Christianity (as it cannot be understood without sacrificing reason and reality). What I am against is the common use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "shitty". To me, my family suffers if I don't stand against it, and protecting my family will always win over anyone else's petty feelings.
Whose the one being all hateful now? You could have just mentioned calmly your concern about my poor choice of words and I would have apologized, instead of foaming at the mouth at making yourself look silly.
This is all your opinion, not fact. Look, here's mine: I was not hateful, I was not foaming at the mouth, and I did not look silly.
It's pretty tough at times trying to ensure whatever you write doesn't offend some group. I didn't use the word gay in any manner that was intended to be offensive. When I was a kid I just thought prancing around batting a butterfly ball was effeminate, that's all. It just wasn't my scene.
What I am against is the ultra-common use among teeange punk kids of the word "gay" as a synonym for "all things negative". You have not denied that this is the way things are. I think it's terrible and I don't intend to let people get away with using "gay" in this way without getting into a dialog with me about why it is harmful. In fact, you're in a dialog with me now, so I seem to be making good on my intentions.
In my other post where I quoted Butters little speech I left out the part where he said "I'd rather be a crying pussy rather than a faggy goth kid" because I didn't want to offend anyone. I honestly didn't mean to be offensive.
I thought Butters said, "...some gay goth kid", and, by the way, I thought that was funny. What I don't find funny is the way the word "gay" is so massively used as a synonym for "bad in the worst way". I know you didn't intend to offend anyone. You are merely following a cultural norm. I am guessing you are either in high school or in college. Gay kids in high school and college are more often than not deeply in the closet to avoid rejection and abuse from their peers. You have met many more gay people than you realize. Unlike other disenfranchised groups of people, we can hide in plain sight.
Jumping to conclusions and reaching as far as you did is not right either. Assuming I'm some homophobe is wrong. You want your kid to think every straight person out there hates gays? He's going to be quite a paranoid kid, ashamed of his parents.
You can't accuse me of jumping to conclusions and reaching and then do exactly the same thing. No, I don't want my child to think every straight person out there hates gays. That's one of the reasons I wish kids' language would change, since my son will plainly see other kids using "gay" (a word that describes his family) as a equivalent term for "shitty". Keeping my child from feeling ashamed of his family is a big issue for me. Don't think I make light of it for one microsecond.
Here's a clue stick for you. Go to google groups and do a search for author Weaverling (er, that's me) in the group soc.motss.
I don't have time for that. If you have something to say, just say it.
My main objection, in case you're wondering, was the attempt to change current Christians over to non-Chirstians, which is not a very good goal for ones self. I mean, how rude is that? I'm not trying to switch you over, so why do the same to me?
It isn't rude at all. Christians present a threat to me and my family on many different levels. Religion is divisive and immoral. For people to abandon superstition for reason is a good thing.
At any rate, you're probably right -- you do know scripture better than I do.
Did you know that slavery is supported in both the OT and in the NT?
And as for the founding fathers, they were Christian enough to see that Christmas was of great importance.
Non sequitur. You argued that the founding fathers were Christians. Many of them were not.
Also, they didn't allow businesses to be open on Sundays. That's more Christian than quite a few people.
The Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. There is nothing in scripture that states that the Sabbath was or should be moved to Sunday.
Just because Jefferson didn't believe the entire Bible doesn't mean that the majority of the founding fathers weren't Christian.
It isn't that Jefferson didn't believe the entire Bible, but rather that he completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Thank you for admitting that not all of the founding fathers weren't Christians. You've fallen back on the weaker, "The majority of the founding fathers were Christian". Perhaps you haven't read about how James Madison decried what he called the "Tyrrany of the Majority". Perhaps you haven't noticed that Jesus is never mentioned in the Constitution. If this truly were a Christian nation, then why doesn't Christ appear in our founding document?
And you claim that your lack of religion (or belief in an alternate) is the ultimate truth for all humanity as well.
Where, specifically, did I claim this? I don't trumpet "Truth" the way Christians do. Reason and reality are my guiding principles, not "truth".
Yes, it's true -- not believing in one God is a religion in and of itself. Several, in fact.
There are several atheistic religions, such as Bhuddism and Leftism. I do not follow any religion (which implies superstition). I, like all people, follow a philosophy. Yours is grounded in superstition. Mine is grounded in reason.
Society seems to think that if you don't subscribe to an organized religion (and it's not that organized, trust me), then you aren't religious. Fact is, you are, just in a different way.
It depends. I, for one, am not superstitious and am thus not religious.
But we can debate this until the second coming (or, if you prefer, until the cows come home), and it will only solve to agrovate each other. So, for now, let us agree to disagree.
Give me a chance to make some headway. Do you mind if I ask you some more questions about your faith?
I believe you just made fun of us, hence negating you're entire post. Nice work.
Nice opinion. You're suffering from the, "You must respect my beliefs to respect me" problem. Furthermore, I got another reply from a Christian who did not feel like my post was making fun of Christians.
Besides, if the founding fathers of the USA weren't Christians, nobody here would get Christmas day off to spend with their families.
Thomas Jefferson ripped out every page of his Bible that referred to Jesus's divinity. He didn't think the pages he ripped out belonged in the Bible. The founding fathers were not as Christian as you want them to be.
Further, I don't need to defend my religion or the Bible.
Yes, you do, you condescending, smug Christian. You claim that your superstition is ultimate truth for all humanity. If you're going to make *that* arrogant of a claim, then you better be well-prepared to defend it!
If it needed me to defend it, it wouldn't still be such a driving force in a large part of the planets population.
This is an ad numeram argument. Following this flawed logic, I can claim that since non-Christians are in the majority, their philosophy is better.
