Only people who are constantly willing to believe the worst in the government are going to see a grand conspiracy here.
Let's see...the organization that in the past brought us COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and in it's current incarnation keeps the hits coming with the Iraq invasion, Gitmo, "Plamegate", and the current illegal wiretaps...
If you're not willing to believe the worst in government, you're not paying attention.
You can even see it in old standards like the Hardy Boys, where evidence and deductive reasoning were stressed over blind acceptance of the common view.
One of the reasons that America is slipping in science standings is that science is no longer presented to young people as a desirable career. Someone has to carry that torch.
Science was presented to young people as a desirable career only during the few decades of the Cold War, when the military-industrial complex needed scientists to beat the Russians at missle-building and the like.
Unfortunately don't need scientists to beat our current "designated threat" of pseudo-Islamic "terrorists"; they need cannon fodder who can be fooled into getting their legs blown off in the name of a Pax Americana.
...and get a highly functional clip watch or an always stylish pocket watch.
Can't stand wearing things on my wrist. My Timex clip watch has, belive it or not, a "screen saver" mode and a built-in "magic 8-ball" yes/no question answerer (no competition for the real thing of course, though that site seems to be down). For dressing up I have a brass pocketwatch I got in Japan - battery powered, nothing fancy but nice.
Depending on how good this material is, a full body suit may be incredibly useful in a hand-to-hand combat situation, for anyone using a "hard" martial art - karate, kickboxing etc.
It would certainly be useful in training.
In striking arts there are three options for sparring without getting seriously hurt:
rely on your partner to not stike full force and to limit target areas. However, accidents happen - you move in when your sparring partner doesn't expect it and you walk right into a full force kick. Ouch.
wear pads on your hands and feet. (This is the option we usually use.) This limits what techniques can be used but does allow a more realistic training in how to take a blow.
wear armor on your target areas, such as the chest protector used in Olympic Tae Kwon Do. I've done karate tournaments that used these, they're rather awkward and you can't bend your body very much while wearing one, but they do allow for a wider variety of techniques to be thrown.
So yeah, I'd love to have a "soft armor" vest that I could move around in but would stiffen up to protect my ribs from getting cracked. If the price were reasonable every karate dojo would buy a couple.
Why on earth do you think that? Diebold has been selling
voting units that produce paper receipts for over a year now. Maryland
could just use those.
According to TFA, "Testimony to that effect came from Donald F. Norris,
director of the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who was hired by the elections
board for a study and spoke before a Senate committee last week. Norris
said he would not recommend buying any of the four verification
technologies that he studied. If the legislature adopts one, he said, it
would not be ready by Election Day." [Emphasis added]
An appropriation would have to be made, there'd be a CFP, a bidding
process, a bunch of machines bought, tested, certified, personnel trained,
etcetera. The primaries are in September, and I can't imaging using a
different system for primaries and for general elections; the State Board
of Elections must certify the content and arrangement of ballots 50 days
before that, giving a late July deadline. No way all this could happen in
five months.
Also we have a part-time legistlature which adjourns April 10, so
there'd have to be a plan by that time.
Do you reckon his change of heart has anything to do with
him being up for reelection?
Yes, but only because his "change of heart" may let him stop a motion to
allow for early voting. A paper trail cannot be put into place in time for
the November elections. (Yes, it's a four year term so he's up for
relection; his most likely challenger is charismatic Baltimore mayor Martin
O'Malley, though Montgomery County executive Douglas Duncan still has a
shot at the Democratic candidacy.)
Our (majority Democratic) legislature recently overrode an Ehrlich (our
Republican governor) veto of a bill that would allow voters to cast ballots
five days before Election Day. Republicans generally favor tight control of
where and when people can vote; their claim is that this prevents fraud,
while critics say this is to help make it more difficult for poorer people
(who are more likely to vote against Republican candidates) to vote.
Ehrlich is attempting to tie this early voting issue into the verified
ballots issue, calling for a "package deal" of a paper trail (which would
not happen until some time well after the election, so absolutely no effect
on him) and a delay until 2008 of the early voting plan (which would mean
fewer voters out of a population likely to oppose him). If voter-verified ballots were his true concern he would keep the early voting issue separate.
It's politics as usual.
