So you don't know about something, yet assume you know enough to know it's not useful? And you'd chew someone out who found a great way to achieve something because you think it's using tricky parts of the language, parts you are intentionally ignorant of because of some unmentioned reason?
You don't sound particularly rational. I could make a joke about your sig, but I'll leave that alone.
So uninstall the nonsense app which shows you the ad. You are in control, but you've assumed you're not, and sealed your own fate. While arguably Google can be held to blame for you not knowing how to operate your own Android device, you are arguably even more to blame. You not being in Google's "walled garden" (even though Android phones can leave any time they want, and many don't ever step foot in it) won't help you one iota if you can't figure out how to uninstall an app which is spamming you.
It reads more like an attempt to stop kids' minds being screwed over by parents who also had their minds screwed over as kids, thereby breaking the cycle. That sounds a pretty good idea, but I guess the devil is in the details. No pun intended, of course.
Of course, but discussing any of the many feasible alternatives means one can't instantly shoot down the entire idea by proposing something insane, and pretending that's the only option.
Which has nothing to do with anything, if you don't happen to be a scared little racist who feels they have no control over the world, so they blame people with obvious differences for their ills. Heck, it worked for the Nazis!
Aaah the old "but... but... we so biiiig!" argument, that we all know from discussions on why US internet access would be more at home in developing nations. You showed yourself to be incorrect with your last sentence: compare Sweden with LA county, then, and see for yourself.
Microsoft has very specific requirements for its browsers - namely corporate use. Other browser manufacturers don't have this pressure. Rendering HTML is actually very difficult, and that's ignoring media, JavaScript, extensions, user profiles, bookmarks, system integration, and so on. Saying it's just HTML isn't really helping the discussion...
One does not choose to be gay, but one does choose to be a Nazi or Klansman. That rather salient point means your analogies are not at all apt, and the conclusions you've drawn from them should be assumed specious until further support is proffered.
You don't understand what "political correctness" is, then. That's the whole basis of your argument - you are confused by a term and have ascribed an incorrect meaning to it, one which (accidentally, I'm sure) absolves you from any and all criticism for any racist/misogynistic/whatever rants you've made. The fact you then go on to explain your "logic" (blaming entire groups for the actions of some of their members), making it patently clear you haven't thought this through at all, and are quite happy to be intellectually lazy and hate on groups of people because that's easier than actually engaging in open, honest, factual debate.
So no - you are incredibly wrong, but I'm sure you'll blame my post on "liberals" or some other group and hate on them more as if they're a homogeneous group all thinking and doing exactly the same.
Or, maybe, they see that discriminating against people for simply being who they are born is not a good thing, even if the discrimination is taught under the guise of religion. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?
1) Attacking a person who happens to be black 2) Attacking a person because they are black
? Any person capable of committing the second example is clearly a danger to every black person for no reason other than the person's twisted psyche - their victims were not chosen because of who they are (as in the first example), but because of what they are. You can try and play that down by screaming "thought crime!", but it misses the distinction entirely.
People are born gay, whereas no one is born religious. That fact alone means your desperate attempt to paint this as bad is completely devoid of any logical basis.
The fact you think social justice is bad makes you look like a scared, tiny-minded child who feels threatened by anyone who is not like you. Social justice includes things like not being a sexist muppet, not hating on gay folks simply because they exist, and not being a racist. If you find fault with those ideas, you might want to get some help.
Making a cake is not advocating anything beyond "cakes are good". Being a hate-filled Christian is a choice, being gay is not, so equating the two is pathetic. You have no argument, just a strong desire to discriminate.
I recall how you once said women shouldn't be scientists. You are so wrapped up with insecurity it's not even funny. It would be hell to spend a few minutes in your mind.
The only hate in this discussion is held by people who don't want to treat others as normal human beings because their religion teaches them to despise others for being who they were born.
But you can twist it in to some sort of attack on "the right" if you wish - it only serves to make you look rather foolish and encouraging the very hate you pretend to not like.
The former discriminates against people for being born the way they are. The latter discriminates against people for holding outdated beliefs based on old books interpreted in small-minded ways. Equating the two only serves to make you look intellectually ugly.
You clearly do have issue with either homosexuals or logic... If the state should stay out of marriage, then there should be no state-recognised marriage. Civil unions for everyone, and if they want a religious aspect, they can go to a church. Your last sentence is pretty tough on those heterosexuals who can't reproduce for whatever reason, and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Loads and loads. If you arrive at the airport without a passport, they won't let you in, and the carrier has to pay a not insignificant fine.
So you don't know about something, yet assume you know enough to know it's not useful? And you'd chew someone out who found a great way to achieve something because you think it's using tricky parts of the language, parts you are intentionally ignorant of because of some unmentioned reason?