Rather, I can let the Bible speak for itself. Got a "probing question"? Read for yourself.
I have read the Bible exhaustively. I probably know scripture better than you do. It is because I know scripture so well that I choose to reject it as the superstitious work of humans.
I guess you should write some hateful letter to Bravo for that show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy since it's full of gay stereotypes like fashion sense, frilly things, and gay jokes. Hell, maybe those guys even like to play badminton too.
Except that we aren't talking about gay stereotypes, are we? We're talking about the way stupid, punk, teenage kids use the word "gay" as a synonym for "all things negative".
I saw nothing hateful against homosexuals in that post.
It's easy not to be insulted when you're not the one being attacked, isn't it?
But touche for re-enforcing the stereotype that gay men are oversensitive jerks.
Usually the word "jerk" applies to the one calling another person "oversensitive". Just how sensitive should I be, and why should you be the authority on it?
I am a parent who is trying to protect his child from what I see as childish cruelty that will, one day, be something I have to explain to my son. I have to tell him why some people choose to use the label that desribes his family as a direct synonym for "shitty". Do you fault me for this?
I thought the word made perfect sense. That's exactly what a kid would say,
I agree. It's exactly what a thoughtless, stupid, cruel kid would say.
which added immeasurably to the post.
Added what, exactly?
Why don't you just lighten the fuck up?
Because I must defend my family. What will my son think when he hears some stupid teenager say, "That is so gay!" Will he think, "That guy thinks gay means bad"? That *is* exactly what is implied, right?
I remember once she bought us a badminton set for the family to play together. I thought it was gay.
I guess you could have written, "I thought it was lame", or, "I thought it was stupid". I guess you didn't have to because the word "gay", to you, embodies everything in the world that is lame, stupid, pathetic, boring, shitty, and bad.
My son has two dads. He has a gay family. Is his family lame, stupid, pathetic, boring, shitty, and bad which is what you imply every time you toss out the word "gay" like it's some repulsive chunk of garbage?
It's nigh time for you to find a different god damned adjective. Your childish and rude behavior is not excusable.
If you are a non-Christian who wishes that Christians would keep their beliefs and practices to themselves (or may go a step further and may wish that Christians abandon their beliefs), then I beg of you to not make fun of Christians.
Christians, like all religious people, thrive on persecution. If someone is attacking them, then they feel that they are being "persecuted because they are right". Mocking them puts them on the defensive and makes them resistant to your message no matter what your message may be.
Instead of making fun of Christians, I implore you to, instead, attack their stupid, superstitious beliefs. Sympathize with them and appeal to their sense of reason. Ask difficult and probing questions. Build bridges, not walls.
For that reason, we have to treat some things as shared resources (or collective property if you prefer that notion). And to avoid the tradgedy of the commons, we have to manage these shared resources reasonably. And exactly that is happening with the noise mapping and reduction.
I don't believe that is exactly what is happening with noise mapping and reduction. Since this involves the forced transfer of property from one group of people to another, there is an extremely high likelihood of vote-buying going on.
I'll give you two examples
And I'll proceed to use them against you:
In a well-vaccinated population, the risk from vaccination side effects is greater than the risk from the disease, because the disease has basically no way to spread (there are to few carriers). So my rational self interest tells me not to get vaccinated. If, however, everyone acts like that, vaccination levels sink, and suddenly the population is vulnerable again.
It is therefore in my rational self-interest to be vaccinated, as my refusal to do so may lead to graver consequences for me. This assumes that vaccination is effective.
Now I'm in a better position, but everybody else is worse off (they might collide with my bigger vehicle, which might smash their small tin cans).
Following rational self-interest would prohibit me from helping myself at the cost of anyone else's life, liberty, or property.
So they buy bigger cars as well. After one round of this, everybody has a big, heavy, over-engineered car, at great cost to our purses and the environment, but safety-wise, we have not gained anything.
You act as if there are only losses involved in purchasing a larger vehicle when there are actually other benefits that they bring. Environmentalism is, in most of its forms, superstition, and I ask that we leave that subject for a separate discussion. Furthermore, I dispute that a more "tank-like" car is necessarily safer. Risk theory dictates that the safest car is the one that has a sharp, metal spike protuding from the steering wheel pointed directly at the driver's heart.
The same way as I decide most things: By asking an expert or a group of experts.
I think this is insufficent. The government promises giving away a "free" house (the houses are paid for by seizing money from the people whose votes the politicians don't need) to anyone who is sufficiently "depressed" enough due to noise pollution. Immediately and inevitably, looters will claim "depression" so that they can get their hands on some "free" house. The bigger the potential giveaway, the bigger the throng of looters that will show up. So the government then hires some psychologists to verify that each of these looters is 1) depressed, and 2) depressed due to noise pollution. Is psychology an exacting science, free from subjective opinion? Certainly not! Not all "experts" are created equal. You can measure milligrams and volts, but psychologists still aren't sure what exactly causes depression and dozens of other current psychological diagnoses. Furthermore, how do we know that these "experts" aren't going to be motivated by ego and money rather than by reason and evidence? The "HIV==AIDS" fraud is an excellent example of the pain caused by blindly following someone because they are an "expert".
To the best of my ability, I rely on my powers of observation and my reasoning skills to make decisions. The necessarily-condescending god complex and many failings of many "doctors", "scientists", and "nutritionists" has destroyed whatever faith I had in those groups.
Well, you can argue the noise problem from a libertarian point of view as well. By what right do other people, e.g. by driving on a public road, project noise into my hallowed home?