Me, I'll probably vote via absentee ballot again this year to avoid
using Diebold machines - Maryland law requires only that you may be
out of your county on election day in to vote absentee.
Are you trying to tell me it's not the two-party system that's the absolute foundation of democracy and freedom?
Since the U.S. was founded as a democratic and free nation without political parties, yes, it's clearly not the two-party system that's the absolute foundation of democracy and freedom. Indeed it takes only a cursory glance at history to see how since their rise party politics have been the bane of democracy and freedom.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with illfounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchial cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
A "free country" isn't a country where there are no laws. It's a country where the laws approximate the collective will of the people, and not just of a few at the top.
No. "Majority rules" does not make for a free country; prior restraint of government power and a judiciary willing to enforce it do.
The US keeps making laws I have problems with, like the Patriot Act, but then I see the polls which show that most people support them.
Popular support for a bad law does not make it any more Constitutional. (Short of amending the Constitution itself, which wisely not only takes a supermajority but has many procedural hurdles.)
My sources are the neighborhood bars that were doing great
pre-ban, out of business post-ban.
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If there has been a rash of closings
in your area, that might have more to do with local economics or
demographics, liquor law changes, a general
decline in alcohol consumption, or a hundred other factors, than a
smoking ban. Or it might just be a statistical anomaly.
Let's put some numbers to this. How many bars in your town pre-ban? How
many now? How long ago did this ban go into effect?
Instead of banning smoking entirely, the correct way to handle it would have been to simply enforce a minimum standard of air quality in the "workplace" where people are serving smokers
Sounds good in theory, though I'm not sure if that can be enforced in practice.
But if you address it from a 'human' standpoint the only relevant factors pop into plain view. They are over populated!
While Japan has a fairly high population density (you've basically got mountains, sea, and a thin strip of land suitable for heavy development in between), they do a remarkably good job at not having an overcrowded feel.
They get the details right.
If we are basically a grown up germ, where is the purpose in life? What's the point in living, when dieing seems easier. That's the question that philosophers have tried to answer for the last century.
What's the "purpose" of a sunset? Of a joke? Of a thunderstorm? Of a song? Of the Northern Lights? Of a poem?
"Purpose" is a human invention. If you want one, invent one, but be aware that it's your own creation and not a property of the universe. There's no "coefficient of meaning" in any theory of physics.
Haven't you been reading the summary? It's the victim's fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest!
Maybe not a bullet-proof vest, but if someone starts shooting and you don't duck, then yes, your failure to duck is part of the cause of you getting hit. However, that doesn't mean that the shooter's action isn't the primary cause, or relieve the shooter of any of the ethical and legal responsibility; I'm just saying that if you don't take simple and obvious steps to protect yourself, and as a result you get hurt, you bear some small part of the practical responsibility.
On the other hand, if you're at a gun range with live fire going on and run out on to the range, your action is the primary cause of you getting hit. You bear all of the ethical, legal, and practical responsibility.
My whole point, if you'd be willing to climb down from your high horse for one minute is that you can have a civil discussion about issues like this without descending to name calling and making something more confrontational than is necessary.
I try to always confront bigotry, yes; to point it out and say that it is not socially or ethically acceptable. (Though legally, I will fight for everyone's right to be a ignorant bigot in the privacy of their own ideas and speech. And of course confronting someone about a/. post takes no courage; it's speaking up IRL that is hard.) That is necessary; of course you're unlikely to change the bigot's mind (though thankfully it does sometimes happen), but you can help stop the bigotry-meme from spreading, and prevent the mere bigot from becoming a violent basher.
Bigotry flourishes in silence; every time we hear a bigoted opinion expressed and don't speak out against it, we fertilize it. There's nothing any more uncivil about saying that homophobia is unacceptable than saying that racism is unacceptable.
There's been no "name calling". I didn't call you a darned thing. I made a statement about the tone and apparent subtext of your posts in this thread: I said "You're coming off as homophobic here" and "I'm not saying you are; I'm commenting on how you're coming across.", and invited you to clarify your views (which you have not choosen to do).
Calling the BSA's position homophobic and bigoted is not name calling, it's an accurate description of the ideas the organization has expressed.
I'm merely trying to point out that the rush to label a person and/or group a homophobe (and even worse, a bigot) does nothing to promote a cause, instead it merely adds unnecessary polarization to a touchy issue.
