If parents don't care enough to monitor their kids activities, and allow them to buy/play inappropriate games, how is it that these same parents can then scream bloody murder about said games?
You don't get to have it both ways, mom. If your kid is playing an inappropriate game, ask yourself what you did to prevent it. It should be something better than "I expected the manufacturer..." if you want to have any credibility.
The ESRB is trying to do something that parents are too lazy to do for themsleves. Why are tese lazy parents being allowed to shirk their responsibility? And what lessons are they teaching their kids as a result?
"and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is."
How do I know this? Because time and again, instead of actually READING the arguments of others, and attempting to UNDERSTAND them, you've changed the wording, summarized them, or ignored them.
You will do the same to me, so why bother typing up a cogent respones, only to have it clipped, edited, and otherwise mutilated? YOU DON'T LISTEN. YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN YOU'RE WRONG. Why waste my time?
And we're not missing your point. We have just decide you're a nutjob who has no idea what logic and reason are.
"It's invisible to any form of detection that we have ever devised, and yet, it MUST be there. If that isn't meta-physical, I don't know what the heck is."
You mean like atomic theory? It's only recently that we have gained the ability to see individual atoms. Hmm, I guess that atoms were metaphysical too.
But now they're not.
Had you even considered that example? Did you even KNOW about that example? Your post makes me believe you choose to stay scientifically ignorant on purpose.
"I freely admit that my world view is governed by unproven, unprovable faith. For you to claim otherwise is hypocrisy and maybe even hubris."
I agree, your world view is governed by a psychosis you choose to engage in, but it is a psychosis nonetheless. YOU call if faith, I call it what it is.
It's clear to anyone who reads your post that you've never bothered to actually learn about this subject. If you had, you'd see how ridiculous many of your claims are, and how easy they are proven false.
AND, I'm NOT your momma, so find you own links. It's not my job to make up for the brainwashing you've gotten from the church.
"Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life."
Ok, I'm going to say this S-L-O-W-L-Y.
I am a science teacher. Neither I, nor my colleagues, nor anyone who follows my state's standards teaches that evolution explains the origin of life. IT DOES NOT, so why would I teach that?
Evolution is a method of explaining diversity, and for demonstrating how changes can occur in organisms. It is a method for explaining how organisms with certain traits are more successful.
The fact that YOU are trying to claim it explains the origin of life, and then using that as a reason to accept ID completely misses the point of what evolution is, and more importantly how it is taught.
Why is this important? Becuause ALL OF THE OTHER THEORIES fail in places evolution does not. It is, quites simply, the best at explaing what it explains, so much so that the alternatives seem farcical in comparison. ANd with all due respect, so do your counter examples. Had you bothered, you could have found information to refute your own arguments. The fact that you didn't even TRY suggest you're not interested in facts, only in your own conjecture.
So, please try to become enlightened about the topic before you continue making up convoluted, logically flawed arguments.
Ok, you posted two links which have nothing to do with the question.
If you knew SQUAT about investing, you'd realize virtually anyone with a mututal fund has their money in some kind of pharmaceutical stock. Since when is that in any way wrong?
No, what you did was try to associate the investments of the foundation with some scheme, for which you provided ZERO evidence.
PLEASE, PLEASE shut up now. No one beleives you (who isn't already an unabaashed MS hater) and you're not convincing. Actually, you're really quite sad with your trumped up anti-BG crusade.
See, I firmly believe that if you have no background or understanding of a culture then you should avoid sticking your nose in their politics.
It's a colossally bad idea to go to Ireland and spout off about the Catholic/Protestant troubles. Why? Because you are bringing YOUR values to a system that doesn't have anything to do with YOUR values.
In doing the same with China, you've demonstrated arrogance beyond belief. It is exactly this insistence of "cultural superiority" that so many countries find distasteful about America.
I think it's funny as hell that all of these slashbots are the first to jump on the "stay out of Iraq" train, while simultaneously advocating actions like these in China.
The inconsistency, and hypocrisy, are as you put it, disgusting.
You know, I had a well thought out, logical response to your post.
Then I realized you don't have the slightest idea how to use reason or logic, so I'll go with this.
"Then stop complaining about TFA and the GP to this post. And stop complaining about any single thing that happens, since you CHOOSE to not commit suicide."
And that makes sense to you? Um, well... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU!!!!! BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA.
Thanks for the laugh.
Share some more wisdom genius. I'm going to show this to my friends. I have to, because they'll think I'm lying when I tell them that line of reasoning makes sense to ANYONE.
"Clearly the act had a positive impact, so it should not matter whether it was her or someone else who did it."
So, the ends justify the means then? Are you really sure you want to take that stance?
And, no don't try to backpedal, you said, now own up to it.
"So what is the basis for not encouraging someone else to do what you and that other person believe to be the right thing"
Because I don't believe breaking the law is "the right thing" and I don't believe the ends justify the means like you do.
I also don't have to jump through a half-dozen convoluted philosophical hoops, in which I draw incorrect, inaccurate comparisons in order to justify my actions like you.
