On the other hand, the guy I mentioned in my modded-to-oblivion post wasn't quite there yet. No tremors or hallucinations, it was just him being a mean drunk.
My mother is an alcoholic, you fucking asshole. Have you no compassion? Or do you simply thrive on being an asshole because it makes you feel better?
Without knowing more about your situation, it's hard for me to judge, but if your mother really is an alcoholic and her drinking is having a negative impact (that's a pretty weak way of putting it, I know) on you and whoever else is in your family, I'd say she's the asshole, not me.
Well maybe I am too. But her drinking is no one's fault but her own, that much I am sure of.
Um, have you ever heard of the shakes? People have died from alcohol withdrawal.
So long karma, but No, I've never heard of the shakes. Is that the medical term for "bad hangover"? I guess it might be possible to die from a hangover...
That sound you hear is the world's smallest violin playing just for all those alcoholics who've died of the shakes. Or maybe it's the sound of me just not giving a damn.
Sounds to me thatyou're an alcoholic in denial. If your Dad's buddies are/were all alcoholics as you proclaim, then more likely than not he is/was one as well.
Since they have concluded that alcoholism is a genetically passable trait it would appear you too then have said genetic marker.
You're in the denial stage right now. Hence, you claim everyone else is alcoholic degenerate assholes, but not you and ole daddy!
I hope you reconsider your position and go get some help it really sounds like you need it.
I would hate to see you on the side of the road giving blowjobs for fifths of thunderbird.
Oh no! Your awesome retort has shamed me! My drinking on Fridays with other grad students is a sure sign of my rampent genetically inherited alcoholism! I sometimes drink on SATURDAYS too! I'm getting shaky!!!
And as for my father, I don't remember him ever hiding liquor bottles inside the vacuum cleaner. He does have quite the liquor cabinet though, filled with liquor. And even some wine in the cellar. But I suppose alcoholics are famous for keeping the same bottles of liquor for months at a time without drinking them.
If that relationship fell to pieces, just imaging the divorce court fees, and that'd be a hell of a lot of alimony, too.
Or could 4 people split off in divorce leaving the other 11 married? If they did that could 1 of the 4 member family stay married to 7 of the 11 member family?
And that's not even considering child support and custody. Does the larger family group automatically get custody?
All good questions;) Actually, polygamy is a slightly different debate from the plain-cake gay marriage debate since it does involve multiple people. But my suspicion is that those questions could all be ironed out if necessary. Not that I can do it here, heh.
I'm not sure why you bring up the constitution, where in the constitution does it say that two men can get married? I.E. what right are they being denied given that all men have the right to marry the same subset of people no matter their sexual preference (ignoring incest).
Uh, I brought up the constition because the great great...grandparent post that you wrote (or maybe it was a different a.c., I'm not sure), said, pretty clearly, that while sodomy is not unconstitutional, gay marriage is.
Secondly, I think the best way to construe the laws on marriage now are that they are inconsistent with the totally appropriate definition of marriage I just gave. And I think you're wrong that the majority of people wouldn't support my definition. Maybe not the majority of 60+ year old bastards trying to hang on to one of the last living prejudices in the western world. But ask people under 30, and even better, people under 20, and you'll get the same reaction I give:
WHO THE HELL CARES IF GAY GUYS WANT TO GET MARRIED?
It doesn't matter to anyone but them. It harms no one. It is a tremendous waste of time and money to to debate this. It's a total non-issue. And in 15 years time, when gay marriage is common everywhere in the west besides 10 southern states in the usa (if the states'-rights camp gets their way, and I figure they will. Fair enough.), people will look back on this just like they look at sodomy laws, laughing and saying, "Hey, our society didn't collapse...straight people still get married...families remained intact. Wowee, zowee, boy was that debate a total waste of time....now if only we could get out of Iraq."
By any scientific standard, if homosexuality is genetic like almost everyone claims, then it is a genetic defect. We should not have laws on the books that say this is fine.
Yeah, defect, okay. So I suppose then that anyone with a gene that sends their phenotype straying too far from the norm should called defective and not be given the protection of laws? Was that your point?
So what's you're point? I suppose the idea of marriage is that it's a formalization of such a relationship. And like the a.c. said, it is sort of held up as an ideal in society.