I refuse to remain silent in the face of bigotry. I'm not sorry in the least if you find it disturbuing when people speak out. In a nation where people are discriminated against, assulted, and even killed based on sexual orientation, silence is not an acceptable response.
Did any of my statements reveal anything about my own personal stance vis-a-vis homosexuality? No.
As I said: it's how you're coming across in this discussion. Feel free to state your stance explictly, but the implication most readers are going to draw from your posts here is that you are, to some degree, a homophobe. I'm not saying you are; I'm commenting on how you're coming across.
I'm not going to argue with you about choice versus genetic programming as no one can resolve that.
The question isn't about "genetic programming", since both genetics an enviroment shape us. It's a question of whether or not its a choice, and of course we can resolve it. If sexual orientation is a choice, than yours and mine are the result of choices. Mine isn't (nor is my thing about redheads), and neither is that of most people.
issues like this can be addressed without applying derogatory labels to people that you happen to disagree with.
What, you want a polictically correct substitute for accurate words like bigtory and homophobia? What would you suggest?
(If you find the words derogatory, I suggest you not adopt attitudes that they describe.)
I think the story would have been different if you were left with a 35-year-old woman when you were 16.
The post to which I was replying asked about 12-year-olds.
As for teens: my karate sensei is a woman. (A little over 35 I think, but close enough for this discussion.) We have students who are teens.
Our HQ is in New York City. My sensei's mom lives across the river in Weehawken. Teenaged male students have spent the night with and her mom at that apartment. No one thinks twice. (And hurray for her mom for being our groups's crash pad outside NYC!)
The Spiral Scouts have no problem with gay, lesbian, or transgender leaders.
And, as my quote from the BSA above shows, the "liabilty" thing was a red herring, the BSA (as an organization, not necessarily as individual people) are simpy avowed homophobes.
The civil rights movement pushed for equality not for people having to state that this group of people is fine and I fully support their lifestyle choices.
First, the civil rights movement pushed not only for legal but social equality; that is indeed saying that "this group of people is fine", as in "it's ok if my sister marries one".
Second, sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle choice"; gays no more choose to be attracted to men than I chose to get hot about women.
(Maybe you had to make such a choice? You're coming off as homophobic here, and it's been found that homophobia often correllates with sexual uncertainty and repressed homosexuality. Are you getting all bent out of shape about people doing something that you'd like to do yourself but feel that you can't?)
Indeed, if sexual orientation were a choice, rationally we'd all have to choose to be bisexual and maximize our chances of a date. Simple economics tells us that we'd adjust demand to meet supply.
There is no single "gay lifestyle" any more than there is a single "straight lifestyle". Some gays make lifestyle choices I think are stupid or harmful. Some straight people make lifestyle choices I think are stupid or harmful. (Though bigoted legal and social structures sometimes play a role in pushed gays towards unwise choices; if you have to hide your sexuality for fear of discrimination or even an assualt, that can pressure you toward certain choices.)
They aren't working to remove rights from people they are just saying these are the people who we will associate with and not others.
The BSA is saying "we won't associate with these other people because we think they're morally inferior". Do they have a legal right to do this? Yes. (So long as they are a private organization; the degree of public support they receive calls this into question.) That doesn't make them any less bigoted.
(BTW, to be clear I mean the BSA as an organization. Individual people within in may or may not agree with the official position of the BSA leadership.)
And to say someone "simply doesn't approve" of homosexuals is no more sensible than saying somone "simply doesn't approve" of black people or Jews or any other group.
A push for tolerance should not be overrun by a push for acceptance.
I can picture you in the 1960s: "Black people's push for tolerance should not be overrun by a push for acceptance; it's enough that I let them live in my neighborhood, I shouldn't be socially pressured to let my sister date one."
Sorry, no. Bigotry sucks, and we're now in a time when homophobes are going to be called on it the way racists were decades ago.
The red cross, red cresent, and red crystal symbols are not trademarks, but symbols agreed upon by international treaty - a much higher level of protection. Now, I'm still inclined to think that use in a game might fall into some sort of fair use category.
Would you send your 12 year old daughter camping with a 35 year old man, or your 12 year old son camping with a 35 year old woman?
When I was a Cub Scout, many many years ago, we had a Den Mother. I don't think we ever went overnight camping, but I don't see much less "liability" in leaving a bunch of boys with an older woamn in a suburban basement than in the woods.
