There are multiple components to the immune system. Some cells and processes mount a non-specific response to anything unrecognized. There are distinct cells and processes dedicated to learning, memory, and engaging a targeted re-response against recognized threats. They're certainly related, but they are subject to independent modification. One of the main functions of the non-specific system is to collect the unknown invaders and present them to the memory system for analyzing and targeting.
The immune system easily exterminates 99.99+% of all bacteria/viruses, the ones we make vaccines for are the ones that use some trick to disrupt the normal immune response. In many or most cases this involves a pathogen producing some toxin or signalling molecule that specifically mimics or targets critical components of the immune system itself. This is significant for a pair of reasons. One, it's generally only effective if the pathogen has a chance to build up a small colony and has a chance to build up a significant level of the disruptive chemical agent. The immune-memory response can rapidly pump out an overwhelming highly targeted response before the invader has a chance to disrupt the non-targeted immune response. The other significant point is that if a pathogen is specifically mimicking or targeting critical components of the immune system.... then evolving to escape that threat requires modifying exactly those targeted critical systems. Modifying critical components of the immune system to escape the targeting of one specific pathogen typically results in diminished immune function against generic threats. And this specific pathogen is just going to co-evolve to re-target whatever change we made thing to escape it. This puts us right back where we started, vulnerable to this pathogen, except with diminished general immune function from our attempt to break the target lock that the pathogen has on us.
If the immune system can rely on vaccines to take over the job of "showing" those handful of immune-disrupting pathogens to the immune-memory-system, and if the immune system can rely upon an overwhelming targeted memory response to those few immune-disrupting pathogens, then that frees up the primary non-specific immune response to optimize itself to best take down generic invaders.
Let's start over and redesign humans from the ground up.
Humans designed by committee might have cupholders for ears and camel humps, but even a committee wouldn't do anything as asinine as running a sewer line out through the middle of male&female sex bits.
the story was leaked by a government minister that there was a lot of welsh people getting measles when in reality there was no epidemic at all. its all scare tactics by the newspapers and the government who in reality want you to be scared of breathing so that you do what they want you to do.
In related news, polls find 7% believe the moon landing was a hoax.
Modern society counteracts evolution by protecting the weak and stupid.
Ironically, this is also exactly what vaccinations do.
Actually no. What vaccinations does is modify selections pressures for us to survive in an environment which includes vaccinations. Specifically it has two effects. (1) It lowers the selection pressure for an immune system which can inherently avoid/survive infection by these particular diseases, and (2) it adding a selection pressure for immune systems which strongly respond to vaccinations. In our modern society an immune system with a strong and generalized response to vaccinations has HUGE evolutionary value. It means an immune systems which is powerfully equipped to leverage external technology (vaccine development) to defeat novel deadly threats in the future. The evolutionary value of fighting off a specific disease is peanuts compared to the evolutionary value of strong mehcnisms to defeat generalized future threats.
Modern society counteracts evolution by protecting the weak and stupid.
No, it doesn't. And this is a meme that needs to be killed off.
Modern Society certainly alters the Natural Selection criteria, but altering what is selected does not diminish the process of evolution. Scientists have identified recent and current positive evolutionary selection in humans in a wide range of genes. This includes genes for metabolism, sensory perception, immune system, reproduction, neural development, and more.
For example multiple different genes for lactose tolerance arose in various parts of the world, they have been spreading for a few thousand years, and they continue to experiencing positive selection today. Another notable example is that scientists have detected that genes for bipolar disorder and related mental illnesses are currently experiencing positive selection. People with bipolar or similar disorders are more likely to engage in unprotected sex, to leave the resulting child to be raised by the other person or by family members, and go on to repeat the process with multiple partners. And I deliberately raise this particular example to make a point - if you fall out a 4th floor window the laws of physics don't care whether you think broken bones are a good thing or a bad thing. Just like Evolution and other laws of nature don't care whether you think bipolar disorder is a good thing or a bad thing. Human evolution has not stopped. Humans are evolving to better survive and reproduce with our modern milk-grain-highfructose-highfat-highsodium based diets. Humans are evolving to better survive and reproduce with our high-technology highly-complex highly-diverse high-mobility society. And yes, that includes evolutionary exploration of mental illness as a means of increasing reproductive rates. A strategy which is working at least in the short term, and with an unknown long term outcome. The human species has achieved the success it has due in large part to the strategy of parents placing a huge investment in producing a small number of highly successful children. And regardless of our opinion on things, evolution is still going to blindly explore the high-risk-high-payoff strategy of trading quality-of-offspring and care-of-offspring in exchange for quantity-of-offspring. Because humans are still actively undergoing evolution. Any and all genetically-influenced traits expressed by humans are subject to positive or negative evolutionary selections if those traits have any direct or indirect impact on the number of long term descendants we leave behind.