I can see that a person who walks in front of my house with an air-horn blasting my windows is infringing on my freedoms. Your example leaves off too many other variables. What if, for example, I chose to live next to a busy freeway? Can I then start screaming, "These noisy cars are infringing on my rights!" The more complicated question is, "Are rights infringed upon when freeways are built near housing?"
Unfortunately, if everybody tries to achieve the optimum individually, we don't get a global optimum. In fact, we might even all be worse off.
If everyone follows their own rational self-interest, then I think we will have the most moral and productive society. The key is rational self-interest. A society of self-important thugs who fights for their own pleasure at the expense of everyone else is not a society worth living in.
As for the noise example, if people become ill or depressed or go postal because of noise, we all have to bear a part of that burden. So it makes sense for all of us share the remedy.
How will you know if a person becomes ill or depressed solely because of noise? Are you going to take the sufferer's word for it -- someone who is slobbering at the thought of getting a new house that someone else paid for if the correct diagnosis is acheived?
Yes. What are the chances of the majority of people across e.g. New York who feel that noise pollution adversely affects the forming an organisation, funding it, running a scientifically valid investigation, and then implementing a city-wide scheme to reduce it?
Nil.
Probably because there is no demand for it. Your argument assumes that this is a problem about which something must be done. What if no one wants it? Should we assume that the government is so all-knowing and intelligent that looting is justified?
I assume from your viewpoint that all US cities' mayors should be immediately sacked and any planning and services they were doing should be scrapped and the inhabitants left to do the job themselves as best they can? I give those cities less than a week before they fall into chaos.
Strawman.
Should I assume that you agreed with everything else I wrote?
Unemployment is a tool, or a stage. It's not an end (in either sense of the word).
Except that people on unemployment are living off the money that someone else earned -- money that was extracted from them by force. People on unemployment are looters, even if by proxy.
I know it's slashdot, but can we not always talk in absolutes and maybe give the other side a little credit? At least the benefit of the doubt?
You're not talking to slashdot, you're talking to an individual. I won't give anything any credit if it's superstitious or uncivil.
The person buying the sub-standard house might not be able to afford a better one? Why shouldn't our tax money be used to improve their standard of living?
Well, why stop at standard of living? What if they only have a 27 inch TV. Don't they deserve a better one? Why shouldn't we use someone else's money ("our tax dollars") to give them a better TV? What, the poor person isn't eating rack of lamb and otoro sashimi every night? Don't they deserve to eat better than that? Why shouldn't we use someone else's money to improve their eating standards?
No, it doesn't. The "ill concieved government program" is helping improve the country's housing stock. Eventually all houses will be well sound proofed and you've improved everyone's standard of living. What's wrong with that?
It's wrong because it's paid for with looted money.
The problem with far right and the far left is that there are things wrong with both capitalism and socialism. Ayn Rand is just as bad a Karl Marx.
Ayn Rand didn't have it all right; she did think that men must necessarily dominate women sexually and that homosexuality was immoral. But you have failed to say anything that is reasonable or a rational refutation of anything that Ayn Rand has stated.
Individual property rights + free enterprise = captialism
This is why those of the Leftist religion hate both individual property rights and free enterprise.
Really, how better to dedicate the resources of ones culture than the investigation of the cause/effect and remedy for general, shared problems? Why the hell not? I can think of no better things to investigate.
Because the resources that are being dedicated are being seized at gunpoint. Furthermore, while you may not be able to think of better things to investigate, there may be millions of people who want to exercise their freedom and hard-earned money on what they want exercise it on. What gives your opinions so much priority that they justify looting?
The masses are convinced -- almost without pause -- that spending money on single-serving yogurt-like snacks(ever *made* your own yogurt -- VERY VERY GOOD & EASY), RetiredBoxerBrand electric grills (whats wrong with your stove?), ZXY(TM) Brand $200 shoes, and blah blah blah is a good reward in exchange for my personal effort (the $ youve collected in exchange for work).. I say hogwash.
Sure, it's hogwash. For you. For someone else, it's very important. What makes your tastes better than yours? Are you going to trot out your subjective feelings which is exactly what those who buy $200 Indonesian-made shoes use to justify their tastes? While I think many people spend money on pure junk, I still find them more respectable than I find you because at least their desire to spend money doesn't include taking my money.
If Im going to sacrifice 40hrs of ever week, I damn well want something worth while in exchange for my Cached-Work($).
There is nothing preventing you from doing this in a captialist society. You work, you get paid, and you spend your hard-earned dollars on what you want to spend it on. But that's not what you're describing here, is it? I think what you mean to say is, "If I work in any capacity, then I want the government to seize other people's property and spend it on that which I have decided is Good and Right."
Being the sucker in some capitalist's get-rich scheme, at the expense of the planet (pollution/waste/garbage) is not all that attractive -- but insead of paying for research like this (in taxes) people are usually DrivenByMindControl to buying SomeDamnedGarbage.
And you can choose not to be involed in some capitalist's get-rich "scheme". Can I choose not to have my hard-earned tax dollars go to some leftist's idea of what is moral? No! Why is that not also a "scheme"?
Furthermore, pollution, waste, and garbate do not harm the planet. They harm people.
Where am i going with this? What is more useful? What is the greatest benefit of the product of our collective resources (the above mentioned consumer-garbage) **OR** some peace from the endless noise in a mechanized-industrial city....
And it rears it's ugly head: collective resources In other words, everyting that an individual works to earn actually belongs to busybodies in the state (who are, of course, trying to buy votes and maintain power). Is there any reason at all that this vaunted "noise control" could not be addressed privately?
Stop and think occasionally: "what benefit, at what cost is my decision having to bear on myself and my community?