You can slice it up any way you want, but the gist is you want to break the law in cases where you feel the law is unjust. That doesn't make you right, and it doesn;t make you morally superior, it just makes you a criminal.
And if I really wanted to refute you (not that I need) I would list the studies that demonstrate EXACTLY the same line of thinking YOU subscribe to is rampant in prison populations.
Thin about that while you bang the Rosa Parks drum.
Do you have any idea how idiotic it is to mod something like that down as flamebait?
I'm so tired of you pathetic fucking cowards modding things down you DISAGREE with. There's no flamebait there, but you pompus twits just keep modding, because you're too stupid to actually argue the point.
"That's a problem for people who ascribe morality to legality. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. Morality exist apart from law."
Again, I never touched these points, because frankly, they're irrelevant.
The only point I made is that I have a problem with actively encouraging someone to break a law. Whether that law is moral or not (which is totally subjective, and therefore, impossible to argue anyway) is not the issue.
"It's funny you should say that, I have a problem with overcensorship, which is a large problem in China"
No, not really. "Overcensorship" inmplies that there is some correct amount of censorship, and while there might be an amount that satisfies you, that amount is purely subjective.
Slashdot Mirror
"ENOUGH already with this GUI/desktop debate. It is over and done"
You're right.
Linux isn't ready, people who aren't zealots know and admit this, and the argument is done because people like you will never be convinced.
If parents don't care enough to monitor their kids activities, and allow them to buy/play inappropriate games, how is it that these same parents can then scream bloody murder about said games?
You don't get to have it both ways, mom. If your kid is playing an inappropriate game, ask yourself what you did to prevent it. It should be something better than "I expected the manufacturer..." if you want to have any credibility.
The ESRB is trying to do something that parents are too lazy to do for themsleves. Why are tese lazy parents being allowed to shirk their responsibility? And what lessons are they teaching their kids as a result?
"Microsoft is uncool and trying to associate it with that which is cool linux,open office,firefox and thunderbird etc"
Linux is "cool" huh?
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
LINUX IS COOL HE SAYS!
Thanks for the laugh.
No they don't.
They have the power to REWRITE the law, but that is not the same as oveerturning the Supreem Court.
I understand the argument you are trying to make, but you're overstating things a bit.
"and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is."
So, is avant-garde french for really crappy?
"I am pretty sure that if someone wanted to bring this to a court, Blizzard would be paying for it."
Nope, you're completely wrong. It's in the EULA, so if you play, you agree to it.
Knowing where you are is in no way equivalent to knowing what you're doing.
The only thing cell phone tracking tells anyone is where your cell phone is.
"A velvet cage is still a cage."
And hyperbole is still hyperbole.
Actually, I DO, but you won't listen to it.
How do I know this? Because time and again, instead of actually READING the arguments of others, and attempting to UNDERSTAND them, you've changed the wording, summarized them, or ignored them.
You will do the same to me, so why bother typing up a cogent respones, only to have it clipped, edited, and otherwise mutilated? YOU DON'T LISTEN. YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN YOU'RE WRONG. Why waste my time?
And we're not missing your point. We have just decide you're a nutjob who has no idea what logic and reason are.
"It's invisible to any form of detection that we have ever devised, and yet, it MUST be there. If that isn't meta-physical, I don't know what the heck is."
You mean like atomic theory? It's only recently that we have gained the ability to see individual atoms. Hmm, I guess that atoms were metaphysical too.
But now they're not.
Had you even considered that example? Did you even KNOW about that example? Your post makes me believe you choose to stay scientifically ignorant on purpose.
"I freely admit that my world view is governed by unproven, unprovable faith. For you to claim otherwise is hypocrisy and maybe even hubris."
I agree, your world view is governed by a psychosis you choose to engage in, but it is a psychosis nonetheless. YOU call if faith, I call it what it is.
It's clear to anyone who reads your post that you've never bothered to actually learn about this subject. If you had, you'd see how ridiculous many of your claims are, and how easy they are proven false.
AND, I'm NOT your momma, so find you own links. It's not my job to make up for the brainwashing you've gotten from the church.
"Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life."
Ok, I'm going to say this S-L-O-W-L-Y.
I am a science teacher. Neither I, nor my colleagues, nor anyone who follows my state's standards teaches that evolution explains the origin of life. IT DOES NOT, so why would I teach that?
Evolution is a method of explaining diversity, and for demonstrating how changes can occur in organisms. It is a method for explaining how organisms with certain traits are more successful.
The fact that YOU are trying to claim it explains the origin of life, and then using that as a reason to accept ID completely misses the point of what evolution is, and more importantly how it is taught.
Why is this important? Becuause ALL OF THE OTHER THEORIES fail in places evolution does not. It is, quites simply, the best at explaing what it explains, so much so that the alternatives seem farcical in comparison. ANd with all due respect, so do your counter examples. Had you bothered, you could have found information to refute your own arguments. The fact that you didn't even TRY suggest you're not interested in facts, only in your own conjecture.
So, please try to become enlightened about the topic before you continue making up convoluted, logically flawed arguments.