And if your point was to ask why *gay* people can't express their love and devotion etc. without getting married, then why can't straight people do that as well?
But it's not meaningless. I just gave you a perfectly good definition of marriage that I think works just fine. Let me restate it for you, and maybe you can tell me what's wrong with it. Even better, show me where it says *in the constition* that it is not an adequate definition:
Marriage: A social instition allowing people to come together and express their love and devotion to eachother for the rest of their lives.
So for conditions needed for marriage we have: (1) People who love each other and who (2) Want to formalize a lifelong relationship based on mutual respect and devotion.
Seems simple enough to me. And it definitely doesn't dilute the concept of marriage such that it is meaningless. Why aren't (1) and (2) enough? And what would you add to make marriage a qualitatively better institution?
So, sodomy laws are unconstitutional, but two gay guys getting hitched is? Which amendment is that, specifically?
And you're right, marriage is something society holds up to be an ideal, which is probably why gay people *want* to get married, and is part of the reason it should be allowed.
It really baffles me why this is even an issue. Civilians are being beheaded in Iraq by foreign fighters, genocide is happening in Sudan, and still people are freaking out about pairs of guys wanting to say "I do".
Oh no! Whatever shall we do!!! Next they'll be letting black guys marry white girls, and maybe show them kissing on television!!! Our society will crack under the strain!! The horror!!
Goddamn. People need to friggin grow up.
P.S. Yes, who is to say that "fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?" You?
It also helps to prevent "boring scientist" syndrome.
Except if the book you're reading happens to be written by James Joyce. I've seen RFCs that are more engaging.
On the other hand, it's hard to deny that he was a smart guy; it just baffles me that people actually sometimes *want* to go through the punishment of reading him.
I dunno how much the plot of the first episode resembled a sunday morning cartoon (maybe the characters did)...Seriously, what do kids know about trade sanctions, diplomatic engagements and senate politics? Except that they make for a boring setup for a movie that's supposed to be an exciting epic space opera.
Yeah tell that to a guy I know who overdosed twice when he was 17 and was put in a mental ward. He's out now, deals drugs, and thinks that he's jesus. He showed me a scribbler once where he was working out equations on how astrology relates to the creation of the universe, and how it's possible to direct the course of future by just thinking hard.
Oh well, the guy was always kind of a douche anyway. But it just to show you there *are* things kids can't bounce back from;)
Here's a follow up: I'm not sure the article was preaching to the converted, but frankly I'm not sure they should be preaching to anyone else just yet. Could you imagine having to do over-the-phone technical support for a joe blow user who just installed Linux? *shudder* People's heads would a-splode.
Linux is not *quite* ready for widespread adoption on the desktop. Of course there is another alternative: Get a mac.
People will not be willing to pay the extra price. Not when IE is free. Not when they think IE is already good enough.
Well, IE isn't free; you have to pay for windows to get it. Unless you download it later on your own, in which case it's the same as downloading Mozilla/Firefox. And as far as them thinking it's good enough, well if it's good enough for people, then what reason do they have to use any thing else? And why should they? How is bundling something that is good enough for consumers a bad thing?
...That is, until they realize it blows in comparison to firefox. But it's not Microsoft's responsibility to point out the virtues of their competitors; that would be the job of the people trying to sell computers with Firefox preinstalled.
Now... If some large OEM was to pre-install Firefox, then the picture would really start to change. But I doubt whether their contracts with Microsoft *allow* them to do that.
Sure they'd be allowed, they'd just have to pay retail price for Windows. If Firefox is really hot shit (I certainly think it is), then people will be willing to pay the extra cost. And if they aren't, well tough tits for them. ("tough tits" is my favorite phrase lately.)
Slashdot Mirror
She's been sober for months.
Good for her. I hope it stays that way.
Nice. At least I learned something today.
On the other hand, the guy I mentioned in my modded-to-oblivion post wasn't quite there yet. No tremors or hallucinations, it was just him being a mean drunk.
My mother is an alcoholic, you fucking asshole. Have you no compassion? Or do you simply thrive on being an asshole because it makes you feel better?