Your religion has defined private property and free enterprise as "evil". It is from these premises that you weigh these alleged benefits and costs. For example, my buying a George Forman Grill would only be falling prey to an Evil Capitalist's Get Rich Scheme. Well, how many people does that evil capitalist employ? How much business does the evil capitalist give to UPS/FedEx to ship their products, and how many jobs does that take? What about the raw materials that go into making the George Forman grills? That takes jobs, too.
Yes, I believe in society very much, just not in the way that you do. I believe that society functions most morally when people are not forced to live their lives for someone else.
Not that there's anything wrong with being on unemployment.
Except that people on unemployment are living off the money that someone else earned -- money that was extracted from them by force. People on unemployment are looters, even if by proxy.
It's subjective. Depending what limit you set, you can have 0.01% people agree (only the ascetic priests: $100 is greed), 1%, 10%, 50%, 99% or 99.99% people agree.
You are arguing my point exactly! No one can rightfully label anything as "greed" because there is no obejctive measurement for what constitutes it.
Regardeless of the limit, the fact that CEO get INSANE income raises
Speaking of subjective, what is "insane"?
while performing like crap on average, can be interpreted as greed...
Or, depending on whom you ask, it may not be "interpreted" (I like your word choice) as greed. Or, alternatively, you can be labeled as "greedy" because you're rich enough to be using a computer to type these messages to me. By what right do you have a computer when someone else is starving to death?
This is why all "greed" arguments suck. They are not based on reason. They are based on subjective emotions. Our emotions teach us nothing.
See, it all boils down to the fact that the internet is just like any other information medium
See, there are many, many differences between the Internet and "any other information medium". If you were making an analogy, then you've made a logical flaw: its called "argument by analogy".
What can you do? Prepare your kids for what they may run into. Give them feedback and guidance on how to deal with certain situations. Tell them what is appropriate and what is not.
Thanks for your advice, but where do limits come in? How, specifically, can one "prepare" children for what they may run into? What if they come across a murder in progress? How might I "prepare" them for that?
Humans need practice making decisions for themselves and not having everything honed down, toned down, and spoon fed to them.
Humans make decisions for themselves regardless of who is doing the honing down, toning down, or spoon-feeding.
The fact is, you can't protect them. You can only help guide and instruct them.
Parents protect their children all the time. Perhaps you mean, "You can't protect your children from every hurt that they will come across." I believe that. Most parents aren't aware that their behavior will be the biggest hurt in their children's lives.
And if its really such a big deal, take the computer away and be a mean parent. They'll forgive you eventually, and its probably for the best anyway.
There's nothing inherently mean about taking a computer away from a child. And who knows? Maybe the child won't forgive you for doing it.
Anyway, its all about the trust, man.
I don't think you have kids, man. I think you are a kid, man.
Trust that your kids know what they're doing and if it gets out of hand, offer help and advice instead of anger and retribution.
I trust that children will always test their limits. That is my universal trust in children. Everything else is dependant on the relationship with the child in question.
We get enough of that from The Christain God.
And which Christian God would you be referring to? The Baptist one, the Jehovah's Witnesses' one, or the Mormon one? All of those groups claim to be "Christian", yet they all worship different gods.
It takes a lot of courage to stand up for something you believe in.
I disagree. It takes little courage to state your opinion. What takes a lot of courage is to admit that you're wrong and change your mind. Don't believe me? How much more frequently do people "bravely stand up for what they believe" as opposed to admitting defeat when their blessed belief is shown to be devoid of reason and completely lacking in evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
Because the virus doesn't necessarily work the same way in each person? There are significant biological differences between people, and a minority of the population may have differences that make them less susceptible to the effects of the virus.
Which biological differences would make some people less susceptible to the alleged virus?
Because there are millions of people in Africa that are dying of AIDS even though they don't have access to the AZT drug?
1. I was talking about US AIDS cases. How do you know that all of the "AIDS victims" in the USA did not die of AZT poisioning?
2. The "millions of people" dying of AIDS in Africa were *estimated* to have AIDS, not tested. How do you know that they are not dying of malnutrition?
So, it's bad to use a common idiom that isn't offensive to anyone except those wanting to be offended,
This is "blame-the-victim" mentality. "You're offended because you want to be!"
but it's OK to spread a lie that could kill someone (HIV doesn't cause AIDS? WTF!)?
No one has shown that HIV exists. None of the HIV tests actually test for the presense of HIV. The HIV/AIDS Priests originally stated that HIV causes AIDS by killing T-cells, but now they say that HIV does *not* kill T-cells. All of the AIDS drugs are toxic, and their side effects match the very symptoms of AIDS. WTF indeed!
Not a single person noticed the OP's slang usage of "gay" until you made a big deal about it,
I know. it's so easy to not be offended when you're not the one being targetted, isn't it?
and even then it's hardly the end of the world.
It's a threat to my family and that's bad enough for me.
Some teen who finds the site you link to, reads and believes it, and follows up by doing some risky stuff could very well die.
Really? Are you sure? How do you account for what the HIV/AIDS Priests call "long-term non-progressors"? Furthermore, how do you know that all of the "AIDS victims" did not actually die of AZT poisioning?
You, sir, have a seriously fucked set of priorities.
I could say the same thing about you, but how would that help? You can be smug and condescending all you want, but the facts will show that you are the one in the wrong.
Wouldn't calling the badminton set "lame" be a slight to our differently-abled friends?
No.
And calling something "stupid" implies that those of lesser intelligence than ourselves are necessarily bad or worthless.
I disagree.
We just cannot win.
And just who is "we"?
