Which has nothing to do with the discussion - if you don't want it, move to get the laws changed. Until then, realise that everyone is the same and deserves the same rights. This nonsensical cop-out argument seems like pathetic hand-waiving in a vain attempt to make someone seem not bigoted, when their actions speak volumes to the contrary.
s/gay marriage/slavery and see what sort of a fool you are. You are saying it's intolerant to ask for the same rights as everyone else, simply as those rights have traditionally been withheld for the group in question. You are saying it's fine for someone to donate money to a cause which seeks to keep those rights from people. The only thing supporters of gay marriage have forced on you is to realise that the meanings of words can change, whereas you and your ilk are forcing people to live without rights you would demand for yourself. You are, by admission of your own words, a sick and twisted individual, and your post sums up everything which is wrong with this discussion. Marriage has had many meanings throughout history and across cultures - you are conveniently forgetting this (or, more likely, you never knew this) and using ignorance of that fact as ammunition to deny people fundamental rights.
It can't be a morality lesson, as it's describing the very basis of the relationship between God and people. It must have happened, otherwise everything else in the Bible makes even less sense.
So he's performing experiments on billions of people without their consent, frequently causing them deliberate pain and anguish. Sorry - how is that not malevolent? Sure, he might be being a good experimentalist, but his actions are malevolent. The two are not mutually exclusive. If he is unable to completely foresee the outcome, he is not omniscient. How can you defend this guy?
But he created us, so he created our decision making capabilities, and thus he created our choices for us. We can't have free will *and* God be omnipotent - it's either one or the other.
When your argument relies on the definition of tradition, you've lost. It was traditional to own slaves and die of disease when you were 28. Either you are for those, too, or you are a hypocrite trying to find any reason at all to excuse your bigotry.
He's saying he thinks he is someone who can think conceptually using logic, however his disgraceful and factually inaccurate response highlights the cold, hard fact that he can not.
He donated money to a cause to deny rights to gay people, and only gay people. That's pretty homophobic. The man's actions have spoken for themselves. And Obama is something else entirely, as you well know.
When someone wants to deny freedom to someone else simply because of benign, arbitrarily-selected attributes, that's hate. There's no logic or reason behind wanting gay folks to not get married, just a visceral reaction born from emotion, not fact. Prop 8 is about as hateful as you can get - it's designed to make people second-class citizens simply because of who they are, a quality they can not (nor should not) change. Keep trying to argue away the hate - you won't be very successful, and afterwards, people will still see you for who you are. And your examples are terrible, which is what happens when otherwise-intelligent people try to reason their hatred.
Your analogy is nearly correct - it would be more apt if the restaurant in question had donated money to people actively trying to return black people to slavery. Eich's opinions are one thing, but his funding of hate groups is another, and far more important. Free speech is of paramount importance, as are all other freedoms, which includes the right to not be treated as a second-class citizen through quirk of birth.
It's not about free speech - the guy paid money to try to curtail the freedoms of others, based on no logic or reason, just some ideas of tradition or religion, which society has already realised is no valid reason to harm others. If he'd just said "I hate gay people" then that's different, and you'd be right.
We do know he is a bigot. He donated money to deny rights to people based purely on their sexuality - a very clear-cut case of bigoted behaviour. There is no doubt over this point.
Should lawmakers have been tolerant of slavery? Or tolerant of sexism? Your logic is weird. This guy is hating on people, calling to deny rights to people. That is not deserving of tolerance, otherwise social injustices and basic human rights (legally of which marriage is one) would be denied to people, with the consent of everyone. The world you seem to want to live in sounds disgusting, where all social advances are immediately halted because they're not being tolerant of those who seek to hold society back in the dark ages.
Don't you get it yet? You are calling settled science a "fallacious argument". Just listen to yourself. Please. It's embarrassing for humanity that people would be so drenched in hubris or bias to call settled science (and it *is* settled - unless you know of some scientist with his Nobel prize for disproving climatology, physics, and chemistry) fallacious. And to do it using a computer - born from science - is simply gravy.
