Workplace respect-wise, nothing beats coming in early. I hate it.
I could come in an hour later than everyone else, work through lunch and stay two hours after everyone leaves. They wouldn't know, and if they did, they wouldn't care. Show up a half hour earlier than everyone else and suddenly you're this hard-working guy, like what, spending my evening at work means I'm lazy? Actually, that's almost the assumption. Like you're too damn slow to get it all done in the regular workday. It's stupid, but unfortunately, it's true.
Well, for the purists, the Golden Rule is a good start.
Then, for the humanists (and the mentally-balanced, I would argue) there is empathy for goodness sake!!!
Ever felt pain? Know what it feels like? Do you like it? (warning: this logic may not strictly apply to masochists, but in that case they can imagine something they don't like) Like it when someone causes it to you? No? Why on earth would you not want to prevent from it happening to someone else? I don't like to see others suffer. Animals, people, emotionally, physically. It isn't pleasant. I know what it feels like. This is not the Golden Rule, per se, because there is no karmic idea that it relates to me. It's about the other person, and your ability to relate.
You're like the guy who goes to a restaurant and is incredibly rude to the waiter because you've never been one and you have no clue what it's like to do that job. Except that it shouldn't be hard to imagine, if you've had any service job at all (ok, some people haven't). And except that we're talking about suffering, generally, something everyone should (but again, seemingly some can't) be able to relate to.
Once again, you come off like a borderline lunatic to be suggesting that I need some kind of miracle-weilding mystical being to speak to someone on a mountaintop so that word can eventually reach me that killing others, hurting others, lying to others, is wrong. What the hell kind of moral centre is that?? By your reasoning, if those tablets read "Thou shalt have sex with animals and torture small children" (or the reverse), that's where your moral centre would be. THAT, my friend, is completely. fucked. up.
"While a filibuster is not considered technically improper, there is nothing preventing a senator from keeping the floor indefinitely, aside from exhaustion."
enraged teen: "Ok, you motherf--ers -- hands in the air!"
Forget that, man. Ask the average resident of a Muslim country what drives a man to incredible, dangerous lust. Bare shoulders. It's simply wrong to expose people to that. Women hiss and men shout when they see it, because it's so dangerous.
That reminds me of the old Monty Python skit that's captured on audio. I believe that they're deciding to consume a body, and at the skit's end, the horrified mourner says, well what are we supposed to do at the gravesite? And John Cleese says, well you can bend over and throw up into it -- at which point, the audience, which had been audibly agitated before this, breaks into loud booing, and I'm told, many walk out.
I always thought it was cute that they took it so seriously. I like the idea of people taking morals seriously -- like when Antonio Banderas and his fling are booed rather than cheered (equally stupid) when getting off the plane in a Latin American country, because of the hecklers' belief in sanctity of marriage. People standing up for values in which they believe. That's nice.
But c'mon, folks. Let's not ban the skits. Let's not throw rocks at Banderas. Can we have a little sense of proportion, please?
Anyone here care to defend websites teaching you how to eat your neighbour?
What, like cannibal recipes, validating the lifestyle? Sure, I'll defend that. I trust my fellow human beings to be able to contain their impulses, whatever their, ah, culinary tastes.
The only real question for me comes to things that are so inherently dangerous (not to "morals") that it might be reckless to permit expression. Example: I have discovered that you, too, can experience the wonders of nuclear fission, or sarin gas, or something equally dangerous, with just a can opener and a piece of mouldy cheese. Want to know how?
In that case, it's not the "inciting" or "corrupting" of the rational and moral that I'm worried about, it's that one nutbar in every neighbourhood that's going to want to test out his/her new invention on me, you, and the kids next door.
The problem, though, is explaining why harming another person is wrong. That's the tricky one...
What amazes me most is when theists enter into this kind of "logical" argument. They think that they are undermining atheist ethics when in reality they sound like they depend on the Good Book to keep them from being mall-sniper sociopaths.