Or perhaps you could look at the contextual clues and gather the intent of the word.
The intent was "shitty" and the word "gay" was used. This is the way it's always used. Play Everquest of DaOC for one day and you'll see how many people throw out "this is gayness!" and "dude, u r gay". It is used to mean the worst of the bad.
With so many people out there actively trying to promote hatred why go after someone that was obviously not intending to promote anti-gay sentiments?
What do you think I should tell my son when he asks me why someone called something "gay" when they meant "bad"? Do you think he will be as accepting as you are with the, "Oh, he didn't mean anything negative by it" excuse? Do you think my son will want to tell his potential friends that he has a gay family?
I can also remember a fellow in college that would call me 'little cracker girl' and he wasn't referring to saltines. But I'd take the later any day because he said it playfully, with no harm intended, and I took it as an act of respect. Kind of a "I respect you enough to know you are wise enough to derive my intent, and have enough of a sense of humor not to sue me".
You are describing the use of derisive names in a playful manner, and that is not what I am against. I am against the use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "the worst of the worst".
Not to mention that words can change/have multiple meanings. It's not as if homosexuals have dibs on the word 'gay'.
We both know what the word means when it is used.
For someone that seems to be promoting tolerance and understanding, you sure seem to be lacking in your own medicine.
I don't promote tolerance or understanding (for the sake of tolerance and understanding). I don't tolerate child rape, and I don't understand Christianity (as it cannot be understood without sacrificing reason and reality). What I am against is the common use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "shitty". To me, my family suffers if I don't stand against it, and protecting my family will always win over anyone else's petty feelings.
Whose the one being all hateful now? You could have just mentioned calmly your concern about my poor choice of words and I would have apologized, instead of foaming at the mouth at making yourself look silly.
This is all your opinion, not fact. Look, here's mine: I was not hateful, I was not foaming at the mouth, and I did not look silly.
It's pretty tough at times trying to ensure whatever you write doesn't offend some group. I didn't use the word gay in any manner that was intended to be offensive. When I was a kid I just thought prancing around batting a butterfly ball was effeminate, that's all. It just wasn't my scene.
What I am against is the ultra-common use among teeange punk kids of the word "gay" as a synonym for "all things negative". You have not denied that this is the way things are. I think it's terrible and I don't intend to let people get away with using "gay" in this way without getting into a dialog with me about why it is harmful. In fact, you're in a dialog with me now, so I seem to be making good on my intentions.
In my other post where I quoted Butters little speech I left out the part where he said "I'd rather be a crying pussy rather than a faggy goth kid" because I didn't want to offend anyone. I honestly didn't mean to be offensive.
I thought Butters said, "...some gay goth kid", and, by the way, I thought that was funny. What I don't find funny is the way the word "gay" is so massively used as a synonym for "bad in the worst way". I know you didn't intend to offend anyone. You are merely following a cultural norm. I am guessing you are either in high school or in college. Gay kids in high school and college are more often than not deeply in the closet to avoid rejection and abuse from their peers. You have met many more gay people than you realize. Unlike other disenfranchised groups of people, we can hide in plain sight.
Jumping to conclusions and reaching as far as you did is not right either. Assuming I'm some homophobe is wrong. You want your kid to think every straight person out there hates gays? He's going to be quite a paranoid kid, ashamed of his parents.
You can't accuse me of jumping to conclusions and reaching and then do exactly the same thing. No, I don't want my child to think every straight person out there hates gays. That's one of the reasons I wish kids' language would change, since my son will plainly see other kids using "gay" (a word that describes his family) as a equivalent term for "shitty". Keeping my child from feeling ashamed of his family is a big issue for me. Don't think I make light of it for one microsecond.
Here's a clue stick for you. Go to google groups and do a search for author Weaverling (er, that's me) in the group soc.motss.
I don't have time for that. If you have something to say, just say it.
My main objection, in case you're wondering, was the attempt to change current Christians over to non-Chirstians, which is not a very good goal for ones self. I mean, how rude is that? I'm not trying to switch you over, so why do the same to me?
It isn't rude at all. Christians present a threat to me and my family on many different levels. Religion is divisive and immoral. For people to abandon superstition for reason is a good thing.
At any rate, you're probably right -- you do know scripture better than I do.
Did you know that slavery is supported in both the OT and in the NT?
And as for the founding fathers, they were Christian enough to see that Christmas was of great importance.
Non sequitur. You argued that the founding fathers were Christians. Many of them were not.
Also, they didn't allow businesses to be open on Sundays. That's more Christian than quite a few people.
The Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. There is nothing in scripture that states that the Sabbath was or should be moved to Sunday.
Just because Jefferson didn't believe the entire Bible doesn't mean that the majority of the founding fathers weren't Christian.
It isn't that Jefferson didn't believe the entire Bible, but rather that he completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Thank you for admitting that not all of the founding fathers weren't Christians. You've fallen back on the weaker, "The majority of the founding fathers were Christian". Perhaps you haven't read about how James Madison decried what he called the "Tyrrany of the Majority". Perhaps you haven't noticed that Jesus is never mentioned in the Constitution. If this truly were a Christian nation, then why doesn't Christ appear in our founding document?
And you claim that your lack of religion (or belief in an alternate) is the ultimate truth for all humanity as well.
Where, specifically, did I claim this? I don't trumpet "Truth" the way Christians do. Reason and reality are my guiding principles, not "truth".
Yes, it's true -- not believing in one God is a religion in and of itself. Several, in fact.
There are several atheistic religions, such as Bhuddism and Leftism. I do not follow any religion (which implies superstition). I, like all people, follow a philosophy. Yours is grounded in superstition. Mine is grounded in reason.
