(a) Not that I care what you believe, but I really was not describing myself. I have never had a 15 year old girlfriend, or younger, not even when I myself was 15. Kindly put down your slander spraygun. And show a little courage once in a while, instead of hiding behind "Anonymous Coward". I do.
(b) I don't give a damn about your kids. It's your responsibility to give a damn about your kids, not mine, as you very well know.
(c) Even more, I don't give a damn about your morality. "Potentially bad influence"? If I had children of a certain age, I'd consider slashdot a much worse influence than any neighbor with a minor past could possibly be.
(d) Just so you know, the attitude you are espousing is known as prejudice -- you are pre-judging someone based on impersonal facts, rather than trying to get to know them. Just substitute the phrase "past sex offender" with "Negro" and see how you look. No? You don't think having black skin is a reason to despise someone? Good for you! (Neither do I.) But it was a different story 100 years ago, or even 40.
Not as funny if you rephrase it as grandparent should have:... males ages 9 through 120, who readily associate almost anything they encounter with breasts or their own genitals.
The problem is that the sexual offender registry lists people who are NOT "known sexual predators". These people, who made a mistake -- for instance, a 19 year old whose 15-year-old girlfriend's dad is a raging lunatic -- are now forever branded as sexual predators, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID THEIR TIME ALREADY.
Yes, there are child rapists on the list too. But can you tell them apart just from the list? Are you going to bother to try? I doubt it.
I hope you meant this ironically or sarcastically or in some other -ally way.
Well, is "actually" an -ally way?
By "success story" I meant the history of the human race. While we haven't been terribly successful at being what the best of us want us to be, there's no denying that we have spread across the face of the planet pretty successfully.
/Some things *are* beyond the pale and I would suspect that most rational humans would agree that at the very least coerced child pr0n is one of those cases./
I would argue that using the expression "beyond the pale" is an attitude that specifically means one is *not* rational about the thing being discussed. (I myself am also not rational about child pr0n, in the same way as I infer you are.) A rational response to the concept of coerced child pr0n is not to say it is beyond the pale; it is to point out the specific harm being done to specific underage individuals, and require appropriate punishment or restitution (if it was even possible). A rational response, however, is not necessarily going to be tolerated by most human beings - if you try to argue rationally about this topic, you will likely be shouted out, ostracised, and possibly beaten.
But that's the way humans are. We are not rational about everything, and we never will be; it's probably part of our success story. The important thing is to be careful which topics about which irrationality will be excused/condoned. When members of your society respond to your badmouthing the President in the same way they respond to your defending a child-rapist, it's time (past time) to get more rational.
Fair enough. I could have made my point without calling you a bigot. So here I go, trying again.
You wrote: Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are both vectors for disease, which placed the entire community at risk.
I will grant that sexual promiscuity can be a disease vector. But that is regardless of whether the sex is homosexual or heterosexual. Monogamous sex by its very nature cannot spread disease beyond the monogamous couple. So the presence of the word "homosexuality" in your sentence is bullshit.
He wrote: Nobody is being harmed by the existance of a gay couple.
You wrote: Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are both vectors for disease, which placed the entire community at risk.
Are you that blinded by your bigotry that you can't see the difference between a gay couple and sexual promiscuity?
How does homosexuality between one couple become a vector for disease for the entire community?
A far more important vector for disease at the time you speak of was poor sanitation. Yet there's no law in the bible against throwing your garbage in the street, is there?
... exactly like it is now, and has been since.... oh, pick a date, 1492...
Interesting that you should pick that particular date. While to you it may represent a shining moment in history, the beginning of America... to me it recalls the Spanish Inquisition and the Expulsion of Jews from Spain. Which ties in nicely with what I'm getting the impression you'd enjoy doing to those who support gay marriage rights.
American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority. I guess that no longer sits well with you? When can I expect the death camps to begin?
I commend your courage and will seek to emulate you immediately. If only I could destroy the noisy one at the deli counter in the supermarket... it's my personal hatred right now.
Bullshit. If they start putting advertisements in the elevators, I am going to take said elevator to the top floor, whip out my machine gun, and murder everyone in sight.
Or maybe I'll just take the stairs. Or maybe I'll stay out of tall buildings for good. But please, for the love of the merciful almighty god who makes the sun rise each morning... don't force me to look at ads in elevators, or other closed spaces where I cannot avoid the dreck. I will freak the fuck out.
Attention cerebrectomized poster: I'd rather just continue to download the free content meant exactly what it said: he'd rather stick with content that is free, unencumbered by copyright. Despite your scorn, such content does exist.
"Show the RIAA that we are not sheep. Show them that we don't need to see the latest Keanu Reeves travesty. Show them we're tired of their shit. Don't see their movies. Don't pirate their movies. Don't have anything to do with their movies. If enough of us shake off the yoke, it will make a difference"
I don't know, but how about showing them we're not thieves and stop "sharing" music/movies/software or anything else that we don't have the rights to.