The thing I've been most surprised about in learning about law is how imprecise it is -- intentionally. It abounds with what "the reasonable person would think" (originally "the man on the Clapham Omnibus") and "community standards", etc, etc. All so that your individual case is not fed through a machine that can't see how your situation is different. Or, as the cynics have it (I'm as yet undecided), so the court can decide on the verdict it wants and then fashion some reasoning to go with.
Minor differences compared to those between men and women, and yet we let them have the same rights (damn!). Of course, that's a little disingenuous, because rights aren't supposed to be something we "let" people have, inalienable and all that.
But fine, there are differences. Cosmetic, unless you're peeking in their bedroom window. Let's concentrate on the "causing society to crumble" shall we?
Convince me (hey, I'm a straight, white male -- should be easy!) that this is a group that presents a greater societal threat than the other groups that have been "given" equal rights.
If the gay lifestyle is a valid choice and you advocate for them, why haven't you tried it out?
Well... logically... it must be that he really doesn't think it's ok, at least, not good enough for him. Ergo... he really doesn't agree with it. It's all BS!! And therefore, so is his position!
OR he isn't a homosexual.
I think liver and onions is a fine choice of meal. Personally, I can't stand it, but I'll back anyone's right to eat liver and onions if they want.
How can you voice an opinion about this without having personally experienced it?
Well... logically... I guess he can't!! And if he's never served in the armed forces, he can't have an opinion about war! (woohoo -- this is fun!) Not a woman, so can't have an opinion about abortion. If he's not a member of a racial minority, can't have an opinion about equal rights for racial minorities... If he's never been in a fight, can't have an opinion about violence.........
But Gay's do not want the benefits. They want to legitimize their lifestyle in whatever way possible.
It is a fixation that is held.
A-MEN! Man, I told them that their bus was just as good as the white folks. Better, even! New wheels! But NO. They had to use the same bus, like there was some kinda difference. Next thing you know, they'll want to use the same schools. Nerve.
And if we accept that... (I'm not disagreeing with you on it) that's the end of the story?
Wow. So all we had to do was tell slaves that freedom was oxymoronic to their condition. And women, well, I don't see "woman" in congressman, fireman, doctor... (oh, wait)
You're going to use history (the dictionary) to define the evolving concepts of human rights? And who gets to write this book? You? Webster's?
Give me a break. No wonder there was manifest destiny. I live in Canada, which I thought was a tiny part of America, yet I have a country next door that insists on calling itself what represents two continents. Names are names. Words have the meanings we give them. Argue against gay marriage, by all means, but at least come up with something better than this tripe.
You cannont naturally procreate in a homosexual relationship. Therefore it is a perversion of nature.
(sigh) Ok, animals kill, rape (forcible sex), commit "incest", eat their young, and stage full-scale wars. Oh, and yes, engage in homosexual behaviour.
None of this is evidence that any of these things are appropriate, or inappropriate, for a species that is capable of thinking things through and deciding for themselves what is appropriate.
Can we toss the "nature" garbage out with the trash, now, please?
It's that the majority of people that are gay have been physically/sexually abused.
Wow, interesting. So really, clearly symptomatic of a traumatic experience. Would make sense if females were abused by males, and so turn to other females. Less so if males are abused by other males, and so turn to males...
And then, of course, the vast number of women who are abused by men, and go on to... have other abusive relationships with men. In fact, given the relative numbers of gay to straight women, there are likely more straight women that have been abused than gay women. I guess they're just so confused, they don't even know to be gay.
So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots.
No. It doesn't come down to that at all. All rights of marriage will be happily given to "faggots." Civil Union, ta da.
I understand this argument, but as I understand the counter-argument, minorities, especially oppressed ones (are there usually other kinds?), kinda don't like being given something equivalent and being told it's the same. Symbolism and all, especially considering that the importance of marriage is, well, symbolic itself.