Society seems to think that if you don't subscribe to an organized religion (and it's not that organized, trust me), then you aren't religious. Fact is, you are, just in a different way.
It depends. I, for one, am not superstitious and am thus not religious.
But we can debate this until the second coming (or, if you prefer, until the cows come home), and it will only solve to agrovate each other. So, for now, let us agree to disagree.
Give me a chance to make some headway. Do you mind if I ask you some more questions about your faith?
I believe you just made fun of us, hence negating you're entire post. Nice work.
Nice opinion. You're suffering from the, "You must respect my beliefs to respect me" problem. Furthermore, I got another reply from a Christian who did not feel like my post was making fun of Christians.
Besides, if the founding fathers of the USA weren't Christians, nobody here would get Christmas day off to spend with their families.
Thomas Jefferson ripped out every page of his Bible that referred to Jesus's divinity. He didn't think the pages he ripped out belonged in the Bible. The founding fathers were not as Christian as you want them to be.
Further, I don't need to defend my religion or the Bible.
Yes, you do, you condescending, smug Christian. You claim that your superstition is ultimate truth for all humanity. If you're going to make *that* arrogant of a claim, then you better be well-prepared to defend it!
If it needed me to defend it, it wouldn't still be such a driving force in a large part of the planets population.
This is an ad numeram argument. Following this flawed logic, I can claim that since non-Christians are in the majority, their philosophy is better.
Rather, I can let the Bible speak for itself. Got a "probing question"? Read for yourself.
I have read the Bible exhaustively. I probably know scripture better than you do. It is because I know scripture so well that I choose to reject it as the superstitious work of humans.
OMFG ROFL!@#$
Laughter is the first refuge of those who have nothing intelligent to say.
I'm guessing that your response to this will be something as stupid as, "whatever, dude".
Wow. Nice over-reaction.
Wow. Nice opinion.
I guess you should write some hateful letter to Bravo for that show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy since it's full of gay stereotypes like fashion sense, frilly things, and gay jokes. Hell, maybe those guys even like to play badminton too.
Except that we aren't talking about gay stereotypes, are we? We're talking about the way stupid, punk, teenage kids use the word "gay" as a synonym for "all things negative".
I saw nothing hateful against homosexuals in that post.
It's easy not to be insulted when you're not the one being attacked, isn't it?
But touche for re-enforcing the stereotype that gay men are oversensitive jerks.
Usually the word "jerk" applies to the one calling another person "oversensitive". Just how sensitive should I be, and why should you be the authority on it?
I am a parent who is trying to protect his child from what I see as childish cruelty that will, one day, be something I have to explain to my son. I have to tell him why some people choose to use the label that desribes his family as a direct synonym for "shitty". Do you fault me for this?
I thought the word made perfect sense. That's exactly what a kid would say,
I agree. It's exactly what a thoughtless, stupid, cruel kid would say.
which added immeasurably to the post.
Added what, exactly?
Why don't you just lighten the fuck up?
Because I must defend my family. What will my son think when he hears some stupid teenager say, "That is so gay!" Will he think, "That guy thinks gay means bad"? That *is* exactly what is implied, right?
I remember once she bought us a badminton set for the family to play together. I thought it was gay.
I guess you could have written, "I thought it was lame", or, "I thought it was stupid". I guess you didn't have to because the word "gay", to you, embodies everything in the world that is lame, stupid, pathetic, boring, shitty, and bad.
My son has two dads. He has a gay family. Is his family lame, stupid, pathetic, boring, shitty, and bad which is what you imply every time you toss out the word "gay" like it's some repulsive chunk of garbage?
It's nigh time for you to find a different god damned adjective. Your childish and rude behavior is not excusable.
If you are a non-Christian who wishes that Christians would keep their beliefs and practices to themselves (or may go a step further and may wish that Christians abandon their beliefs), then I beg of you to not make fun of Christians.
Christians, like all religious people, thrive on persecution. If someone is attacking them, then they feel that they are being "persecuted because they are right". Mocking them puts them on the defensive and makes them resistant to your message no matter what your message may be.
Instead of making fun of Christians, I implore you to, instead, attack their stupid, superstitious beliefs. Sympathize with them and appeal to their sense of reason. Ask difficult and probing questions. Build bridges, not walls.
For that reason, we have to treat some things as shared resources (or collective property if you prefer that notion). And to avoid the tradgedy of the commons, we have to manage these shared resources reasonably. And exactly that is happening with the noise mapping and reduction.
I don't believe that is exactly what is happening with noise mapping and reduction. Since this involves the forced transfer of property from one group of people to another, there is an extremely high likelihood of vote-buying going on.
I'll give you two examples
And I'll proceed to use them against you:
In a well-vaccinated population, the risk from vaccination side effects is greater than the risk from the disease, because the disease has basically no way to spread (there are to few carriers). So my rational self interest tells me not to get vaccinated. If, however, everyone acts like that, vaccination levels sink, and suddenly the population is vulnerable again.
It is therefore in my rational self-interest to be vaccinated, as my refusal to do so may lead to graver consequences for me. This assumes that vaccination is effective.
Now I'm in a better position, but everybody else is worse off (they might collide with my bigger vehicle, which might smash their small tin cans).
Following rational self-interest would prohibit me from helping myself at the cost of anyone else's life, liberty, or property.
So they buy bigger cars as well. After one round of this, everybody has a big, heavy, over-engineered car, at great cost to our purses and the environment, but safety-wise, we have not gained anything.