Were you born that stupid, or did you have to study for it? Notice that the bold section you wrote says exactly the same thing as the bold section grandparent wrote. Why did you post at all?
Exactly; if I can't recommend an ad-free site or product, I'll decline to recommend anything. This is exactly how some people treat software, at least in certain areas: they won't recommend MS Word, even though it has obvious superiorities and advantages, because it isn't FOSS; and if they don't like Openoffice or any other alternatives, they keep their mouths shut.
This may be a "disservice to my friend", but subjecting him to ads is also a disservice, in my opinion.
Ideally, not everything you do with a computer needs to be directed by your hands or gestures. Give the computer a decent head-direciton and eyeball-direction-watching ability, and some decent voice recognition. 90% of my interaction with people is through voice; I only resort to my hands when words are insufficient or too slow. Why shouldn't I direct a computer the same way?
But for gosh sake man, don't be whining and crying about how people shouldn't be advertising to begin with. It's their right to have that business model as much as it's your right to ignore it.
OK. I can agree with you on this. (Always a welcome surprise to find I can agree with anyone. (-: )
Suppose I make a solemn vow, upon pain of death, that I will NEVER click on an ad link, NEVER let advertising influence my buying patterns, and NEVER recommend something I've seen advertised to anyone else. Suppose further that, being a real dick, I solemnly vow to NEVER refer anyone to any site that I have determined has ads.
OK, I'm still looking at your ads. But your ad has no hope of influencing me in any particular whatsoever. Am I violating your "social contract"?
Furthermore, suppose I have formed a powerful political party, the NAIPle (Nonviolent Advertising-Ignoring People), one million members strong, who all have made the same solemn vows that I have. We're not doing anything illegal. But our presence in the system seriously degrades the value of advertising. Are you going to say that we should be thrown off the internet, merely because we make a certain way of making money unprofitable?
For example: I have 'my computer' linked to it like the Quicklaunch bar.
That's what the Desktop toolbar is supposed to be for. You get My Computer as a flyout, and you also get to see what else you might have left on your desktop, My Network Places, or whatever, without minimizing any active apps.
Of course, My Computer is already under the Start menu, but that's a whole extra click-and-move-mouse away.:)
Slashdot Mirror
(a) Not that I care what you believe, but I really was not describing myself. I have never had a 15 year old girlfriend, or younger, not even when I myself was 15. Kindly put down your slander spraygun. And show a little courage once in a while, instead of hiding behind "Anonymous Coward". I do.
(b) I don't give a damn about your kids. It's your responsibility to give a damn about your kids, not mine, as you very well know.
(c) Even more, I don't give a damn about your morality. "Potentially bad influence"? If I had children of a certain age, I'd consider slashdot a much worse influence than any neighbor with a minor past could possibly be.
(d) Just so you know, the attitude you are espousing is known as prejudice -- you are pre-judging someone based on impersonal facts, rather than trying to get to know them. Just substitute the phrase "past sex offender" with "Negro" and see how you look. No? You don't think having black skin is a reason to despise someone? Good for you! (Neither do I.) But it was a different story 100 years ago, or even 40.
Not as funny if you rephrase it as grandparent should have: ... males ages 9 through 120, who readily associate almost anything they encounter with breasts or their own genitals.
The problem is that the sexual offender registry lists people who are NOT "known sexual predators". These people, who made a mistake -- for instance, a 19 year old whose 15-year-old girlfriend's dad is a raging lunatic -- are now forever branded as sexual predators, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID THEIR TIME ALREADY.
Yes, there are child rapists on the list too. But can you tell them apart just from the list? Are you going to bother to try? I doubt it.
Without Luke, Vader would not have mustered the courage to fulfill the prophecy.
Then again, without Luke (in utero), Annakin would not have been tempted to the dark side in the first place.
Is it possible to DOS a torrent, even partially? Join the tracker, collect IPs for 5 minutes, then initiate thousands of incoming connections?
> success story
I hope you meant this ironically or sarcastically or in some other -ally way.
Well, is "actually" an -ally way?
By "success story" I meant the history of the human race. While we haven't been terribly successful at being what the best of us want us to be, there's no denying that we have spread across the face of the planet pretty successfully.
/Some things *are* beyond the pale and I would suspect that most rational humans would agree that at the very least coerced child pr0n is one of those cases./
I would argue that using the expression "beyond the pale" is an attitude that specifically means one is *not* rational about the thing being discussed. (I myself am also not rational about child pr0n, in the same way as I infer you are.) A rational response to the concept of coerced child pr0n is not to say it is beyond the pale; it is to point out the specific harm being done to specific underage individuals, and require appropriate punishment or restitution (if it was even possible). A rational response, however, is not necessarily going to be tolerated by most human beings - if you try to argue rationally about this topic, you will likely be shouted out, ostracised, and possibly beaten.
