Well, I certainly am a faggot and an atheist as well. Islam calls for the death of people like me, and Muslim countries put this into law and practice. Yet, for some reason, you believe I should treat Islam as just another culture and religious belief. I think that mainly illustrates that you are "exceptionally retarded".
(Oh, and thanks for illustrating your own "bigotry and hatred".)
You are an idiot if you can't even acknowledge the genuine developments of Islamic culture.
You're moving the goalposts. We were talking about Islamic art, not Islamic culture. How has Islamic art contributed to art in general?
If you want to talk about culture more generally, I think we should "acknowledge" the developments of Islamic culture the same way we should acknowledge the developments of any other totalitarian, oppressive, and murderous culture: by always reminding people that any positive contributions of such a culture need to be seen in the context of the massive harm that that culture has caused.
So the time that someone let their puff of vapor my way and I was coughing and tearing for the next 15 minutes was just a figment of my imagination then?
Well, lots of possibilities: you could be lying, it could be psychosomatic, or your lungs could be damaged due to your history of smoking. None of that shows that second hand vaping is generally harmful. Even if vaping were shown to be harmful, at most that would justify restricting it on public property, not on private property.
First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York.
Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.
They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.
No, sorry: many restrictions on they private property are not permissible under the Constitution and are not compatible with a free society no matter what the majority of people want to happen. True, the US ran roughshod over private property rights in the 20th century, but it's time to reverse that.
Islamic art is more significant than you can imagine.
You mean in the sense that it is the art of religious fanatics who have destroyed numerous cultures, enslaved millions, and are highly intolerant and misogynistic? Art that they appropriated from other cultures? Art that they adopted because they are superstitious about depicting humans?
And these religious fanatics to this day teach that I should be killed because of my religion and my sexual orientation.
Yes, I understand that it is "significant", but I also understand that many things that are "significant" are not necessarily "good". Do you understand the difference?
We are also talking about the fact that TFA felt a compulsion to associate a common mathematical way of generating patterns with a religion. It's like saying "The Christian Tradition of Portraiture is realized in the Android and iOS Photo App".
An interesting geometrical application -yet what do the first 9 comments focus on? the word "Islamic".
That's because the article focuses on the word "Islamic".
Slashdot used to be a good site for technically minded people - over the past year or two it's degenerated into yet another cesspool of bigotry and hatred
Oh you bet. And it's people like you who are responsible.
The game mostly seems to consist of drawing cycloids. I'm not sure what's supposed to be "Islamic" about that. Sure, Islamic art uses such patterns a lot, but that's mostly because of Islam's religious prohibitions on the depiction of people.
I'm someone who suggested that person X might have compassion for person Y and not want them to harm themselves through addictive substances.
And unless "person X" is you, that statement makes you a self-righteous prick and blowhard. The only way to demonstrate compassion is by actually acting on it yourself, not by advocating it or passing laws.
I'm not clear what you think that means other than what it says
It means exactly what it says, and it is the same delusion about compassion that is common to a particular, and deplorable, segment of American political life.
Yes, I think being celibate is bad for replication. By definition of replication and by definition of celibate
This is what you were saying:
Biologically speaking homosexuality is bad for the replication of any species
In fact, there is no definition of "replication of any species"; species don't "replicate", and neither do mammalian individuals. So your statement is nonsense to begin with. "Replication of the species" is correctly referred to as the "fitness" of the species, and higher reproductive rates do not automatically lead to higher fitness. Looking across biology, it's crystal clear that sterility, celibacy, and/or homosexuality are common in highly successful social species, so they are obviously not automatically harmful, and they likely carry some benefits. Biologists, in fact, already understand some of those benefits.
Even for heterosexuals, having fewer kids and investing more in them may lead to more reproductive success than having more kids and investing less in them. In fact, you see this in many animal species, which will kill off any but the strongest offspring when resources grow scarce.
Of course, in addition, homosexuality does not preclude reproduction. In the past, the vast majority of practicing homosexuals, both men and women, would nevertheless marry and reproduce. In the future, homosexuals will likely have alternative means of reproduction.
Biologically speaking homosexuality is bad for the replication of any species in it's most basic form,
So, you think that being a nun, a soldier, or an explorer is also "bad for the replication of the species"? After all, those people also tend not to reproduce. What about social insects?
Sorry, but humans are not cockroaches or rabbits. Humans have been so enormously successful precisely because we are a social species and a species that places many values ahead of maximizing reproduction.
On the one hand we have tons of actual data from probably hundreds of millions of people. Sure, it's a biased sample, but it's still a very large sample.
On the other hand, we have your ideologically motivated handwaving and reinterpretation.
How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world?
We're talking about vaping here, not nerve gas. There is not a shred of evidence that second hand vaping causes any problems even sitting right next to someone.
You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to.
You got it backwards. The question is: does government have legitimate power to prevent people from smoking, and of course it doesn't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Because when you get hit by a bus and rushed to the hospital, we are still going to end up paying for it.