Without knowing more about your situation, it's hard for me to judge, but if your mother really is an alcoholic and her drinking is having a negative impact (that's a pretty weak way of putting it, I know) on you and whoever else is in your family, I'd say she's the asshole, not me.
Well maybe I am too. But her drinking is no one's fault but her own, that much I am sure of.
Um, have you ever heard of the shakes? People have died from alcohol withdrawal.
So long karma, but No, I've never heard of the shakes. Is that the medical term for "bad hangover"? I guess it might be possible to die from a hangover...
That sound you hear is the world's smallest violin playing just for all those alcoholics who've died of the shakes. Or maybe it's the sound of me just not giving a damn.
Sounds to me thatyou're an alcoholic in denial.
If your Dad's buddies are/were all alcoholics as you proclaim, then more likely than not he is/was one as well.
Since they have concluded that alcoholism is a genetically passable trait it would appear you too then have said genetic marker.
You're in the denial stage right now. Hence, you claim everyone else is alcoholic degenerate assholes, but not you and ole daddy!
I hope you reconsider your position and go get some help it really sounds like you need it.
I would hate to see you on the side of the road giving blowjobs for fifths of thunderbird.
Oh no! Your awesome retort has shamed me! My drinking on Fridays with other grad students is a sure sign of my rampent genetically inherited alcoholism! I sometimes drink on SATURDAYS too! I'm getting shaky!!!
And as for my father, I don't remember him ever hiding liquor bottles inside the vacuum cleaner. He does have quite the liquor cabinet though, filled with liquor. And even some wine in the cellar. But I suppose alcoholics are famous for keeping the same bottles of liquor for months at a time without drinking them.
Why Daddy?! WHY??
I almost never take painkillers. With the exception of when I got my wisdom teeth out, and when I get outstanding migraines, which isn't often.
;)
Wow, you actually found a painkiller that gets rid of full blown migraines? I used to get those as a kid, and nothing helped.
That's the most succinctly put point I think I've ever read on slashdot.
If that relationship fell to pieces, just imaging the divorce court fees, and that'd be a hell of a lot of alimony, too.
;) Actually, polygamy is a slightly different debate from the plain-cake gay marriage debate since it does involve multiple people. But my suspicion is that those questions could all be ironed out if necessary. Not that I can do it here, heh.
Or could 4 people split off in divorce leaving the other 11 married? If they did that could 1 of the 4 member family stay married to 7 of the 11 member family?
And that's not even considering child support and custody. Does the larger family group automatically get custody?
All good questions
I'm not sure why you bring up the constitution, where in the constitution does it say that two men can get married? I.E. what right are they being denied given that all men have the right to marry the same subset of people no matter their sexual preference (ignoring incest).
...now if only we could get out of Iraq."
Uh, I brought up the constition because the great great...grandparent post that you wrote (or maybe it was a different a.c., I'm not sure), said, pretty clearly, that while sodomy is not unconstitutional, gay marriage is.
Secondly, I think the best way to construe the laws on marriage now are that they are inconsistent with the totally appropriate definition of marriage I just gave. And I think you're wrong that the majority of people wouldn't support my definition. Maybe not the majority of 60+ year old bastards trying to hang on to one of the last living prejudices in the western world. But ask people under 30, and even better, people under 20, and you'll get the same reaction I give:
WHO THE HELL CARES IF GAY GUYS WANT TO GET MARRIED?
It doesn't matter to anyone but them. It harms no one. It is a tremendous waste of time and money to to debate this. It's a total non-issue. And in 15 years time, when gay marriage is common everywhere in the west besides 10 southern states in the usa (if the states'-rights camp gets their way, and I figure they will. Fair enough.), people will look back on this just like they look at sodomy laws, laughing and saying, "Hey, our society didn't collapse...straight people still get married...families remained intact. Wowee, zowee, boy was that debate a total waste of time.
By any scientific standard, if homosexuality is genetic like almost everyone claims, then it is a genetic defect. We should not have laws on the books that say this is fine.
Yeah, defect, okay. So I suppose then that anyone with a gene that sends their phenotype straying too far from the norm should called defective and not be given the protection of laws? Was that your point?
So what's you're point? I suppose the idea of marriage is that it's a formalization of such a relationship. And like the a.c. said, it is sort of held up as an ideal in society.