My fellow legislators, this situation is an outrage. I have been receiving letters from my constituents angry that this legislative body has placed itself above the law, and that we are not subject to paying traffic fines like everyone else. I have promised my constituents that I will IMMEDIATELY take action on this issue. As such, I hereby move that my bill, Equality Under Law Act (EULA), be scheduled for a floor vote at the beginning of the next legislative session. Thank You. God Bless America.
Let the record show that this motion has passed unanimously. The Equality Under Law Act is hereby scheduled for a vote at the beginning of the next legislative session, subject of course to the standard legislative rules for indefinite postponement in the event that any legislator makes a motion to address urgent legislation, and that motion is seconded. We now move on to the pressing matter of a bill to rename local Post Office #128 as "Veterans Memorial Post Office".
Right. ANYONE who can access the local network, or if the device is internet accessible ANYONE on the internet, can enter the username HPSupport and the password badg3r5.
This is a wide open highly dangerous back door, which was (formerly) protected by nothing more than the hope that (1) no one bothered to notice that HP publicly offered this sort of remote support and (2) the hope that no one who did notice it bothered spending 20 seconds on Google to find a website that could instantly decode the SHA-1 "78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50" of the password back into the raw password "badg3r5".
If I may borrow a quote from Representative Paul Broun on the House committee for Science Space and Technology, this so-called study is obviously just another Lie Straight From The Pit Of Hell. As he says, the Bible is "the manufacturer's handbook". Obviously science would be a lot easier if students spent a lot more time in Bible class and spent a lot less time in science class.
That's quite the spin. If I could be so bold as to suggest a different conclusion... Kids these days don't understand the meaning of the word fortitude.
So..... you're saying that Science and English are both hard?
They're just trying to blow off doctrine A in the OT (homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc.) because doctrine B (don't eat shellfish, etc.) is no longer relevant. That logic isn't sustainable.
You've flipping the logic backwards.
Of course "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument. The entire point of raising "Leviticus says [shellfish]" is to smack someone over the head with the fact that "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument. If someone wants to cite Old Testament Law as an argument, they need something better than "I personally enjoy shellfish and I personally do not enjoy homosexuality" as a basis for claiming one is a valid God's Law and the other is a "no longer relevant" God's Law.
Even if we take the Bible as the undisputed word of God, we still have the Old Testament was fulfilled/thrown_out/clarified/whatever_you_want_to_call_it by Jesus. Therefore "Leviticus says [homosexuality]" is an unsustainable argument. Saying "Leviticus says [shellfish]" does not positively establish that homosexuality is fine and dandy, but it does positively refute any "Leviticus says..." argument that homosexuality is any worse than eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton mixed fiber T-shit.
You've moved beyond my patience with the federal government right there.
*I* haven't. The present reality has. I said *IF* the government issues marriage licenses *THEN* the government cannot discriminate based on race/religion/gender in granting those licenses.
*IF* the government gets entirely out of the marriage business, I'm fine with that. That is a perfectly reasonable perfectly valid option. If you want to get the law fixed to eliminate government-marriage-licenses, you have my blessing and my passive support. I don't think you're likely to succeed, but if you do, great, problem solved.
But so long as the government *is* issuing marriage licenses, I would appreciate your support, either passive support or preferably active support, that the government cannot use race/religion/gender as a basis to discriminate against interracial/interfaith/gay marriages.
This infers that "gay rights are civil rights" is an unquestionable corollary/fact to build arguments off of.
No, that's like saying "interracial rights are civil rights".... which is badly butchering the issue/description.
It's the that government should not (and cannot) discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. If the government issues driver's licenses the law cannot examine the applicant's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants. If the government issues marriage licenses, then it's impossible to write a valid law excluding gay marriage for the exact same reason it's impossible to write a valid law that excludes interracial marriage. That's because there's no way fr the law to implement such discrimination other than explicitly on the basis of the race/religion/gender of the applicants.
Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
Not if Christ was the same god/person/deity as the god of the Old Testament
A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.
