Well, I think then the government should take all the money you earn and reallocate it. You can live in public housing and get SNAP for food. According to you, it's clear that that would produce the greatest societal benefits, since the government according to you knows better what to do with your earnings than you do.
That's a pretty terrible strawman. Would you like to actually provide an argument, or is this the limit of your intellectual honesty?
I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has. They also don't venerate the pope. Do you even know what that word means? It sounds like you have been reading some of those anti-catholic tracts. Maybe to undo your own brainwashing, you should actually read what the catholic church does profess.
This entire discussion is roughly equivalent to an argument about which timeline is 'correct' in The Legend of Zelda. The difference is, fans of Zelda know that they're splitting hairs over fantasy stories.
Do you have *anything* but strawman arguments? Can you point out anywhere in the GP's post that said any of the subsidized things in that list were not needed?
Does it bother you that of all the posts you have in this thread, not a single one has been either on-topic or factually correct? Do you even know what honest debate is?
It's really going to suck for you in the next decade or so. Your team is losing, badly. If you look at the polls, the trend for acceptance of gay people and gay marriage has skyrocketed since the turn of the century, and it shows no sign of slowing down. I predict that we're about 3 election cycles away from gay marriage being all but standard nationwide.
I suggest you get over it and move on with your life, otherwise you'll end up like the fringe racists that still hide out in the edges of society. Nobody wants to be one of those guys. Just do it. Nobody will judge you. Nobody will even know. It's easy. And if you're religious? God won't even hold it against you; it's his job to do the final judgement, not yours.
Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist."
The best advice I've ever given myself: there's more art than I have time to deal with, anyway. More good art, even. In fact, there's so much to do between music, TV, movies, and video games, that I'll never get to all the *good* stuff, let alone all the mediocre stuff. So if an artist/company/whatever sticks their neck out and gives me an easy excuse to cull them from my to-read/to-listen/to-play list, I feel that they're doing me a favor.
I don't need to see Ender's Game. Just like I don't need to play Zynga or EA games, or see Mel Gibson movies. Sure, I'll miss some good stuff (well, probably not in the case of Zynga...)... while I'm enjoying other good stuff.
Orson Scott Card is free to talk all he wants, and I'm free to walk. And neither of us goes to jail! That's the beauty of free speech!
It's because I'm pro-Constitution. The Constitution says you have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you have the right to marry, straight, gay or otherwise.
Oh, so in other words, you don't understand the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT say you have the right to free speech. The Constitution DOES say that the government can't impede the free speech you already have a right to.
The Constitution doesn't grant us rights. We already had them. The Constitution limits the power of the government. That's all it does. It doesn't have to say "you have the right to get married" because YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT. In fact, the only way the government can *stop* you from getting married is to PASS A LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T -- and that law also has to be found Constitutional, because hey, that's what the purpose of the Constitution is! It tells us what is legal for the GOVERNMENT to do! DOMA, anybody?
I'd give you a pat on the back and say, "it's ok, it's a really subtle distinction; a lot of people get it wrong." Except you claim to be pro-Constitution and you don't even know what it is. And it's NOT a subtle distinction. So... good job being all pro-Constitution and stuff. Maybe try learning what it is so you don't sound like a jackass.
Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
Marriage is made-up, and religion doesn't own it. Marriage predates Christianity. Even if we did decide that Christianity did own religion, the Bible defines marriage in a whole bunch of ways that we don't even recognize today.
You don't get to decide what marriage is; we all do. And as a group, we've decided that marriage includes gay marriages. Support is overwhelming, besides a few scared trolls like yourself. It will be passed in all 50 states; it will be recognized at the federal level; it is inevitable at this point. So get used to it and fuck off.
Let me ask you this: how does 2 guys or 2 women getting "married" affect you in any way? It won't happen in your church, because you clearly come from a group of bigots, so you can't whine about that. You won't have to go to the wedding, because despite your claims to the contrary, I don't believe that you have any gay friends. So what the fuck is your objection? You don't like losing the word "marriage"? The concept of "marriage" is special to you? Well hell, maybe that explains why gay people want one too!
There was no debate (churches and conservative groups basically looked at it and said, "meh, no big deal.") until the Republican party decided to play it up as a wedge issue. The whole debate is manufactured.
Unless, of course, that blind deference to age saves more lives in other ways than the deaths plane crashes like this cause.
Unfortunately, it's an incredibly difficult thing to measure; I think that what you're saying is likely true, but we have absolutely no way of knowing for sure.
If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.
If you treat someone on a bike like shit because you saw a random biker run a red light or a stop sign once (or twice, or 1000 times, it doesn't matter), that makes you a dick, and that's on you.
Might have been fewer casualties. Might not have. As long as we're calling hypotheticals informative, if a bunch of the victims had been carrying guns, they could just as easily have accidentally shot someone while they were trying to take out the shooter -- who becomes more difficult to identify when a bunch of people are waving guns around.
So what's your point? You've chosen to use F-Droid to vet your software rather than Google Play; good for you, that seems pretty reasonable and safe.