Here's some fun. Suggest to your local university that all black (or Native, if in Canada) students will no longer receive university degrees upon graduation. They will receive "honorariums" (or hell, call them anything else). Assure them that these will be recognized as representing the same number of credits, etc. Would this sit well with black (or Native) students? Should it? Would it with you?
Sometimes "equivalent" just doesn't do. Or so the argument goes.
Well, IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer -- I get called in July), and we're talking about what the law should be, not what it is.
Lawyers use dictionaries all the time -- usually Black's legal or the like -- but only when the common usage of a term needs to be referenced, or the legal meaning is unclear.
Here, the legal meaning could be clear, but who cares?? We're going to base human rights on what a dictionary says? We make the definitions. Dictionaries print them.
It's not always an aggressive act. Certain tribes used cannibalism as a means of familial respect. "You don't want to eat your uncle -- you're going to put him in the ground for the worms??? You must really have hated him."
Plus, what else are you going to eat at a funeral? Think of it as a theme dish.
Look at politics. Women are having touble with the fact that democratic candidates wives actually feel they have the right to open their mouths and express an opinion. They should more demure and differential like our current first lady.
I think it's very important to pay attention to the spouses (after all, the candidate could be a woman) of candidates, if only because we have to realize what influence they'll have on the candidate behind the scenes.
That being said, the first lady is not elected. When America elects its first female president, I hope her husband equally realizes this fact. Being the spouse of an elected official empowers them to... what, exactly? It's like saying "I'm not a doctor, but I play one one tv" fer crissakes.
Slashdot Mirror
My name's Sara Goldfarb, and I'm gonna be on television!
(shudder)
Workplace respect-wise, nothing beats coming in early. I hate it.
I could come in an hour later than everyone else, work through lunch and stay two hours after everyone leaves. They wouldn't know, and if they did, they wouldn't care. Show up a half hour earlier than everyone else and suddenly you're this hard-working guy, like what, spending my evening at work means I'm lazy? Actually, that's almost the assumption. Like you're too damn slow to get it all done in the regular workday. It's stupid, but unfortunately, it's true.
Well, for the purists, the Golden Rule is a good start.
Then, for the humanists (and the mentally-balanced, I would argue) there is empathy for goodness sake!!!
Ever felt pain? Know what it feels like? Do you like it? (warning: this logic may not strictly apply to masochists, but in that case they can imagine something they don't like) Like it when someone causes it to you? No? Why on earth would you not want to prevent from it happening to someone else? I don't like to see others suffer. Animals, people, emotionally, physically. It isn't pleasant. I know what it feels like. This is not the Golden Rule, per se, because there is no karmic idea that it relates to me. It's about the other person, and your ability to relate.
You're like the guy who goes to a restaurant and is incredibly rude to the waiter because you've never been one and you have no clue what it's like to do that job. Except that it shouldn't be hard to imagine, if you've had any service job at all (ok, some people haven't). And except that we're talking about suffering, generally, something everyone should (but again, seemingly some can't) be able to relate to.
Once again, you come off like a borderline lunatic to be suggesting that I need some kind of miracle-weilding mystical being to speak to someone on a mountaintop so that word can eventually reach me that killing others, hurting others, lying to others, is wrong. What the hell kind of moral centre is that?? By your reasoning, if those tablets read "Thou shalt have sex with animals and torture small children" (or the reverse), that's where your moral centre would be. THAT, my friend, is completely. fucked. up.
lol.
"While a filibuster is not considered technically improper, there is nothing preventing a senator from keeping the floor indefinitely, aside from exhaustion."
enraged teen: "Ok, you motherf--ers -- hands in the air!"
Forget that, man. Ask the average resident of a Muslim country what drives a man to incredible, dangerous lust. Bare shoulders. It's simply wrong to expose people to that. Women hiss and men shout when they see it, because it's so dangerous.
You all come from sick countries.
That reminds me of the old Monty Python skit that's captured on audio. I believe that they're deciding to consume a body, and at the skit's end, the horrified mourner says, well what are we supposed to do at the gravesite? And John Cleese says, well you can bend over and throw up into it -- at which point, the audience, which had been audibly agitated before this, breaks into loud booing, and I'm told, many walk out.