The only thing I am asking them to accept is that our government does not.... cannot.... discriminate on the basis of race, religion or gender.
If the government issues driver's licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicant as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.
If the government issues marriage licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.
The government cannot selectively exclude gay marriage applicants for the exact same reason the government cannot selectively exclude interracial marriage applicants. There's no way to write such a law without examining the race, religion, or gender of the applicants.
Gay marriage has no more effect (and no less effect) on opponents than interracial marriage has on those opponents. There is nearly no effect at all, other than denying them the "freedom" to use the force of government to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Live and let-live. They are being denied the power to constrain other people's lives.
Why is is it that so many on the right have NO CLUE what freedom of speech means?
If I call you ugly, stupid, bigoted, or otherwise insult you, that is NOT a violation of your freedom of speech. That is my usage of my freedom of speech. This seems to be the big one for right wingers. "Waaa.... waaa..... waaa..... I was insulted, that's an attack on my freedom of speech!". No it's not. You have the right to speech, and I respect your right to speak, and I have the right to not-respect the content of your speech, I have the right to criticize your speech, I have the right to insult you and your speech.
If I say "shut the fuck up", that is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You still have the right to continue speaking, and I have the right to express my opinion on it, and to say I think you should stop speaking.
I have the right to stop being your friend if I dislike your speech. I have the right to tell other people they shouldn't be your friend. I have the right to avoid you, and avoid spending my money in your business because I dislike you and what you say. And I have the right to suggest to other people that should avoid you and not spend their money in your business. None of that is a violation of your freedom of speech.
What DOES freedom of speech mean?
It means the government can't put you in prison because it doesn't like what you have to say, it means I can't use the government to put you in prison for saying things I dislike, it means the government cannot deny you equal-access under the law because the government dislikes the content of your speech.
You can be a member of the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, or whatever else. And if a city issues parade permits for activist groups, the city cannot deny you equal access to obtain a parade permit. THAT is a violation of your freedom of speech. I may utterly abhor your speech, but I will fight the government on your behalf, demanding that the government MUST issue parade permits on content-neutral terms. And once you do get that parade permit, I will either stay the hell away from your abhorrent parade, or I will show up at the parade to use MY freedom of speech to shout you down and insult you, protesting against your cause.
honest about not supporting people who have opinions different than your own
I will fight the government on your behalf if they try to imprison you for your speech, or if the government denies you equal access under the law. However beyond that I do NOT need to support cause, I do NOT need to respect you or what you have to say, I do NOT need to assist you in any way. I CAN and WILL oppose you in every way in my power. I will oppose you in every way SHORT of trying to criminalize your speech or deny you equal treatment under the law.
There are a lot of things I dislike, there are a lot of things that offend me, but I am DEDICATED to the position that no one.... not even me.... can use violence merely because we are offended by what you have to say. And that specifically means that no one.... not even me.... can use government-sanctioned violence to arrest or imprison you merely because we are offended by what you have to say. That neither I not anyone else can use the force of government to deny you equal rights under the law, simply because we dislike what you have to say.
Freedom of speech means I strictly reject violence against you for your objectionable speech (including the threat of police), and strictly oppose oppose striping your legal rights for your objectionable speech. But in the arena of speech-vs-speech, in the social arena, I can disrespect and combat your objectionable speech with all vigor.
so that America may one day be of one mind
Today we are nearly all of one mind that women should have an equal right to vote. And in getting to that point, there was nothing wrong with any disrespect that was expressed against opponents, there was nothing wrong with any insults cast against opponents, the
Destroying governments can mean voting in new governments.
It can. But that hardly seems to be the case here.
When he calls the government a "mortal enemy" and vows to use "any means necessary" to "destroy that government and bring it down", and says "that insane Constitution [] will die", that's a wee bit stronger than merely saying "I feel like voting against it" and gently suggesting "heay I think it would be swell if maybe you voted against it too". Not to mention the fact that voting against it is now pretty well futile. There's 55% nation-wide support for gay marriage, and that support is rising at a steady 2.4% per year. He can't muster majority support for a federal law against it, much less the supra-majority percentages that would be required to change the constitution, which would be needed to overcome constitutional court rulings in favor of gay marriage.
P.S. Based on another post I see from you I think maybe I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were arguing with the person you were replying to. If you were agreeing with the post you replied to, then consider my previous post to be "emphatic agreement" with you. Chuckle.