This is the problem of the "debate", though - the science shows, repeatedly, that warming is happening, and that it is largely due to human emissions. That is done. It's not up for discussion until someone conducts some research into how it's wrong, and shows the world. The two sides are not equal - one has all the data, and the other has nothing but snide remarks, dismissive attitudes, ignorance, and nonsense. No amount of opinion pieces or analysis of tiny fractions of the data can overturn this science - the entire field has to be overturned in order to prove the current standing wrong. The person who does that will get riches beyond imagination, and a Nobel prize to boot. The fact no-one's done it yet speaks volumes.
You are assuming the "new" land is suitable for crops to grow. Huge swathes of it have had their topsoil removed by glaciation, meaning they will be woefully underproductive, if at all productive. Also those new areas are currently frozen tundra, which have a nasty habit of releasing methane when heated up, which is an even worse greenhouse gas. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know this.
How do you know they proved someone wrong, unless you trust their findings without reproducing them yourself, which is what you railed against above? Either you are wrong, or you are wrong. You just shot yourself in the foot. Nicely done.
I thought you were pretty intelligent until you brought up that Human Rights thing. You do know how diplomacy works, right? You are not so arrogant to assume you know, but never bother to actually find out, right? That would be terrible if that was the case, as it makes everything else you write, no matter how accurate, look specious. Let me explain something to you, as you clearly need it: To change the behaviour of a group or country, dialogue is needed. That happens by including that group/country in one or more processes relating to the undesired activity they undertake, in order to foster relationships, trust, and influence. That is the key to diplomacy, and apparently you don't know anything about that, or at least are willing to sacrifice your knowledge just so you can poke holes in an organisation you seem to dislike, hurting yourself (but not them) in the process. Sad. Very sad. Now the rest of your arguments on climate change make a lot more sense - you are intelligent, but you simply don't want to learn, for whatever reason.
Your logic is embarrassing. You might as well claim that as people die anyway, going around battering them to death with baseball bats isn't changing anything. Weirdo.
The same reason plenty of people go to other countries to study... The US is not special, but I can appreciate how one would think that if you didn't know better.
1. You are ignorant of the medical advances made "over the centuries" 2. You are so drenched in hubris you don't even realise #1, even though the very fact that you are alive means it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
Which has nothing to do with the discussion - if you don't want it, move to get the laws changed. Until then, realise that everyone is the same and deserves the same rights. This nonsensical cop-out argument seems like pathetic hand-waiving in a vain attempt to make someone seem not bigoted, when their actions speak volumes to the contrary.
s/gay marriage/slavery and see what sort of a fool you are. You are saying it's intolerant to ask for the same rights as everyone else, simply as those rights have traditionally been withheld for the group in question. You are saying it's fine for someone to donate money to a cause which seeks to keep those rights from people. The only thing supporters of gay marriage have forced on you is to realise that the meanings of words can change, whereas you and your ilk are forcing people to live without rights you would demand for yourself. You are, by admission of your own words, a sick and twisted individual, and your post sums up everything which is wrong with this discussion. Marriage has had many meanings throughout history and across cultures - you are conveniently forgetting this (or, more likely, you never knew this) and using ignorance of that fact as ammunition to deny people fundamental rights.
It can't be a morality lesson, as it's describing the very basis of the relationship between God and people. It must have happened, otherwise everything else in the Bible makes even less sense.
So he's performing experiments on billions of people without their consent, frequently causing them deliberate pain and anguish. Sorry - how is that not malevolent? Sure, he might be being a good experimentalist, but his actions are malevolent. The two are not mutually exclusive. If he is unable to completely foresee the outcome, he is not omniscient. How can you defend this guy?
But he created us, so he created our decision making capabilities, and thus he created our choices for us. We can't have free will *and* God be omnipotent - it's either one or the other.
When your argument relies on the definition of tradition, you've lost. It was traditional to own slaves and die of disease when you were 28. Either you are for those, too, or you are a hypocrite trying to find any reason at all to excuse your bigotry.
He's saying he thinks he is someone who can think conceptually using logic, however his disgraceful and factually inaccurate response highlights the cold, hard fact that he can not.
He donated money to a cause to deny rights to gay people, and only gay people. That's pretty homophobic. The man's actions have spoken for themselves. And Obama is something else entirely, as you well know.
According to the UNHCR they are indeed human rights. So what were you banging on about, apart from some kind of illiterate hatred?