What, merit badges for making explosive vests, and for learning how to fly (but not take off or land) in commercial airliners? Maybe starting fires to torch embassies?
Only to the same extent that a Christian merit badge would involve blowing up women's clinics, or a Jewish one torturing Palestinians.
Sadly, every creed is well-supplied with violent idiots. (I'm sire somewhere out there there's even an atheist or two who's killed people over issues of religion.)
I was actually wondering, could it be the case that we might not even be able to understand and explain some phonemena simply because our brain power is not adequate.
It sometimes strikes me that every model of the universe is an instance of lossy compression; it's small enough to fit into the human mind and gives you the gist of what's going on, but data is lost.
Your eyes are closed, and you refuse to open them, yet you call us blind?
I didn't call anybody blind....but if you're going to assert that the quality of COTS software is not, taken as a whole, lousy and an embarassment to the profession; or that Microsoft's legal tactics and impact on the relevant art don't resemble those of the hellspawn that is that music recording industry; then yes, I would have to question your sensory acuity.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see...the organization that in the past brought us COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and in it's current incarnation keeps the hits coming with the Iraq invasion, Gitmo, "Plamegate", and the current illegal wiretaps...
If you're not willing to believe the worst in government, you're not paying attention.
Uh, right. There's no one out there interested in funding research that attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
Encyclopedia Brown was my hero.
Science was presented to young people as a desirable career only during the few decades of the Cold War, when the military-industrial complex needed scientists to beat the Russians at missle-building and the like.
Unfortunately don't need scientists to beat our current "designated threat" of pseudo-Islamic "terrorists"; they need cannon fodder who can be fooled into getting their legs blown off in the name of a Pax Americana.
Can't stand wearing things on my wrist. My Timex clip watch has, belive it or not, a "screen saver" mode and a built-in "magic 8-ball" yes/no question answerer (no competition for the real thing of course, though that site seems to be down). For dressing up I have a brass pocketwatch I got in Japan - battery powered, nothing fancy but nice.
It would certainly be useful in training.
In striking arts there are three options for sparring without getting seriously hurt:
So yeah, I'd love to have a "soft armor" vest that I could move around in but would stiffen up to protect my ribs from getting cracked. If the price were reasonable every karate dojo would buy a couple.
According to TFA, "Testimony to that effect came from Donald F. Norris, director of the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who was hired by the elections board for a study and spoke before a Senate committee last week. Norris said he would not recommend buying any of the four verification technologies that he studied. If the legislature adopts one, he said, it would not be ready by Election Day." [Emphasis added]
An appropriation would have to be made, there'd be a CFP, a bidding process, a bunch of machines bought, tested, certified, personnel trained, etcetera. The primaries are in September, and I can't imaging using a different system for primaries and for general elections; the State Board of Elections must certify the content and arrangement of ballots 50 days before that, giving a late July deadline. No way all this could happen in five months.
Also we have a part-time legistlature which adjourns April 10, so there'd have to be a plan by that time.
Yes, but only because his "change of heart" may let him stop a motion to allow for early voting. A paper trail cannot be put into place in time for the November elections. (Yes, it's a four year term so he's up for relection; his most likely challenger is charismatic Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley, though Montgomery County executive Douglas Duncan still has a shot at the Democratic candidacy.)
Our (majority Democratic) legislature recently overrode an Ehrlich (our Republican governor) veto of a bill that would allow voters to cast ballots five days before Election Day. Republicans generally favor tight control of where and when people can vote; their claim is that this prevents fraud, while critics say this is to help make it more difficult for poorer people (who are more likely to vote against Republican candidates) to vote.
Ehrlich is attempting to tie this early voting issue into the verified ballots issue, calling for a "package deal" of a paper trail (which would not happen until some time well after the election, so absolutely no effect on him) and a delay until 2008 of the early voting plan (which would mean fewer voters out of a population likely to oppose him). If voter-verified ballots were his true concern he would keep the early voting issue separate. It's politics as usual.
Me, I'll probably vote via absentee ballot again this year to avoid using Diebold machines - Maryland law requires only that you may be out of your county on election day in to vote absentee.