I agree completely with Mr. Card. The intellectual contortions that many go through in order to legitimize the perversion of homosexuality is breathtaking.
What contortions?
The law has no business examining a person's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable or unacceptable applicants for a driver's application, marriage application, or anything else. It's impossible to write a marriage law to discriminate against interracial couples without the law examining the applicants' races, it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against inter-faith couples without the law examining the applicants' religions, and it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against gay couples without the law examining the applicants' genders. It's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages for the exact same reason it's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages.
Race, religion, and gender are equally invalid criteria for the law to examine as a basis to approve or deny driver's applications or marriage applications or anything else in law. No contortions at all. Equal protection and equal treatment under the law for all people, as people, regardless of anyone's race religion or gender.
Also, again If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
And again, he said "whatever means is made possible or necessary".
That clearly extends beyond merely voting. In fact voting is effectively no longer on the list of "possible" means. Gay marriage opponents can no longer muster a 50% vote for a federal law against it, much less the percentages they would need to amend the constitution against court rulings in favor of gay marriage. Support for gay marriage is now over 55% of the public, and that percentage is steadily rising at about 2.4% per year. Gay marriage is seen as a civil rights issue by an overwhelming percentage of people under 35, and the largest percentage of gay marriage opponents are senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burying more and more gay marriage opponents every day as they drop dead of old age.
If he (or his ideological allies) attempt to oppose gay marriage by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, if he (or his ideological allies) attempt to bring about the "death" of the constitution by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, then I am prepared if necessary to take up the same means, whatever those means may be, to preserve the constitution and to preserve interracial marriage and to preserve gay marriage.
I do not take kindly to anyone threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to kill the constitution. I do not take kindly to any bigot threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to exterminate interracial marriage or gay marriage. The government has no business using race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applicants.
A Gallup poll in May 2013 put support for gay marriage at 53% of Americans, and opposition at 45%. A Pew poll also in May 2013 puts it at 52% support and 42% opposed. A Post-ABC News poll in March 2013 puts it at 58% support and only 36% opposition. USA Today in July 2013 puts it at 55% support 40% opposed.
Furthermore, long term polling trends show that acceptance of gay marriage has been rising at a rather steady 2.4% per year. For comparison, long term polling showed acceptance of interracial rose at just 1% per year. Acceptance of gay marriage is rising nearly two and a half times as fast as interracial marriage was accepted. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly seen as a civil rights issue by those under 35, with opposition primarily residing among senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burrying the core opposition as more and more of them are simply dying of old age.
The battles will drag on for a while, but the war is effectively over.
Gay marriage will be officially recognized nation wide in juts a few years, and any lingering gay marriage opponents will rapidly be dismissed as just as bigoted and just as irrelevant as the lingering interracial marriage opponents. I hope you enjoy Klan meetings. Pretty soon that's going to be the only place anyone is going to sympathetically listen to your persecution complex whinging.
If you're worried about USB or any other device access you've already lost. Anyone who can SEE the screen can snap a pic of the screen. Or a few hundred screen pics. And even if you strip everyone naked as they enter the building, and you scan them for hidden devices hidden inside body orifices, the fundamental issue is that information can be carried out in someone's memory, and that person is capable of talking.
Compartmentalizing who can access what may limit the range of what any particular insider can release, and reduce the number of insiders able to release any particular thing, but fundamentally people need to see the information to do their job.
Threat of prosecution can keep people's moths shut to some extent, but if you're engaging in illegal or immoral activity then sooner or later some insider is likely to decide to "do the right thing" even if it means huge self sacrifice.
As others have indicated, maintain goodwill and loyalty. At a minimum maintain some level of respectability for organization, and some level of respect for your employees. That is the *only* thing that can protect you against the threat of a self-sacrificing insider trying to "do the right thing".
Given that the "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration" is explicitly mentioned, the summary automatically rules out your localities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK
How quaint, assuming that U.S. laws and U.S. Law Enforcement still stay within U.S. borders.
Slashdot Mirror
There are multiple components to the immune system. Some cells and processes mount a non-specific response to anything unrecognized. There are distinct cells and processes dedicated to learning, memory, and engaging a targeted re-response against recognized threats. They're certainly related, but they are subject to independent modification. One of the main functions of the non-specific system is to collect the unknown invaders and present them to the memory system for analyzing and targeting.