The whole appeal of sideloading is to give yourself the option to take security into your own hands without Google or Apple or Microsoft babysitting you. You can't demand to get out of the walled garden for a stroll and simultaneously demand that the walled garden keep you safe and then get pissed when you get infected somewhere that the walled garden had no protective influence. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You get one or the other; Android is the only handheld software ecosystem that gives you the choice.
Not all users said they had experienced problems however, with some saying the tablet worked as well as the day they got it.
Also, I notice that the article is completely devoid of any numbers. Just links to two anecdotes. But apparently that's good enough for you iFanbois to feel secure in living in your walled garden.
For the record, I've got a Nexus 7, and have been using it pretty much daily for the year I've had it, and haven't run into these issues. I'm certainly not saying that there are no issues and that everybody reporting them is a liar; there are issues with *everything*, including iDevices.
You're right. Government has *nothing* to do with the value of money.
We should just get rid of the government. Then we could keep *all* of our money! It would be extremely useful as padding for mattress stuffing, or for filling socks as makeshift bludgeoning weapons.
Good point. I would be willing to see a 10% increase in my taxes, willingly, if I thought it would solve the problems. But I don't; the taxes will be increased and after a few years deficits will be as high as ever. So let the politicians keep their deficits, and let me keep my money.
Except no, it's not a good point. Tax rates are at historic LOWS for many people, so that whole "taxes only go up" mantra surely can't be right, can it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think then the government should take all the money you earn and reallocate it. You can live in public housing and get SNAP for food. According to you, it's clear that that would produce the greatest societal benefits, since the government according to you knows better what to do with your earnings than you do.
That's a pretty terrible strawman. Would you like to actually provide an argument, or is this the limit of your intellectual honesty?
--Jeremy
You have to show that the outcome was better than it otherwise would have been.
Which is a demand that's absolutely impossible to meet, so you can sleep comfortably that nobody will ever "defeat" your argument.
Well played.
--Jeremy
I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has. They also don't venerate the pope. Do you even know what that word means? It sounds like you have been reading some of those anti-catholic tracts. Maybe to undo your own brainwashing, you should actually read what the catholic church does profess.
This entire discussion is roughly equivalent to an argument about which timeline is 'correct' in The Legend of Zelda. The difference is, fans of Zelda know that they're splitting hairs over fantasy stories.
--Jeremy
Maybe he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? Maybe he's the "Real Killer" of Nicole Simpson?
Seriously, are you channeling Glenn Beck or something? I'm no fan of the Catholic church but idle speculation is NOT +5 worthy.
--Jeremy
Do you have *anything* but strawman arguments? Can you point out anywhere in the GP's post that said any of the subsidized things in that list were not needed?
Does it bother you that of all the posts you have in this thread, not a single one has been either on-topic or factually correct? Do you even know what honest debate is?
--Jeremy
That's only because we're already paying for all their food, which isn't taxed in any state.
Absolutely wrong. Try going to Idaho -- a nice red state.
--Jeremy
You're the only one mentioning anything about 'evil', so you can just shut that strawman down right now.
--Jeremy
It's really going to suck for you in the next decade or so. Your team is losing, badly. If you look at the polls, the trend for acceptance of gay people and gay marriage has skyrocketed since the turn of the century, and it shows no sign of slowing down. I predict that we're about 3 election cycles away from gay marriage being all but standard nationwide.
I suggest you get over it and move on with your life, otherwise you'll end up like the fringe racists that still hide out in the edges of society. Nobody wants to be one of those guys. Just do it. Nobody will judge you. Nobody will even know. It's easy. And if you're religious? God won't even hold it against you; it's his job to do the final judgement, not yours.
--Jeremy
Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist."
The best advice I've ever given myself: there's more art than I have time to deal with, anyway. More good art, even. In fact, there's so much to do between music, TV, movies, and video games, that I'll never get to all the *good* stuff, let alone all the mediocre stuff. So if an artist/company/whatever sticks their neck out and gives me an easy excuse to cull them from my to-read/to-listen/to-play list, I feel that they're doing me a favor.
I don't need to see Ender's Game. Just like I don't need to play Zynga or EA games, or see Mel Gibson movies. Sure, I'll miss some good stuff (well, probably not in the case of Zynga...) ... while I'm enjoying other good stuff.
Orson Scott Card is free to talk all he wants, and I'm free to walk. And neither of us goes to jail! That's the beauty of free speech!
--Jeremy
It's because I'm pro-Constitution. The Constitution says you have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you have the right to marry, straight, gay or otherwise.
Oh, so in other words, you don't understand the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT say you have the right to free speech. The Constitution DOES say that the government can't impede the free speech you already have a right to.
The Constitution doesn't grant us rights. We already had them. The Constitution limits the power of the government. That's all it does. It doesn't have to say "you have the right to get married" because YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT. In fact, the only way the government can *stop* you from getting married is to PASS A LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T -- and that law also has to be found Constitutional, because hey, that's what the purpose of the Constitution is! It tells us what is legal for the GOVERNMENT to do! DOMA, anybody?
I'd give you a pat on the back and say, "it's ok, it's a really subtle distinction; a lot of people get it wrong." Except you claim to be pro-Constitution and you don't even know what it is. And it's NOT a subtle distinction. So ... good job being all pro-Constitution and stuff. Maybe try learning what it is so you don't sound like a jackass.