But that's the way humans are. We are not rational about everything, and we never will be; it's probably part of our success story. The important thing is to be careful which topics about which irrationality will be excused/condoned. When members of your society respond to your badmouthing the President in the same way they respond to your defending a child-rapist, it's time (past time) to get more rational.
Fair enough. I could have made my point without calling you a bigot. So here I go, trying again.
You wrote:
Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are both vectors for disease, which placed the entire community at risk.
I will grant that sexual promiscuity can be a disease vector. But that is regardless of whether the sex is homosexual or heterosexual. Monogamous sex by its very nature cannot spread disease beyond the monogamous couple. So the presence of the word "homosexuality" in your sentence is bullshit.
Apologists should expect to have their apologies attacked. Make arguments in a contentious area and you had better grow a thicker skin.
If controversy makes you uncomfortable, stay out of it. But don't expect people to respect your discomfort.
He wrote: Nobody is being harmed by the existance of a gay couple.
You wrote: Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are both vectors for disease, which placed the entire community at risk.
Are you that blinded by your bigotry that you can't see the difference between a gay couple and sexual promiscuity?
How does homosexuality between one couple become a vector for disease for the entire community?
A far more important vector for disease at the time you speak of was poor sanitation. Yet there's no law in the bible against throwing your garbage in the street, is there?
(Although there is in the Talmud.)
... exactly like it is now, and has been since.... oh, pick a date, 1492 ...
... to me it recalls the Spanish Inquisition and the Expulsion of Jews from Spain. Which ties in nicely with what I'm getting the impression you'd enjoy doing to those who support gay marriage rights.
Interesting that you should pick that particular date. While to you it may represent a shining moment in history, the beginning of America
American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority. I guess that no longer sits well with you? When can I expect the death camps to begin?
I commend your courage and will seek to emulate you immediately. If only I could destroy the noisy one at the deli counter in the supermarket... it's my personal hatred right now.
I would much rather the red-staters left .. by way of the Gulf of Mexico, preferably without life vests. Or boats.
Bullshit. If they start putting advertisements in the elevators, I am going to take said elevator to the top floor, whip out my machine gun, and murder everyone in sight.
... don't force me to look at ads in elevators, or other closed spaces where I cannot avoid the dreck. I will freak the fuck out.
Or maybe I'll just take the stairs. Or maybe I'll stay out of tall buildings for good. But please, for the love of the merciful almighty god who makes the sun rise each morning
Attention cerebrectomized poster: I'd rather just continue to download the free content meant exactly what it said: he'd rather stick with content that is free, unencumbered by copyright. Despite your scorn, such content does exist.
or no products as a result.
Exactly; if I can't recommend an ad-free site or product, I'll decline to recommend anything. This is exactly how some people treat software, at least in certain areas: they won't recommend MS Word, even though it has obvious superiorities and advantages, because it isn't FOSS; and if they don't like Openoffice or any other alternatives, they keep their mouths shut.
This may be a "disservice to my friend", but subjecting him to ads is also a disservice, in my opinion.
See the Nouse "Use your nose as a mouse", also reported here a while back.
Ideally, not everything you do with a computer needs to be directed by your hands or gestures. Give the computer a decent head-direciton and eyeball-direction-watching ability, and some decent voice recognition. 90% of my interaction with people is through voice; I only resort to my hands when words are insufficient or too slow. Why shouldn't I direct a computer the same way?
But for gosh sake man, don't be whining and crying about how people shouldn't be advertising to begin with. It's their right to have that business model as much as it's your right to ignore it.
OK. I can agree with you on this. (Always a welcome surprise to find I can agree with anyone. (-: )
Suppose I make a solemn vow, upon pain of death, that I will NEVER click on an ad link, NEVER let advertising influence my buying patterns, and NEVER recommend something I've seen advertised to anyone else. Suppose further that, being a real dick, I solemnly vow to NEVER refer anyone to any site that I have determined has ads.
OK, I'm still looking at your ads. But your ad has no hope of influencing me in any particular whatsoever. Am I violating your "social contract"?
Furthermore, suppose I have formed a powerful political party, the NAIPle (Nonviolent Advertising-Ignoring People), one million members strong, who all have made the same solemn vows that I have. We're not doing anything illegal. But our presence in the system seriously degrades the value of advertising. Are you going to say that we should be thrown off the internet, merely because we make a certain way of making money unprofitable?
BWAHAHAHAHA! Funniest thing I've read all week!
I doubt you are correct. The non-sarcastic form, "I couldn't care less about X" is probably older.
For example: I have 'my computer' linked to it like the Quicklaunch bar.
:)
That's what the Desktop toolbar is supposed to be for. You get My Computer as a flyout, and you also get to see what else you might have left on your desktop, My Network Places, or whatever, without minimizing any active apps.
Of course, My Computer is already under the Start menu, but that's a whole extra click-and-move-mouse away.