The immune system easily exterminates 99.99+% of all bacteria/viruses, the ones we make vaccines for are the ones that use some trick to disrupt the normal immune response. In many or most cases this involves a pathogen producing some toxin or signalling molecule that specifically mimics or targets critical components of the immune system itself. This is significant for a pair of reasons. One, it's generally only effective if the pathogen has a chance to build up a small colony and has a chance to build up a significant level of the disruptive chemical agent. The immune-memory response can rapidly pump out an overwhelming highly targeted response before the invader has a chance to disrupt the non-targeted immune response. The other significant point is that if a pathogen is specifically mimicking or targeting critical components of the immune system.... then evolving to escape that threat requires modifying exactly those targeted critical systems. Modifying critical components of the immune system to escape the targeting of one specific pathogen typically results in diminished immune function against generic threats. And this specific pathogen is just going to co-evolve to re-target whatever change we made thing to escape it. This puts us right back where we started, vulnerable to this pathogen, except with diminished general immune function from our attempt to break the target lock that the pathogen has on us.
If the immune system can rely on vaccines to take over the job of "showing" those handful of immune-disrupting pathogens to the immune-memory-system, and if the immune system can rely upon an overwhelming targeted memory response to those few immune-disrupting pathogens, then that frees up the primary non-specific immune response to optimize itself to best take down generic invaders.
-
Let's start over and redesign humans from the ground up.
Humans designed by committee might have cupholders for ears and camel humps, but even a committee wouldn't do anything as asinine as running a sewer line out through the middle of male&female sex bits.
-
the story was leaked by a government minister that there was a lot of welsh people getting measles when in reality there was no epidemic at all. its all scare tactics by the newspapers and the government who in reality want you to be scared of breathing so that you do what they want you to do.
In related news, polls find 7% believe the moon landing was a hoax.
-
Modern society counteracts evolution by protecting the weak and stupid.
Ironically, this is also exactly what vaccinations do.
Actually no. What vaccinations does is modify selections pressures for us to survive in an environment which includes vaccinations. Specifically it has two effects. (1) It lowers the selection pressure for an immune system which can inherently avoid/survive infection by these particular diseases, and (2) it adding a selection pressure for immune systems which strongly respond to vaccinations. In our modern society an immune system with a strong and generalized response to vaccinations has HUGE evolutionary value. It means an immune systems which is powerfully equipped to leverage external technology (vaccine development) to defeat novel deadly threats in the future. The evolutionary value of fighting off a specific disease is peanuts compared to the evolutionary value of strong mehcnisms to defeat generalized future threats.
-
Modern society counteracts evolution by protecting the weak and stupid.
No, it doesn't. And this is a meme that needs to be killed off.
Modern Society certainly alters the Natural Selection criteria, but altering what is selected does not diminish the process of evolution. Scientists have identified recent and current positive evolutionary selection in humans in a wide range of genes. This includes genes for metabolism, sensory perception, immune system, reproduction, neural development, and more.
For example multiple different genes for lactose tolerance arose in various parts of the world, they have been spreading for a few thousand years, and they continue to experiencing positive selection today. Another notable example is that scientists have detected that genes for bipolar disorder and related mental illnesses are currently experiencing positive selection. People with bipolar or similar disorders are more likely to engage in unprotected sex, to leave the resulting child to be raised by the other person or by family members, and go on to repeat the process with multiple partners. And I deliberately raise this particular example to make a point - if you fall out a 4th floor window the laws of physics don't care whether you think broken bones are a good thing or a bad thing. Just like Evolution and other laws of nature don't care whether you think bipolar disorder is a good thing or a bad thing. Human evolution has not stopped. Humans are evolving to better survive and reproduce with our modern milk-grain-highfructose-highfat-highsodium based diets. Humans are evolving to better survive and reproduce with our high-technology highly-complex highly-diverse high-mobility society. And yes, that includes evolutionary exploration of mental illness as a means of increasing reproductive rates. A strategy which is working at least in the short term, and with an unknown long term outcome. The human species has achieved the success it has due in large part to the strategy of parents placing a huge investment in producing a small number of highly successful children. And regardless of our opinion on things, evolution is still going to blindly explore the high-risk-high-payoff strategy of trading quality-of-offspring and care-of-offspring in exchange for quantity-of-offspring. Because humans are still actively undergoing evolution. Any and all genetically-influenced traits expressed by humans are subject to positive or negative evolutionary selections if those traits have any direct or indirect impact on the number of long term descendants we leave behind.