--Jeremy
Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
Marriage is made-up, and religion doesn't own it. Marriage predates Christianity. Even if we did decide that Christianity did own religion, the Bible defines marriage in a whole bunch of ways that we don't even recognize today.
You don't get to decide what marriage is; we all do. And as a group, we've decided that marriage includes gay marriages. Support is overwhelming, besides a few scared trolls like yourself. It will be passed in all 50 states; it will be recognized at the federal level; it is inevitable at this point. So get used to it and fuck off.
Let me ask you this: how does 2 guys or 2 women getting "married" affect you in any way? It won't happen in your church, because you clearly come from a group of bigots, so you can't whine about that. You won't have to go to the wedding, because despite your claims to the contrary, I don't believe that you have any gay friends. So what the fuck is your objection? You don't like losing the word "marriage"? The concept of "marriage" is special to you? Well hell, maybe that explains why gay people want one too!
--Jeremy
A fetus isn't a child. End of discussion.
There was no debate (churches and conservative groups basically looked at it and said, "meh, no big deal.") until the Republican party decided to play it up as a wedge issue. The whole debate is manufactured.
--Jeremy
I used to be ignorant, like you. Turns out we were both wrong.
You don't actually know jack shit about FGM; it's not all that different from male genital mutilation in most cases.
Neither should be practiced.
--Jeremy
Unless, of course, that blind deference to age saves more lives in other ways than the deaths plane crashes like this cause.
Unfortunately, it's an incredibly difficult thing to measure; I think that what you're saying is likely true, but we have absolutely no way of knowing for sure.
--Jeremy
If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.
If you treat someone on a bike like shit because you saw a random biker run a red light or a stop sign once (or twice, or 1000 times, it doesn't matter), that makes you a dick, and that's on you.
--Jeremy
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances
Ahh, so what you're saying is that only criminals with no respect for laws will accidentally discharge bullets.
--Jeremy
Might have been fewer casualties. Might not have. As long as we're calling hypotheticals informative, if a bunch of the victims had been carrying guns, they could just as easily have accidentally shot someone while they were trying to take out the shooter -- who becomes more difficult to identify when a bunch of people are waving guns around.
--Jeremy
If a sword is as dangerous as a gun, then go ahead and carry a sword. I'm 100% behind you on that.
If a spear is as dangerous as a sword, then carry the spear instead.
If rocks are as dangerous as spears, then don't bother carrying anything, because rocks are plentiful and you can grab one anywhere.
If you're a big guy and big guys are as dangerous as rocks, then you don't need any weapon because you'd just win.
If none of those things are true, then your entire post is an idiotic false equivalence.
--Jeremy
So what's your point? You've chosen to use F-Droid to vet your software rather than Google Play; good for you, that seems pretty reasonable and safe.
The whole appeal of sideloading is to give yourself the option to take security into your own hands without Google or Apple or Microsoft babysitting you. You can't demand to get out of the walled garden for a stroll and simultaneously demand that the walled garden keep you safe and then get pissed when you get infected somewhere that the walled garden had no protective influence. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You get one or the other; Android is the only handheld software ecosystem that gives you the choice.
--Jeremy
Isn't the magic if android the fact that you can install from third party sources?
Sure, that's one very nice thing, but it still doesn't allow you to just be a moron and expect everything to be hunky-dory.
TotallyFreeVersionOfSomePopularGame.apk from a site that's written in mostly Cryillic or Chinese characters? Seems legit!
--Jeremy
I notice you leave out this:
Not all users said they had experienced problems however, with some saying the tablet worked as well as the day they got it.
Also, I notice that the article is completely devoid of any numbers. Just links to two anecdotes. But apparently that's good enough for you iFanbois to feel secure in living in your walled garden.
For the record, I've got a Nexus 7, and have been using it pretty much daily for the year I've had it, and haven't run into these issues. I'm certainly not saying that there are no issues and that everybody reporting them is a liar; there are issues with *everything*, including iDevices.
--Jeremy
You're right. Government has *nothing* to do with the value of money.
We should just get rid of the government. Then we could keep *all* of our money! It would be extremely useful as padding for mattress stuffing, or for filling socks as makeshift bludgeoning weapons.
--Jeremy
Good point. I would be willing to see a 10% increase in my taxes, willingly, if I thought it would solve the problems. But I don't; the taxes will be increased and after a few years deficits will be as high as ever. So let the politicians keep their deficits, and let me keep my money.
Except no, it's not a good point. Tax rates are at historic LOWS for many people, so that whole "taxes only go up" mantra surely can't be right, can it?
--Jeremy
BTW, I asked how YOU would safeguard this, and yet, you come up with NOTHING? Why not?
One thing that I know for sure I wouldn't do? Put duplicitous apologist toadies like yourself in charge of *anything*.
--Jeremy
No, you've paid for *all* of the transit.
You paid for the half (or whatever portion not covered by advertising) when you paid your train fare.
Then you paid the portion covered by advertising by covering the cost of advertising in every damn thing you buy.
--Jeremy