You act as if there are only losses involved in purchasing a larger vehicle when there are actually other benefits that they bring. Environmentalism is, in most of its forms, superstition, and I ask that we leave that subject for a separate discussion. Furthermore, I dispute that a more "tank-like" car is necessarily safer. Risk theory dictates that the safest car is the one that has a sharp, metal spike protuding from the steering wheel pointed directly at the driver's heart.
The same way as I decide most things: By asking an expert or a group of experts.
I think this is insufficent. The government promises giving away a "free" house (the houses are paid for by seizing money from the people whose votes the politicians don't need) to anyone who is sufficiently "depressed" enough due to noise pollution. Immediately and inevitably, looters will claim "depression" so that they can get their hands on some "free" house. The bigger the potential giveaway, the bigger the throng of looters that will show up. So the government then hires some psychologists to verify that each of these looters is 1) depressed, and 2) depressed due to noise pollution. Is psychology an exacting science, free from subjective opinion? Certainly not! Not all "experts" are created equal. You can measure milligrams and volts, but psychologists still aren't sure what exactly causes depression and dozens of other current psychological diagnoses. Furthermore, how do we know that these "experts" aren't going to be motivated by ego and money rather than by reason and evidence? The "HIV==AIDS" fraud is an excellent example of the pain caused by blindly following someone because they are an "expert".
To the best of my ability, I rely on my powers of observation and my reasoning skills to make decisions. The necessarily-condescending god complex and many failings of many "doctors", "scientists", and "nutritionists" has destroyed whatever faith I had in those groups.
It's nice to debate someone who can reason!
Well, you can argue the noise problem from a libertarian point of view as well. By what right do other people, e.g. by driving on a public road, project noise into my hallowed home?
I can see that a person who walks in front of my house with an air-horn blasting my windows is infringing on my freedoms. Your example leaves off too many other variables. What if, for example, I chose to live next to a busy freeway? Can I then start screaming, "These noisy cars are infringing on my rights!" The more complicated question is, "Are rights infringed upon when freeways are built near housing?"
Unfortunately, if everybody tries to achieve the optimum individually, we don't get a global optimum. In fact, we might even all be worse off.
If everyone follows their own rational self-interest, then I think we will have the most moral and productive society. The key is rational self-interest. A society of self-important thugs who fights for their own pleasure at the expense of everyone else is not a society worth living in.
As for the noise example, if people become ill or depressed or go postal because of noise, we all have to bear a part of that burden. So it makes sense for all of us share the remedy.
How will you know if a person becomes ill or depressed solely because of noise? Are you going to take the sufferer's word for it -- someone who is slobbering at the thought of getting a new house that someone else paid for if the correct diagnosis is acheived?
Yes. What are the chances of the majority of people across e.g. New York who feel that noise pollution adversely affects the forming an organisation, funding it, running a scientifically valid investigation, and then implementing a city-wide scheme to reduce it?
Nil.
Probably because there is no demand for it. Your argument assumes that this is a problem about which something must be done. What if no one wants it? Should we assume that the government is so all-knowing and intelligent that looting is justified?
I assume from your viewpoint that all US cities' mayors should be immediately sacked and any planning and services they were doing should be scrapped and the inhabitants left to do the job themselves as best they can? I give those cities less than a week before they fall into chaos.
Strawman.
Should I assume that you agreed with everything else I wrote?
Unemployment is a tool, or a stage. It's not an end (in either sense of the word).
Except that people on unemployment are living off the money that someone else earned -- money that was extracted from them by force. People on unemployment are looters, even if by proxy.
I know it's slashdot, but can we not always talk in absolutes and maybe give the other side a little credit? At least the benefit of the doubt?
You're not talking to slashdot, you're talking to an individual. I won't give anything any credit if it's superstitious or uncivil.
The person buying the sub-standard house might not be able to afford a better one? Why shouldn't our tax money be used to improve their standard of living?
Well, why stop at standard of living? What if they only have a 27 inch TV. Don't they deserve a better one? Why shouldn't we use someone else's money ("our tax dollars") to give them a better TV? What, the poor person isn't eating rack of lamb and otoro sashimi every night? Don't they deserve to eat better than that? Why shouldn't we use someone else's money to improve their eating standards?
No, it doesn't. The "ill concieved government program" is helping improve the country's housing stock. Eventually all houses will be well sound proofed and you've improved everyone's standard of living. What's wrong with that?
It's wrong because it's paid for with looted money.
The problem with far right and the far left is that there are things wrong with both capitalism and socialism. Ayn Rand is just as bad a Karl Marx.
Ayn Rand didn't have it all right; she did think that men must necessarily dominate women sexually and that homosexuality was immoral. But you have failed to say anything that is reasonable or a rational refutation of anything that Ayn Rand has stated.
Individual property rights + free enterprise = captialism
This is why those of the Leftist religion hate both individual property rights and free enterprise.
Really, how better to dedicate the resources of ones culture than the investigation of the cause/effect and remedy for general, shared problems? Why the hell not? I can think of no better things to investigate.
Because the resources that are being dedicated are being seized at gunpoint. Furthermore, while you may not be able to think of better things to investigate, there may be millions of people who want to exercise their freedom and hard-earned money on what they want exercise it on. What gives your opinions so much priority that they justify looting?
The masses are convinced -- almost without pause -- that spending money on single-serving yogurt-like snacks(ever *made* your own yogurt -- VERY VERY GOOD & EASY), RetiredBoxerBrand electric grills (whats wrong with your stove?), ZXY(TM) Brand $200 shoes, and blah blah blah is a good reward in exchange for my personal effort (the $ youve collected in exchange for work).. I say hogwash.