-
How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.
It was mostly a "Goodbye Bush" celebration gift.
We could have elected Peewee Herman and they'd probably have sent HIM the Nobel Peace Prize.
-
My fellow legislators, this situation is an outrage. I have been receiving letters from my constituents angry that this legislative body has placed itself above the law, and that we are not subject to paying traffic fines like everyone else. I have promised my constituents that I will IMMEDIATELY take action on this issue. As such, I hereby move that my bill, Equality Under Law Act (EULA), be scheduled for a floor vote at the beginning of the next legislative session. Thank You. God Bless America.
Let the record show that this motion has passed unanimously. The Equality Under Law Act is hereby scheduled for a vote at the beginning of the next legislative session, subject of course to the standard legislative rules for indefinite postponement in the event that any legislator makes a motion to address urgent legislation, and that motion is seconded. We now move on to the pressing matter of a bill to rename local Post Office #128 as "Veterans Memorial Post Office".
-
I wish they'd just rename the damn thing. I cringe every time I see the initialism DRM.
-
78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 (repeat x6)
Mushroom mushroom!
78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 (repeat x6)
A snake a snake! Snake a snake ohhh it's a snake...
The damn Slashdot Lameness Filter won't let me fully write it out without the (repeat x6). Grrrr.
-
If you buy it from China you get half the Freedom for half the price.
-
Right. ANYONE who can access the local network, or if the device is internet accessible ANYONE on the internet, can enter the username HPSupport and the password badg3r5.
This is a wide open highly dangerous back door, which was (formerly) protected by nothing more than the hope that (1) no one bothered to notice that HP publicly offered this sort of remote support and (2) the hope that no one who did notice it bothered spending 20 seconds on Google to find a website that could instantly decode the SHA-1 "78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50" of the password back into the raw password "badg3r5".
-
If I may borrow a quote from Representative Paul Broun on the House committee for Science Space and Technology, this so-called study is obviously just another Lie Straight From The Pit Of Hell. As he says, the Bible is "the manufacturer's handbook". Obviously science would be a lot easier if students spent a lot more time in Bible class and spent a lot less time in science class.
-
That's quite the spin. If I could be so bold as to suggest a different conclusion...
Kids these days don't understand the meaning of the word fortitude.
So..... you're saying that Science and English are both hard?
p.s.
fortitude
-
They're just trying to blow off doctrine A in the OT (homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc.) because doctrine B (don't eat shellfish, etc.) is no longer relevant. That logic isn't sustainable.
You've flipping the logic backwards.
Of course "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument.
The entire point of raising "Leviticus says [shellfish]" is to smack someone over the head with the fact that "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument. If someone wants to cite Old Testament Law as an argument, they need something better than "I personally enjoy shellfish and I personally do not enjoy homosexuality" as a basis for claiming one is a valid God's Law and the other is a "no longer relevant" God's Law.
Even if we take the Bible as the undisputed word of God, we still have the Old Testament was fulfilled/thrown_out/clarified/whatever_you_want_to_call_it by Jesus. Therefore "Leviticus says [homosexuality]" is an unsustainable argument. Saying "Leviticus says [shellfish]" does not positively establish that homosexuality is fine and dandy, but it does positively refute any "Leviticus says..." argument that homosexuality is any worse than eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton mixed fiber T-shit.
-
If the government issues marriage licenses
You've moved beyond my patience with the federal government right there.
*I* haven't. The present reality has.
I said *IF* the government issues marriage licenses *THEN* the government cannot discriminate based on race/religion/gender in granting those licenses.
*IF* the government gets entirely out of the marriage business, I'm fine with that. That is a perfectly reasonable perfectly valid option. If you want to get the law fixed to eliminate government-marriage-licenses, you have my blessing and my passive support. I don't think you're likely to succeed, but if you do, great, problem solved.
But so long as the government *is* issuing marriage licenses, I would appreciate your support, either passive support or preferably active support, that the government cannot use race/religion/gender as a basis to discriminate against interracial/interfaith/gay marriages.
-
This infers that "gay rights are civil rights" is an unquestionable corollary/fact to build arguments off of.
No, that's like saying "interracial rights are civil rights".... which is badly butchering the issue/description.