I always thought it was cute that they took it so seriously. I like the idea of people taking morals seriously -- like when Antonio Banderas and his fling are booed rather than cheered (equally stupid) when getting off the plane in a Latin American country, because of the hecklers' belief in sanctity of marriage. People standing up for values in which they believe. That's nice.
But c'mon, folks. Let's not ban the skits. Let's not throw rocks at Banderas. Can we have a little sense of proportion, please?
Mmm... sponsorships, anyone? Only if you back the right party!
Agreed. Really intended for the parent.
LOL.
You're making entirely too much sense.
Especially the last bit.
Anyone here care to defend websites teaching you how to eat your neighbour?
What, like cannibal recipes, validating the lifestyle? Sure, I'll defend that. I trust my fellow human beings to be able to contain their impulses, whatever their, ah, culinary tastes.
The only real question for me comes to things that are so inherently dangerous (not to "morals") that it might be reckless to permit expression. Example: I have discovered that you, too, can experience the wonders of nuclear fission, or sarin gas, or something equally dangerous, with just a can opener and a piece of mouldy cheese. Want to know how?
In that case, it's not the "inciting" or "corrupting" of the rational and moral that I'm worried about, it's that one nutbar in every neighbourhood that's going to want to test out his/her new invention on me, you, and the kids next door.
Heck, why are *blowjobs* acceptable? There are people offended by blowjobs.
Dude, how about drinking milk from a cow. That's fucked up.
***
Ok, on preview, that juxtaposition looks like I mean drinking directly from the cow. Granted, even worse, but seriously...
The problem, though, is explaining why harming another person is wrong. That's the tricky one...
What amazes me most is when theists enter into this kind of "logical" argument. They think that they are undermining atheist ethics when in reality they sound like they depend on the Good Book to keep them from being mall-sniper sociopaths.
If that's the case, go on reading it, brother...
The thing I've been most surprised about in learning about law is how imprecise it is -- intentionally. It abounds with what "the reasonable person would think" (originally "the man on the Clapham Omnibus") and "community standards", etc, etc. All so that your individual case is not fed through a machine that can't see how your situation is different. Or, as the cynics have it (I'm as yet undecided), so the court can decide on the verdict it wants and then fashion some reasoning to go with.
Minor differences compared to those between men and women, and yet we let them have the same rights (damn!). Of course, that's a little disingenuous, because rights aren't supposed to be something we "let" people have, inalienable and all that.
But fine, there are differences. Cosmetic, unless you're peeking in their bedroom window. Let's concentrate on the "causing society to crumble" shall we?
Convince me (hey, I'm a straight, white male -- should be easy!) that this is a group that presents a greater societal threat than the other groups that have been "given" equal rights.
If the gay lifestyle is a valid choice and you advocate for them, why haven't you tried it out?
... ...
Well... logically... it must be that he really doesn't think it's ok, at least, not good enough for him. Ergo... he really doesn't agree with it. It's all BS!! And therefore, so is his position!
OR he isn't a homosexual.
I think liver and onions is a fine choice of meal. Personally, I can't stand it, but I'll back anyone's right to eat liver and onions if they want.
How can you voice an opinion about this without having personally experienced it?
Well... logically... I guess he can't!! And if he's never served in the armed forces, he can't have an opinion about war! (woohoo -- this is fun!) Not a woman, so can't have an opinion about abortion. If he's not a member of a racial minority, can't have an opinion about equal rights for racial minorities... If he's never been in a fight, can't have an opinion about violence...
But Gay's do not want the benefits. They want to legitimize their lifestyle in whatever way possible.
It is a fixation that is held.
A-MEN! Man, I told them that their bus was just as good as the white folks. Better, even! New wheels! But NO. They had to use the same bus, like there was some kinda difference. Next thing you know, they'll want to use the same schools. Nerve.