Sure, it's hogwash. For you. For someone else, it's very important. What makes your tastes better than yours? Are you going to trot out your subjective feelings which is exactly what those who buy $200 Indonesian-made shoes use to justify their tastes? While I think many people spend money on pure junk, I still find them more respectable than I find you because at least their desire to spend money doesn't include taking my money.
If Im going to sacrifice 40hrs of ever week, I damn well want something worth while in exchange for my Cached-Work($).
There is nothing preventing you from doing this in a captialist society. You work, you get paid, and you spend your hard-earned dollars on what you want to spend it on. But that's not what you're describing here, is it? I think what you mean to say is, "If I work in any capacity, then I want the government to seize other people's property and spend it on that which I have decided is Good and Right."
Being the sucker in some capitalist's get-rich scheme, at the expense of the planet (pollution/waste/garbage) is not all that attractive -- but insead of paying for research like this (in taxes) people are usually DrivenByMindControl to buying SomeDamnedGarbage.
And you can choose not to be involed in some capitalist's get-rich "scheme". Can I choose not to have my hard-earned tax dollars go to some leftist's idea of what is moral? No! Why is that not also a "scheme"?
Furthermore, pollution, waste, and garbate do not harm the planet. They harm people.
Where am i going with this? What is more useful? What is the greatest benefit of the product of our collective resources (the above mentioned consumer-garbage) **OR** some peace from the endless noise in a mechanized-industrial city....
And it rears it's ugly head: collective resources In other words, everyting that an individual works to earn actually belongs to busybodies in the state (who are, of course, trying to buy votes and maintain power). Is there any reason at all that this vaunted "noise control" could not be addressed privately?
Stop and think occasionally: "what benefit, at what cost is my decision having to bear on myself and my community?
Your religion has defined private property and free enterprise as "evil". It is from these premises that you weigh these alleged benefits and costs. For example, my buying a George Forman Grill would only be falling prey to an Evil Capitalist's Get Rich Scheme. Well, how many people does that evil capitalist employ? How much business does the evil capitalist give to UPS/FedEx to ship their products, and how many jobs does that take? What about the raw materials that go into making the George Forman grills? That takes jobs, too.
Yes, I believe in society very much, just not in the way that you do. I believe that society functions most morally when people are not forced to live their lives for someone else.
it's in goverments(the peoples!) intrest
"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'"
Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
Not that there's anything wrong with being on unemployment.
Except that people on unemployment are living off the money that someone else earned -- money that was extracted from them by force. People on unemployment are looters, even if by proxy.
It's subjective. Depending what limit you set, you can have 0.01% people agree (only the ascetic priests: $100 is greed), 1%, 10%, 50%, 99% or 99.99% people agree.
You are arguing my point exactly! No one can rightfully label anything as "greed" because there is no obejctive measurement for what constitutes it.
Regardeless of the limit, the fact that CEO get INSANE income raises
Speaking of subjective, what is "insane"?
while performing like crap on average, can be interpreted as greed...
Or, depending on whom you ask, it may not be "interpreted" (I like your word choice) as greed. Or, alternatively, you can be labeled as "greedy" because you're rich enough to be using a computer to type these messages to me. By what right do you have a computer when someone else is starving to death?
This is why all "greed" arguments suck. They are not based on reason. They are based on subjective emotions. Our emotions teach us nothing.
Indeed, I didn't state that CEOs were alone in exhibiting that which we identify as greed : Virtually everyone is.
What is "greed"? An excessive desire for wealth. How much is "excessive"?
Now, you answer. How much is excessive?
See, it all boils down to the fact that the internet is just like any other information medium
See, there are many, many differences between the Internet and "any other information medium". If you were making an analogy, then you've made a logical flaw: its called "argument by analogy".
What can you do? Prepare your kids for what they may run into. Give them feedback and guidance on how to deal with certain situations. Tell them what is appropriate and what is not.
Thanks for your advice, but where do limits come in? How, specifically, can one "prepare" children for what they may run into? What if they come across a murder in progress? How might I "prepare" them for that?
Humans need practice making decisions for themselves and not having everything honed down, toned down, and spoon fed to them.
Humans make decisions for themselves regardless of who is doing the honing down, toning down, or spoon-feeding.
The fact is, you can't protect them. You can only help guide and instruct them.
Parents protect their children all the time. Perhaps you mean, "You can't protect your children from every hurt that they will come across." I believe that. Most parents aren't aware that their behavior will be the biggest hurt in their children's lives.
And if its really such a big deal, take the computer away and be a mean parent. They'll forgive you eventually, and its probably for the best anyway.
There's nothing inherently mean about taking a computer away from a child. And who knows? Maybe the child won't forgive you for doing it.
Anyway, its all about the trust, man.
I don't think you have kids, man. I think you are a kid, man.
Trust that your kids know what they're doing and if it gets out of hand, offer help and advice instead of anger and retribution.
I trust that children will always test their limits. That is my universal trust in children. Everything else is dependant on the relationship with the child in question.
We get enough of that from The Christain God.
And which Christian God would you be referring to? The Baptist one, the Jehovah's Witnesses' one, or the Mormon one? All of those groups claim to be "Christian", yet they all worship different gods.
It takes a lot of courage to stand up for something you believe in.
I disagree. It takes little courage to state your opinion. What takes a lot of courage is to admit that you're wrong and change your mind. Don't believe me? How much more frequently do people "bravely stand up for what they believe" as opposed to admitting defeat when their blessed belief is shown to be devoid of reason and completely lacking in evidence?
there is an element to human greed
And what is greed? "An excessive desire for wealth." Well, how much is "excessive"?
A million dollars?
A thousand?
A hundred?
Anything above bare subsistence living?