And if your point was to ask why *gay* people can't express their love and devotion etc. without getting married, then why can't straight people do that as well?
But it's not meaningless. I just gave you a perfectly good definition of marriage that I think works just fine. Let me restate it for you, and maybe you can tell me what's wrong with it. Even better, show me where it says *in the constition* that it is not an adequate definition:
Marriage: A social instition allowing people to come together and express their love and devotion to eachother for the rest of their lives.
So for conditions needed for marriage we have: (1) People who love each other and who (2) Want to formalize a lifelong relationship based on mutual respect and devotion.
Seems simple enough to me. And it definitely doesn't dilute the concept of marriage such that it is meaningless. Why aren't (1) and (2) enough? And what would you add to make marriage a qualitatively better institution?
It means people can come together and express their love and devotion for eachother for the rest of their lives. Duh.
So, you're idea is we should get rid of marriage because this definition does not preclude gays from hooking up?
So, sodomy laws are unconstitutional, but two gay guys getting hitched is? Which amendment is that, specifically?
And you're right, marriage is something society holds up to be an ideal, which is probably why gay people *want* to get married, and is part of the reason it should be allowed.
It really baffles me why this is even an issue. Civilians are being beheaded in Iraq by foreign fighters, genocide is happening in Sudan, and still people are freaking out about pairs of guys wanting to say "I do".
Oh no! Whatever shall we do!!! Next they'll be letting black guys marry white girls, and maybe show them kissing on television!!! Our society will crack under the strain!! The horror!!
Goddamn. People need to friggin grow up.
P.S. Yes, who is to say that "fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?" You?
It also helps to prevent "boring scientist" syndrome.
Except if the book you're reading happens to be written by James Joyce. I've seen RFCs that are more engaging.
On the other hand, it's hard to deny that he was a smart guy; it just baffles me that people actually sometimes *want* to go through the punishment of reading him.
I dunno how much the plot of the first episode resembled a sunday morning cartoon (maybe the characters did)...Seriously, what do kids know about trade sanctions, diplomatic engagements and senate politics? Except that they make for a boring setup for a movie that's supposed to be an exciting epic space opera.
Still, I liked it more than Ep.2.
AC++ !
Yeah, winamp's doing it to me too.
Except that maximizing profit isn't prima facie immoral. So no, your point doesn't stand.
To a good employer who hires smart people. They are out there.
Yeah tell that to a guy I know who overdosed twice when he was 17 and was put in a mental ward. He's out now, deals drugs, and thinks that he's jesus. He showed me a scribbler once where he was working out equations on how astrology relates to the creation of the universe, and how it's possible to direct the course of future by just thinking hard.
;)
Oh well, the guy was always kind of a douche anyway. But it just to show you there *are* things kids can't bounce back from
Here's a follow up: I'm not sure the article was preaching to the converted, but frankly I'm not sure they should be preaching to anyone else just yet. Could you imagine having to do over-the-phone technical support for a joe blow user who just installed Linux? *shudder* People's heads would a-splode.
;)
Linux is not *quite* ready for widespread adoption on the desktop. Of course there is another alternative: Get a mac.
Now how bout that gmail invite
n/t
People will not be willing to pay the extra price. Not when IE is free. Not when they think IE is already good enough.
...That is, until they realize it blows in comparison to firefox. But it's not Microsoft's responsibility to point out the virtues of their competitors; that would be the job of the people trying to sell computers with Firefox preinstalled.
Well, IE isn't free; you have to pay for windows to get it. Unless you download it later on your own, in which case it's the same as downloading Mozilla/Firefox. And as far as them thinking it's good enough, well if it's good enough for people, then what reason do they have to use any thing else? And why should they? How is bundling something that is good enough for consumers a bad thing?
Now... If some large OEM was to pre-install Firefox, then the picture would really start to change. But I doubt whether their contracts with Microsoft *allow* them to do that.
Sure they'd be allowed, they'd just have to pay retail price for Windows. If Firefox is really hot shit (I certainly think it is), then people will be willing to pay the extra cost. And if they aren't, well tough tits for them. ("tough tits" is my favorite phrase lately.)