That argument is bullshit.If I have a high income, I always have to pay for my hospital bills, whether I'm insured or not. And if I have a low income, the cost of emergency medical care is socialized under an emergency care mandate or under ACA. What ACA changed is that high income earners are now forced to pay for non-emergency, elective, and preventable, medical expenses of low income earners.
No it doesn't. It just requires you to pay a relatively modest tax if you choose not to.
You're missing the point. The ACA prevents me from getting the insurance I want, namely insurance that reflects my actual risk. Instead, it forces me to make a choice between (1) no insurance plus paying a penalty, and (2) insurance programs that force me to subsidize dangerous, immoral, irresponsible, and self-destructive behavior. Neither of those choices is acceptable.
Racism and eugenics motivates policy too. What's your point?
Breakfast cereal may also contain live adult zebra. We should therefore ban e-cigs altogether across the whole world due to the danger of e-cigs users being tramped by African wildlife hopped-up on 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene.'
Yes, and that's pretty much the quality of the argument that justifies banning of e-cigs.
"Ordinary human beings may not want others to harm themselves out of ordinary human compassion." - spin this into a pro-vaping sentiment, I dare you...
See, there is a big difference between actually having compassion and pretending to have it because of ulterior motives. It's the difference between people who quietly help their fellow citizens, and psychopathic politicians making a pitstop at a charity for a photo op. Your advocacy falls into the latter category.
That's an overstatement, there. The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke).
You might have an argument there when it comes to public places (even that is weak). You have no argument there regulating businesses. Whether a restaurant or store allows vaping or not should be up to the owner of that restaurant or store.
What I believe about cigarettes and my rebuttal to the OP's comparison with cars has nothing at all to do with guns, so don't go implying meaning where I have stated none.
It has everything to do with guns, because your kind of reasoning is applicable to guns just like it is to cars and cigarettes. And applying your reasoning to different products tells us (1) what political ideology underlies your reasoning, and (2) whether the US actually follows your political ideology.
Cigarettes and cars have different utility and contribute differently to the economy. If cars only existed to kill its occupants we'd have banned them long ago.
Ah, the fundamental calculus of fascists everywhere: "it should be legal if and only if it is useful to society / the economy".
No, you wouldn't have banned cars for the same reason you haven't succeeded at banning guns: America doesn't work that way, and hopefully never will.
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
You hit on an essential difference there: children and intoxicated adults are assumed not to be able to take responsibility for themselves, which is why others need to take that into account when dealing with these individuals. Hence there are limits on giving alcohol to a child or a drunk person. The same justification does not apply to sober adults wanting to smoke, fuck, jump out of airplanes, or put bullets in their own heads.
t's great to see this selfless industry take on big tobacco and reduce the harm they do down to the bare minimum of 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene'.
Your breakfast cereal "can" contain those substances. However, they are not normal components of either breakfast cereals or e-cig vapor.
So, if this was a significant concern, New York regulators could simply ban those emissions in e-cigs and even require approval/testing without banning e-cigs themselves.
But you and New York regulators are simply using these scar tactics to justify an irrational policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I certainly am a faggot and an atheist as well. Islam calls for the death of people like me, and Muslim countries put this into law and practice. Yet, for some reason, you believe I should treat Islam as just another culture and religious belief. I think that mainly illustrates that you are "exceptionally retarded".
(Oh, and thanks for illustrating your own "bigotry and hatred".)
You're moving the goalposts. We were talking about Islamic art, not Islamic culture. How has Islamic art contributed to art in general?
If you want to talk about culture more generally, I think we should "acknowledge" the developments of Islamic culture the same way we should acknowledge the developments of any other totalitarian, oppressive, and murderous culture: by always reminding people that any positive contributions of such a culture need to be seen in the context of the massive harm that that culture has caused.
Well, lots of possibilities: you could be lying, it could be psychosomatic, or your lungs could be damaged due to your history of smoking. None of that shows that second hand vaping is generally harmful. Even if vaping were shown to be harmful, at most that would justify restricting it on public property, not on private property.
Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.
No, sorry: many restrictions on they private property are not permissible under the Constitution and are not compatible with a free society no matter what the majority of people want to happen. True, the US ran roughshod over private property rights in the 20th century, but it's time to reverse that.
You mean in the sense that it is the art of religious fanatics who have destroyed numerous cultures, enslaved millions, and are highly intolerant and misogynistic? Art that they appropriated from other cultures? Art that they adopted because they are superstitious about depicting humans?
And these religious fanatics to this day teach that I should be killed because of my religion and my sexual orientation.
Yes, I understand that it is "significant", but I also understand that many things that are "significant" are not necessarily "good". Do you understand the difference?
We are also talking about the fact that TFA felt a compulsion to associate a common mathematical way of generating patterns with a religion. It's like saying "The Christian Tradition of Portraiture is realized in the Android and iOS Photo App".
That's because the article focuses on the word "Islamic".
Oh you bet. And it's people like you who are responsible.