"I can't believe I even had to explain that."
Yeah, you really shouldn't have bothered, because you're wrong.
It's funny to watch you flail abou targuing on 5 different fronts, especially when you so clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Ok, you posted two links which have nothing to do with the question.
If you knew SQUAT about investing, you'd realize virtually anyone with a mututal fund has their money in some kind of pharmaceutical stock. Since when is that in any way wrong?
No, what you did was try to associate the investments of the foundation with some scheme, for which you provided ZERO evidence.
PLEASE, PLEASE shut up now. No one beleives you (who isn't already an unabaashed MS hater) and you're not convincing. Actually, you're really quite sad with your trumped up anti-BG crusade.
Ok, I get it.
You made a point that was patently wrong (nice job on that) and when your point is disproved, you start a rant about
"no evidence in that annual report that actual cash money was given away to anyone."
Stop being such a pathetic hater. Just admit you hate MS, and by extension Bill Gates, and be done with it.
It's already obvious to everyone else.
Quinine is a treatment, not a cure. Malaria AFAIK is uncurable, but can be made chronic with use of medication.
And mosquitos develop resistance.
See, I firmly believe that if you have no background or understanding of a culture then you should avoid sticking your nose in their politics.
It's a colossally bad idea to go to Ireland and spout off about the Catholic/Protestant troubles. Why? Because you are bringing YOUR values to a system that doesn't have anything to do with YOUR values.
In doing the same with China, you've demonstrated arrogance beyond belief. It is exactly this insistence of "cultural superiority" that so many countries find distasteful about America.
I think it's funny as hell that all of these slashbots are the first to jump on the "stay out of Iraq" train, while simultaneously advocating actions like these in China.
The inconsistency, and hypocrisy, are as you put it, disgusting.
You know, I had a well thought out, logical response to your post.
Then I realized you don't have the slightest idea how to use reason or logic, so I'll go with this.
"Then stop complaining about TFA and the GP to this post. And stop complaining about any single thing that happens, since you CHOOSE to not commit suicide."
And that makes sense to you? Um, well... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU!!!!! BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA.
Thanks for the laugh.
Share some more wisdom genius. I'm going to show this to my friends. I have to, because they'll think I'm lying when I tell them that line of reasoning makes sense to ANYONE.
BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.
"Clearly the act had a positive impact, so it should not matter whether it was her or someone else who did it."
So, the ends justify the means then? Are you really sure you want to take that stance?
And, no don't try to backpedal, you said, now own up to it.
"So what is the basis for not encouraging someone else to do what you and that other person believe to be the right thing"
Because I don't believe breaking the law is "the right thing" and I don't believe the ends justify the means like you do.
I also don't have to jump through a half-dozen convoluted philosophical hoops, in which I draw incorrect, inaccurate comparisons in order to justify my actions like you.
You can slice it up any way you want, but the gist is you want to break the law in cases where you feel the law is unjust. That doesn't make you right, and it doesn;t make you morally superior, it just makes you a criminal.
And if I really wanted to refute you (not that I need) I would list the studies that demonstrate EXACTLY the same line of thinking YOU subscribe to is rampant in prison populations.
Thin about that while you bang the Rosa Parks drum.
HEY MODS!!!!
FUCK YOU!!!
See, THAT'S a troll. See the difference, you cowardly, cocksucking wastes of space?
You know what mods, FUCK YOU.
Do you have any idea how idiotic it is to mod something like that down as flamebait?
I'm so tired of you pathetic fucking cowards modding things down you DISAGREE with. There's no flamebait there, but you pompus twits just keep modding, because you're too stupid to actually argue the point.
"he CHOSE to administrate the blog, deal with the comments, etc."
There, I fixed it for you.
PS, you don't get to whine about something you choose to do. That makes you a crybaby (and deservedly so).
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this.
She CHOSE to break that law. More power to her, but the consequences were hers, so she had every right to assume them.
On the other hand, it would have been wrong to encourage her to break the law, just because I thought it was wrong.
Doing something yourself is not the same as encouraging someone else to do it.
Congratualtions, you have made the classic mistake that is always made in these situations.
Yes, I wouldn't encourage someone to break these laws.
I have NO OPINION for you on whether the law is just, only that I have a problem encouraging people to break laws.
So, are you able to tell the difference between supporting THE law, as opposed to supporting A law, or do I need to spell it out for you?
"Legal writ does not equate to morality."
Never said it did.
"That's a problem for people who ascribe morality to legality. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. Morality exist apart from law."
Again, I never touched these points, because frankly, they're irrelevant.
The only point I made is that I have a problem with actively encouraging someone to break a law. Whether that law is moral or not (which is totally subjective, and therefore, impossible to argue anyway) is not the issue.
"It's funny you should say that, I have a problem with overcensorship, which is a large problem in China"
No, not really. "Overcensorship" inmplies that there is some correct amount of censorship, and while there might be an amount that satisfies you, that amount is purely subjective.
Chinese law, however, is not.
Because I don't like encouraging people to break the law.