Since the U.S. was founded as a democratic and free nation without political parties, yes, it's clearly not the two-party system that's the absolute foundation of democracy and freedom. Indeed it takes only a cursory glance at history to see how since their rise party politics have been the bane of democracy and freedom.
From Washington's farewell address:
No. "Majority rules" does not make for a free country; prior restraint of government power and a judiciary willing to enforce it do.
Popular support for a bad law does not make it any more Constitutional. (Short of amending the Constitution itself, which wisely not only takes a supermajority but has many procedural hurdles.)
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If there has been a rash of closings in your area, that might have more to do with local economics or demographics, liquor law changes, a general decline in alcohol consumption, or a hundred other factors, than a smoking ban. Or it might just be a statistical anomaly.
Let's put some numbers to this. How many bars in your town pre-ban? How many now? How long ago did this ban go into effect?
I've seen reports that say there is no significant impact; please cite your source for this claim. Thanks. (Hate secondhand smoke; love bar. Usually try to sit by the door of my favorite tavern when fresh air dillutes the cigarette fumes.)
Sounds good in theory, though I'm not sure if that can be enforced in practice.
It would also be helpful to get the radioactive polonium and lead out of cigarette smoke with appropriate agricultural regulation.
While Japan has a fairly high population density (you've basically got mountains, sea, and a thin strip of land suitable for heavy development in between), they do a remarkably good job at not having an overcrowded feel. They get the details right.
Japan has a lower population density than Belgium, the Netherlands, or Puerto Rico. Their density is only about a third that of Bermuda. Even Toyko is less densly packed than Paris, Barcelona, or Seoul.
The Western nations of Russia, Ukrane, and several other Slavic nations have higher suicide rates than Japan. Finland's is close.
What's the "purpose" of a sunset? Of a joke? Of a thunderstorm? Of a song? Of the Northern Lights? Of a poem?
"Purpose" is a human invention. If you want one, invent one, but be aware that it's your own creation and not a property of the universe. There's no "coefficient of meaning" in any theory of physics.
Maybe not a bullet-proof vest, but if someone starts shooting and you don't duck, then yes, your failure to duck is part of the cause of you getting hit. However, that doesn't mean that the shooter's action isn't the primary cause, or relieve the shooter of any of the ethical and legal responsibility; I'm just saying that if you don't take simple and obvious steps to protect yourself, and as a result you get hurt, you bear some small part of the practical responsibility.
On the other hand, if you're at a gun range with live fire going on and run out on to the range, your action is the primary cause of you getting hit. You bear all of the ethical, legal, and practical responsibility.
I try to always confront bigotry, yes; to point it out and say that it is not socially or ethically acceptable. (Though legally, I will fight for everyone's right to be a ignorant bigot in the privacy of their own ideas and speech. And of course confronting someone about a /. post takes no courage; it's speaking up IRL that is hard.) That is necessary; of course you're unlikely to change the bigot's mind (though thankfully it does sometimes happen), but you can help stop the bigotry-meme from spreading, and prevent the mere bigot from becoming a violent basher.
Bigotry flourishes in silence; every time we hear a bigoted opinion expressed and don't speak out against it, we fertilize it. There's nothing any more uncivil about saying that homophobia is unacceptable than saying that racism is unacceptable.
There's been no "name calling". I didn't call you a darned thing. I made a statement about the tone and apparent subtext of your posts in this thread: I said "You're coming off as homophobic here" and "I'm not saying you are; I'm commenting on how you're coming across.", and invited you to clarify your views (which you have not choosen to do).
Calling the BSA's position homophobic and bigoted is not name calling, it's an accurate description of the ideas the organization has expressed.
I refuse to remain silent in the face of bigotry. I'm not sorry in the least if you find it disturbuing when people speak out. In a nation where people are discriminated against, assulted, and even killed based on sexual orientation, silence is not an acceptable response.
As I said: it's how you're coming across in this discussion. Feel free to state your stance explictly, but the implication most readers are going to draw from your posts here is that you are, to some degree, a homophobe. I'm not saying you are; I'm commenting on how you're coming across.
The question isn't about "genetic programming", since both genetics an enviroment shape us. It's a question of whether or not its a choice, and of course we can resolve it. If sexual orientation is a choice, than yours and mine are the result of choices. Mine isn't (nor is my thing about redheads), and neither is that of most people.