The game mostly seems to consist of drawing cycloids. I'm not sure what's supposed to be "Islamic" about that. Sure, Islamic art uses such patterns a lot, but that's mostly because of Islam's religious prohibitions on the depiction of people.
And unless "person X" is you, that statement makes you a self-righteous prick and blowhard. The only way to demonstrate compassion is by actually acting on it yourself, not by advocating it or passing laws.
It means exactly what it says, and it is the same delusion about compassion that is common to a particular, and deplorable, segment of American political life.
This is what you were saying:
In fact, there is no definition of "replication of any species"; species don't "replicate", and neither do mammalian individuals. So your statement is nonsense to begin with. "Replication of the species" is correctly referred to as the "fitness" of the species, and higher reproductive rates do not automatically lead to higher fitness. Looking across biology, it's crystal clear that sterility, celibacy, and/or homosexuality are common in highly successful social species, so they are obviously not automatically harmful, and they likely carry some benefits. Biologists, in fact, already understand some of those benefits.
Even for heterosexuals, having fewer kids and investing more in them may lead to more reproductive success than having more kids and investing less in them. In fact, you see this in many animal species, which will kill off any but the strongest offspring when resources grow scarce.
Of course, in addition, homosexuality does not preclude reproduction. In the past, the vast majority of practicing homosexuals, both men and women, would nevertheless marry and reproduce. In the future, homosexuals will likely have alternative means of reproduction.
So, you think that being a nun, a soldier, or an explorer is also "bad for the replication of the species"? After all, those people also tend not to reproduce. What about social insects?
Sorry, but humans are not cockroaches or rabbits. Humans have been so enormously successful precisely because we are a social species and a species that places many values ahead of maximizing reproduction.
On the one hand we have tons of actual data from probably hundreds of millions of people. Sure, it's a biased sample, but it's still a very large sample.
On the other hand, we have your ideologically motivated handwaving and reinterpretation.
Which of those do you think is more reliable?
Laugh all you want, as the last few elections show, Americans are waking up to your kind of hypocrisy. And you don't even understand what's happening.
We're talking about vaping here, not nerve gas. There is not a shred of evidence that second hand vaping causes any problems even sitting right next to someone.
You got it backwards. The question is: does government have legitimate power to prevent people from smoking, and of course it doesn't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You really don't understand the difference between political advocacy and actual compassion?
You really are a self-deluded psychopath.
That argument is bullshit.If I have a high income, I always have to pay for my hospital bills, whether I'm insured or not. And if I have a low income, the cost of emergency medical care is socialized under an emergency care mandate or under ACA. What ACA changed is that high income earners are now forced to pay for non-emergency, elective, and preventable, medical expenses of low income earners.
You're missing the point. The ACA prevents me from getting the insurance I want, namely insurance that reflects my actual risk. Instead, it forces me to make a choice between (1) no insurance plus paying a penalty, and (2) insurance programs that force me to subsidize dangerous, immoral, irresponsible, and self-destructive behavior. Neither of those choices is acceptable.
It's not just meaningless to me, it is totalitarian and unacceptable in a free society.
You keep proving that you are a totalitarian and a fascist.
Racism and eugenics motivates policy too. What's your point?
Yes, and that's pretty much the quality of the argument that justifies banning of e-cigs.
See, there is a big difference between actually having compassion and pretending to have it because of ulterior motives. It's the difference between people who quietly help their fellow citizens, and psychopathic politicians making a pitstop at a charity for a photo op. Your advocacy falls into the latter category.
I would love to have the choice of not having health insurance. Unfortunately, ACA denies me that choice.
You might have an argument there when it comes to public places (even that is weak). You have no argument there regulating businesses. Whether a restaurant or store allows vaping or not should be up to the owner of that restaurant or store.
It has everything to do with guns, because your kind of reasoning is applicable to guns just like it is to cars and cigarettes. And applying your reasoning to different products tells us (1) what political ideology underlies your reasoning, and (2) whether the US actually follows your political ideology.
Ah, the fundamental calculus of fascists everywhere: "it should be legal if and only if it is useful to society / the economy".
No, you wouldn't have banned cars for the same reason you haven't succeeded at banning guns: America doesn't work that way, and hopefully never will.
You hit on an essential difference there: children and intoxicated adults are assumed not to be able to take responsibility for themselves, which is why others need to take that into account when dealing with these individuals. Hence there are limits on giving alcohol to a child or a drunk person. The same justification does not apply to sober adults wanting to smoke, fuck, jump out of airplanes, or put bullets in their own heads.
And you are free to ban smoking in your personal space, like your home and your car.
However, a restaurant or the street is not your personal space.
Your breakfast cereal "can" contain those substances. However, they are not normal components of either breakfast cereals or e-cig vapor.
So, if this was a significant concern, New York regulators could simply ban those emissions in e-cigs and even require approval/testing without banning e-cigs themselves.
But you and New York regulators are simply using these scar tactics to justify an irrational policy.