It's the that government should not (and cannot) discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. If the government issues driver's licenses the law cannot examine the applicant's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants. If the government issues marriage licenses, then it's impossible to write a valid law excluding gay marriage for the exact same reason it's impossible to write a valid law that excludes interracial marriage. That's because there's no way fr the law to implement such discrimination other than explicitly on the basis of the race/religion/gender of the applicants.
Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
Not if Christ was the same god/person/deity as the god of the Old Testament
A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.
-
The only thing I am asking them to accept is that our government does not.... cannot.... discriminate on the basis of race, religion or gender.
If the government issues driver's licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicant as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.
If the government issues marriage licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.
The government cannot selectively exclude gay marriage applicants for the exact same reason the government cannot selectively exclude interracial marriage applicants. There's no way to write such a law without examining the race, religion, or gender of the applicants.
Gay marriage has no more effect (and no less effect) on opponents than interracial marriage has on those opponents. There is nearly no effect at all, other than denying them the "freedom" to use the force of government to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Live and let-live. They are being denied the power to constrain other people's lives.
-
Why is is it that so many on the right have NO CLUE what freedom of speech means?
If I call you ugly, stupid, bigoted, or otherwise insult you, that is NOT a violation of your freedom of speech. That is my usage of my freedom of speech. This seems to be the big one for right wingers. "Waaa.... waaa..... waaa..... I was insulted, that's an attack on my freedom of speech!". No it's not. You have the right to speech, and I respect your right to speak, and I have the right to not-respect the content of your speech, I have the right to criticize your speech, I have the right to insult you and your speech.
If I say "shut the fuck up", that is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You still have the right to continue speaking, and I have the right to express my opinion on it, and to say I think you should stop speaking.
I have the right to stop being your friend if I dislike your speech. I have the right to tell other people they shouldn't be your friend. I have the right to avoid you, and avoid spending my money in your business because I dislike you and what you say. And I have the right to suggest to other people that should avoid you and not spend their money in your business. None of that is a violation of your freedom of speech.
What DOES freedom of speech mean?
It means the government can't put you in prison because it doesn't like what you have to say, it means I can't use the government to put you in prison for saying things I dislike, it means the government cannot deny you equal-access under the law because the government dislikes the content of your speech.
You can be a member of the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, or whatever else. And if a city issues parade permits for activist groups, the city cannot deny you equal access to obtain a parade permit. THAT is a violation of your freedom of speech. I may utterly abhor your speech, but I will fight the government on your behalf, demanding that the government MUST issue parade permits on content-neutral terms. And once you do get that parade permit, I will either stay the hell away from your abhorrent parade, or I will show up at the parade to use MY freedom of speech to shout you down and insult you, protesting against your cause.
honest about not supporting people who have opinions different than your own
I will fight the government on your behalf if they try to imprison you for your speech, or if the government denies you equal access under the law. However beyond that I do NOT need to support cause, I do NOT need to respect you or what you have to say, I do NOT need to assist you in any way. I CAN and WILL oppose you in every way in my power. I will oppose you in every way SHORT of trying to criminalize your speech or deny you equal treatment under the law.
There are a lot of things I dislike, there are a lot of things that offend me, but I am DEDICATED to the position that no one.... not even me.... can use violence merely because we are offended by what you have to say. And that specifically means that no one.... not even me.... can use government-sanctioned violence to arrest or imprison you merely because we are offended by what you have to say. That neither I not anyone else can use the force of government to deny you equal rights under the law, simply because we dislike what you have to say.
Freedom of speech means I strictly reject violence against you for your objectionable speech (including the threat of police), and strictly oppose oppose striping your legal rights for your objectionable speech. But in the arena of speech-vs-speech, in the social arena, I can disrespect and combat your objectionable speech with all vigor.
so that America may one day be of one mind
Today we are nearly all of one mind that women should have an equal right to vote. And in getting to that point, there was nothing wrong with any disrespect that was expressed against opponents, there was nothing wrong with any insults cast against opponents, the
Destroying governments can mean voting in new governments.
It can. But that hardly seems to be the case here.
When he calls the government a "mortal enemy" and vows to use "any means necessary" to "destroy that government and bring it down", and says "that insane Constitution [] will die", that's a wee bit stronger than merely saying "I feel like voting against it" and gently suggesting "heay I think it would be swell if maybe you voted against it too". Not to mention the fact that voting against it is now pretty well futile. There's 55% nation-wide support for gay marriage, and that support is rising at a steady 2.4% per year. He can't muster majority support for a federal law against it, much less the supra-majority percentages that would be required to change the constitution, which would be needed to overcome constitutional court rulings in favor of gay marriage.