What, you want a polictically correct substitute for accurate words like bigtory and homophobia? What would you suggest?
(If you find the words derogatory, I suggest you not adopt attitudes that they describe.)
The post to which I was replying asked about 12-year-olds.
As for teens: my karate sensei is a woman. (A little over 35 I think, but close enough for this discussion.) We have students who are teens.
Our HQ is in New York City. My sensei's mom lives across the river in Weehawken. Teenaged male students have spent the night with and her mom at that apartment. No one thinks twice. (And hurray for her mom for being our groups's crash pad outside NYC!)
The Spiral Scouts have no problem with gay, lesbian, or transgender leaders.
And, as my quote from the BSA above shows, the "liabilty" thing was a red herring, the BSA (as an organization, not necessarily as individual people) are simpy avowed homophobes.
Yes, it is. To be a homophobe is to be strongly partial to one's own group and intolerant (i.e. opposed to the inclusion or participation) of those who differ.
First, the civil rights movement pushed not only for legal but social equality; that is indeed saying that "this group of people is fine", as in "it's ok if my sister marries one".
Second, sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle choice"; gays no more choose to be attracted to men than I chose to get hot about women.
(Maybe you had to make such a choice? You're coming off as homophobic here, and it's been found that homophobia often correllates with sexual uncertainty and repressed homosexuality. Are you getting all bent out of shape about people doing something that you'd like to do yourself but feel that you can't?)
Indeed, if sexual orientation were a choice, rationally we'd all have to choose to be bisexual and maximize our chances of a date. Simple economics tells us that we'd adjust demand to meet supply.
There is no single "gay lifestyle" any more than there is a single "straight lifestyle". Some gays make lifestyle choices I think are stupid or harmful. Some straight people make lifestyle choices I think are stupid or harmful. (Though bigoted legal and social structures sometimes play a role in pushed gays towards unwise choices; if you have to hide your sexuality for fear of discrimination or even an assualt, that can pressure you toward certain choices.)
The BSA is saying "we won't associate with these other people because we think they're morally inferior". Do they have a legal right to do this? Yes. (So long as they are a private organization; the degree of public support they receive calls this into question.) That doesn't make them any less bigoted.
(BTW, to be clear I mean the BSA as an organization. Individual people within in may or may not agree with the official position of the BSA leadership.)
No. Phobia doesn't just mean fear.
And to say someone "simply doesn't approve" of homosexuals is no more sensible than saying somone "simply doesn't approve" of black people or Jews or any other group.
I can picture you in the 1960s: "Black people's push for tolerance should not be overrun by a push for acceptance; it's enough that I let them live in my neighborhood, I shouldn't be socially pressured to let my sister date one."
Sorry, no. Bigotry sucks, and we're now in a time when homophobes are going to be called on it the way racists were decades ago.
Before which organization? The ICRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the American Red Cross?
The "International Committee for Relief to the Wounded" adopted the logo in 1863 and it was first used in battle in 1864. Please cite your claim of use before then.
The red cross, red cresent, and red crystal symbols are not trademarks, but symbols agreed upon by international treaty - a much higher level of protection. Now, I'm still inclined to think that use in a game might fall into some sort of fair use category.
When I was a Cub Scout, many many years ago, we had a Den Mother. I don't think we ever went overnight camping, but I don't see much less "liability" in leaving a bunch of boys with an older woamn in a suburban basement than in the woods.
IOW, your "liability" excuse is a poor attempt to retconn homophobia. Especially when the Scouts themselves state, "Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program...Boy Scouts regards homosexual conduct as not morally straight as required in the Scout Oath."
So, BSA are avowed homophobes. Fuck them.
Only to the same extent that a Christian merit badge would involve blowing up women's clinics, or a Jewish one torturing Palestinians.
Sadly, every creed is well-supplied with violent idiots. (I'm sire somewhere out there there's even an atheist or two who's killed people over issues of religion.)
It sometimes strikes me that every model of the universe is an instance of lossy compression; it's small enough to fit into the human mind and gives you the gist of what's going on, but data is lost.
I didn't call anybody blind....but if you're going to assert that the quality of COTS software is not, taken as a whole, lousy and an embarassment to the profession; or that Microsoft's legal tactics and impact on the relevant art don't resemble those of the hellspawn that is that music recording industry; then yes, I would have to question your sensory acuity.