You don't sound particularly rational. I could make a joke about your sig, but I'll leave that alone.
So uninstall the nonsense app which shows you the ad. You are in control, but you've assumed you're not, and sealed your own fate. While arguably Google can be held to blame for you not knowing how to operate your own Android device, you are arguably even more to blame. You not being in Google's "walled garden" (even though Android phones can leave any time they want, and many don't ever step foot in it) won't help you one iota if you can't figure out how to uninstall an app which is spamming you.
In the time it took you to explain that you didn't know whether Meccano is still in toy stores, you could have found out :)
It's not politically correct because it's simply not any kind of correct.
It reads more like an attempt to stop kids' minds being screwed over by parents who also had their minds screwed over as kids, thereby breaking the cycle. That sounds a pretty good idea, but I guess the devil is in the details. No pun intended, of course.
Of course, but discussing any of the many feasible alternatives means one can't instantly shoot down the entire idea by proposing something insane, and pretending that's the only option.
Which has nothing to do with anything, if you don't happen to be a scared little racist who feels they have no control over the world, so they blame people with obvious differences for their ills. Heck, it worked for the Nazis!
Aaah the old "but... but... we so biiiig!" argument, that we all know from discussions on why US internet access would be more at home in developing nations. You showed yourself to be incorrect with your last sentence: compare Sweden with LA county, then, and see for yourself.
If you were really intelligent, you'd know that your anecdote means precisely squat.
Microsoft has very specific requirements for its browsers - namely corporate use. Other browser manufacturers don't have this pressure. Rendering HTML is actually very difficult, and that's ignoring media, JavaScript, extensions, user profiles, bookmarks, system integration, and so on. Saying it's just HTML isn't really helping the discussion...
One does not choose to be gay, but one does choose to be a Nazi or Klansman. That rather salient point means your analogies are not at all apt, and the conclusions you've drawn from them should be assumed specious until further support is proffered.
Entirely irrelevant. If you are fine with hatred because it's difficult to know who you hate, then you are lost to the world already.
Where do these companies get their materials, though? You might find some deplorable conditions further up the supply chain...
You don't understand what "political correctness" is, then. That's the whole basis of your argument - you are confused by a term and have ascribed an incorrect meaning to it, one which (accidentally, I'm sure) absolves you from any and all criticism for any racist/misogynistic/whatever rants you've made. The fact you then go on to explain your "logic" (blaming entire groups for the actions of some of their members), making it patently clear you haven't thought this through at all, and are quite happy to be intellectually lazy and hate on groups of people because that's easier than actually engaging in open, honest, factual debate.
So no - you are incredibly wrong, but I'm sure you'll blame my post on "liberals" or some other group and hate on them more as if they're a homogeneous group all thinking and doing exactly the same.
Or, maybe, they see that discriminating against people for simply being who they are born is not a good thing, even if the discrimination is taught under the guise of religion. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?
You don't see the difference between:
1) Attacking a person who happens to be black
2) Attacking a person because they are black
? Any person capable of committing the second example is clearly a danger to every black person for no reason other than the person's twisted psyche - their victims were not chosen because of who they are (as in the first example), but because of what they are. You can try and play that down by screaming "thought crime!", but it misses the distinction entirely.
People are born gay, whereas no one is born religious. That fact alone means your desperate attempt to paint this as bad is completely devoid of any logical basis.
The fact you think social justice is bad makes you look like a scared, tiny-minded child who feels threatened by anyone who is not like you. Social justice includes things like not being a sexist muppet, not hating on gay folks simply because they exist, and not being a racist. If you find fault with those ideas, you might want to get some help.
Making a cake is not advocating anything beyond "cakes are good". Being a hate-filled Christian is a choice, being gay is not, so equating the two is pathetic. You have no argument, just a strong desire to discriminate.
I recall how you once said women shouldn't be scientists. You are so wrapped up with insecurity it's not even funny. It would be hell to spend a few minutes in your mind.
The only hate in this discussion is held by people who don't want to treat others as normal human beings because their religion teaches them to despise others for being who they were born.
But you can twist it in to some sort of attack on "the right" if you wish - it only serves to make you look rather foolish and encouraging the very hate you pretend to not like.
Being a hate-filled Christian is a choice, being gay isn't. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The former discriminates against people for being born the way they are. The latter discriminates against people for holding outdated beliefs based on old books interpreted in small-minded ways. Equating the two only serves to make you look intellectually ugly.
Not being an intellectually lazy, hate-filled bigot is also important in life - you might want to work on that.
You clearly do have issue with either homosexuals or logic... If the state should stay out of marriage, then there should be no state-recognised marriage. Civil unions for everyone, and if they want a religious aspect, they can go to a church. Your last sentence is pretty tough on those heterosexuals who can't reproduce for whatever reason, and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.