-
P.S.
Based on another post I see from you I think maybe I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were arguing with the person you were replying to. If you were agreeing with the post you replied to, then consider my previous post to be "emphatic agreement" with you. Chuckle.
-
I agree completely with Mr. Card. The intellectual contortions that many go through in order to legitimize the perversion of homosexuality is breathtaking.
What contortions?
The law has no business examining a person's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable or unacceptable applicants for a driver's application, marriage application, or anything else. It's impossible to write a marriage law to discriminate against interracial couples without the law examining the applicants' races, it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against inter-faith couples without the law examining the applicants' religions, and it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against gay couples without the law examining the applicants' genders. It's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages for the exact same reason it's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages.
Race, religion, and gender are equally invalid criteria for the law to examine as a basis to approve or deny driver's applications or marriage applications or anything else in law. No contortions at all. Equal protection and equal treatment under the law for all people, as people, regardless of anyone's race religion or gender.
-
Also, again
If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
And again, he said "whatever means is made possible or necessary".
That clearly extends beyond merely voting. In fact voting is effectively no longer on the list of "possible" means. Gay marriage opponents can no longer muster a 50% vote for a federal law against it, much less the percentages they would need to amend the constitution against court rulings in favor of gay marriage. Support for gay marriage is now over 55% of the public, and that percentage is steadily rising at about 2.4% per year. Gay marriage is seen as a civil rights issue by an overwhelming percentage of people under 35, and the largest percentage of gay marriage opponents are senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burying more and more gay marriage opponents every day as they drop dead of old age.
If he (or his ideological allies) attempt to oppose gay marriage by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, if he (or his ideological allies) attempt to bring about the "death" of the constitution by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, then I am prepared if necessary to take up the same means, whatever those means may be, to preserve the constitution and to preserve interracial marriage and to preserve gay marriage.
I do not take kindly to anyone threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to kill the constitution. I do not take kindly to any bigot threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to exterminate interracial marriage or gay marriage. The government has no business using race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applicants.
-
A Gallup poll in May 2013 put support for gay marriage at 53% of Americans, and opposition at 45%.
A Pew poll also in May 2013 puts it at 52% support and 42% opposed.
A Post-ABC News poll in March 2013 puts it at 58% support and only 36% opposition.
USA Today in July 2013 puts it at 55% support 40% opposed.
Furthermore, long term polling trends show that acceptance of gay marriage has been rising at a rather steady 2.4% per year. For comparison, long term polling showed acceptance of interracial rose at just 1% per year. Acceptance of gay marriage is rising nearly two and a half times as fast as interracial marriage was accepted. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly seen as a civil rights issue by those under 35, with opposition primarily residing among senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burrying the core opposition as more and more of them are simply dying of old age.
The battles will drag on for a while, but the war is effectively over.
Gay marriage will be officially recognized nation wide in juts a few years, and any lingering gay marriage opponents will rapidly be dismissed as just as bigoted and just as irrelevant as the lingering interracial marriage opponents. I hope you enjoy Klan meetings. Pretty soon that's going to be the only place anyone is going to sympathetically listen to your persecution complex whinging.
-
If you're worried about USB or any other device access you've already lost. Anyone who can SEE the screen can snap a pic of the screen. Or a few hundred screen pics. And even if you strip everyone naked as they enter the building, and you scan them for hidden devices hidden inside body orifices, the fundamental issue is that information can be carried out in someone's memory, and that person is capable of talking.
Compartmentalizing who can access what may limit the range of what any particular insider can release, and reduce the number of insiders able to release any particular thing, but fundamentally people need to see the information to do their job.
Threat of prosecution can keep people's moths shut to some extent, but if you're engaging in illegal or immoral activity then sooner or later some insider is likely to decide to "do the right thing" even if it means huge self sacrifice.
As others have indicated, maintain goodwill and loyalty. At a minimum maintain some level of respectability for organization, and some level of respect for your employees. That is the *only* thing that can protect you against the threat of a self-sacrificing insider trying to "do the right thing".
-
Given that the "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration" is explicitly mentioned, the summary automatically rules out your localities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK
How quaint, assuming that U.S. laws and U.S. Law Enforcement still stay within U.S. borders.
-