The word marriage has a very specific definition.
And if we accept that... (I'm not disagreeing with you on it) that's the end of the story?
Wow. So all we had to do was tell slaves that freedom was oxymoronic to their condition. And women, well, I don't see "woman" in congressman, fireman, doctor... (oh, wait)
You're going to use history (the dictionary) to define the evolving concepts of human rights? And who gets to write this book? You? Webster's?
Give me a break. No wonder there was manifest destiny. I live in Canada, which I thought was a tiny part of America, yet I have a country next door that insists on calling itself what represents two continents. Names are names. Words have the meanings we give them. Argue against gay marriage, by all means, but at least come up with something better than this tripe.
You cannont naturally procreate in a homosexual relationship. Therefore it is a perversion of nature.
(sigh) Ok, animals kill, rape (forcible sex), commit "incest", eat their young, and stage full-scale wars. Oh, and yes, engage in homosexual behaviour.
None of this is evidence that any of these things are appropriate, or inappropriate, for a species that is capable of thinking things through and deciding for themselves what is appropriate.
Can we toss the "nature" garbage out with the trash, now, please?
It's not the disgusting gay sex thingy at all.
It's that the majority of people that are gay have been physically/sexually abused.
Wow, interesting. So really, clearly symptomatic of a traumatic experience. Would make sense if females were abused by males, and so turn to other females. Less so if males are abused by other males, and so turn to males...
And then, of course, the vast number of women who are abused by men, and go on to... have other abusive relationships with men. In fact, given the relative numbers of gay to straight women, there are likely more straight women that have been abused than gay women. I guess they're just so confused, they don't even know to be gay.
Thanks. You've really opened my eyes.
So it does basically come down to not wanting to extend rights to faggots.
No. It doesn't come down to that at all. All rights of marriage will be happily given to "faggots." Civil Union, ta da.
I understand this argument, but as I understand the counter-argument, minorities, especially oppressed ones (are there usually other kinds?), kinda don't like being given something equivalent and being told it's the same. Symbolism and all, especially considering that the importance of marriage is, well, symbolic itself.
Here's some fun. Suggest to your local university that all black (or Native, if in Canada) students will no longer receive university degrees upon graduation. They will receive "honorariums" (or hell, call them anything else). Assure them that these will be recognized as representing the same number of credits, etc. Would this sit well with black (or Native) students? Should it? Would it with you?
Sometimes "equivalent" just doesn't do. Or so the argument goes.
Well, IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer -- I get called in July), and we're talking about what the law should be, not what it is.
Lawyers use dictionaries all the time -- usually Black's legal or the like -- but only when the common usage of a term needs to be referenced, or the legal meaning is unclear.
Here, the legal meaning could be clear, but who cares?? We're going to base human rights on what a dictionary says? We make the definitions. Dictionaries print them.
Wasn't there also a fad awhile ago in which human birth parents kept the placenta to eat later (or is that an urban legend?)
Not too uncommon a custom to bury it and plant a sapling overtop. I'd heard the eating thing, but I can neither confirm nor deny. I can only say: YUM!
Ok, that disgusted even me.
Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.
Except that I still have my 8-track.
It's not always an aggressive act. Certain tribes used cannibalism as a means of familial respect. "You don't want to eat your uncle -- you're going to put him in the ground for the worms??? You must really have hated him."
Plus, what else are you going to eat at a funeral? Think of it as a theme dish.
Look at politics. Women are having touble with the fact that democratic candidates wives actually feel they have the right to open their mouths and express an opinion. They should more demure and differential like our current first lady.
I think it's very important to pay attention to the spouses (after all, the candidate could be a woman) of candidates, if only because we have to realize what influence they'll have on the candidate behind the scenes.
That being said, the first lady is not elected. When America elects its first female president, I hope her husband equally realizes this fact. Being the spouse of an elected official empowers them to... what, exactly? It's like saying "I'm not a doctor, but I play one one tv" fer crissakes.