When someone wants to deny freedom to someone else simply because of benign, arbitrarily-selected attributes, that's hate. There's no logic or reason behind wanting gay folks to not get married, just a visceral reaction born from emotion, not fact. Prop 8 is about as hateful as you can get - it's designed to make people second-class citizens simply because of who they are, a quality they can not (nor should not) change. Keep trying to argue away the hate - you won't be very successful, and afterwards, people will still see you for who you are. And your examples are terrible, which is what happens when otherwise-intelligent people try to reason their hatred.
Your analogy is nearly correct - it would be more apt if the restaurant in question had donated money to people actively trying to return black people to slavery. Eich's opinions are one thing, but his funding of hate groups is another, and far more important. Free speech is of paramount importance, as are all other freedoms, which includes the right to not be treated as a second-class citizen through quirk of birth.
It's not about free speech - the guy paid money to try to curtail the freedoms of others, based on no logic or reason, just some ideas of tradition or religion, which society has already realised is no valid reason to harm others. If he'd just said "I hate gay people" then that's different, and you'd be right.
We do know he is a bigot. He donated money to deny rights to people based purely on their sexuality - a very clear-cut case of bigoted behaviour. There is no doubt over this point.
Should lawmakers have been tolerant of slavery? Or tolerant of sexism? Your logic is weird. This guy is hating on people, calling to deny rights to people. That is not deserving of tolerance, otherwise social injustices and basic human rights (legally of which marriage is one) would be denied to people, with the consent of everyone. The world you seem to want to live in sounds disgusting, where all social advances are immediately halted because they're not being tolerant of those who seek to hold society back in the dark ages.
Don't you get it yet? You are calling settled science a "fallacious argument". Just listen to yourself. Please. It's embarrassing for humanity that people would be so drenched in hubris or bias to call settled science (and it *is* settled - unless you know of some scientist with his Nobel prize for disproving climatology, physics, and chemistry) fallacious. And to do it using a computer - born from science - is simply gravy.
This is the problem of the "debate", though - the science shows, repeatedly, that warming is happening, and that it is largely due to human emissions. That is done. It's not up for discussion until someone conducts some research into how it's wrong, and shows the world. The two sides are not equal - one has all the data, and the other has nothing but snide remarks, dismissive attitudes, ignorance, and nonsense. No amount of opinion pieces or analysis of tiny fractions of the data can overturn this science - the entire field has to be overturned in order to prove the current standing wrong. The person who does that will get riches beyond imagination, and a Nobel prize to boot. The fact no-one's done it yet speaks volumes.
You are assuming the "new" land is suitable for crops to grow. Huge swathes of it have had their topsoil removed by glaciation, meaning they will be woefully underproductive, if at all productive. Also those new areas are currently frozen tundra, which have a nasty habit of releasing methane when heated up, which is an even worse greenhouse gas. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know this.
How do you know they proved someone wrong, unless you trust their findings without reproducing them yourself, which is what you railed against above? Either you are wrong, or you are wrong. You just shot yourself in the foot. Nicely done.
I thought you were pretty intelligent until you brought up that Human Rights thing. You do know how diplomacy works, right? You are not so arrogant to assume you know, but never bother to actually find out, right? That would be terrible if that was the case, as it makes everything else you write, no matter how accurate, look specious. Let me explain something to you, as you clearly need it: To change the behaviour of a group or country, dialogue is needed. That happens by including that group/country in one or more processes relating to the undesired activity they undertake, in order to foster relationships, trust, and influence. That is the key to diplomacy, and apparently you don't know anything about that, or at least are willing to sacrifice your knowledge just so you can poke holes in an organisation you seem to dislike, hurting yourself (but not them) in the process. Sad. Very sad. Now the rest of your arguments on climate change make a lot more sense - you are intelligent, but you simply don't want to learn, for whatever reason.
Your logic is embarrassing. You might as well claim that as people die anyway, going around battering them to death with baseball bats isn't changing anything. Weirdo.
The truth hurts, I guess. You poor little guy.
The same reason plenty of people go to other countries to study... The US is not special, but I can appreciate how one would think that if you didn't know better.
You just proved two things:
1. You are ignorant of the medical advances made "over the centuries"
2. You are so drenched in hubris you don't even realise #1, even though the very fact that you are alive means it's true.
The only way your logic makes sense is if not using a cell-phone is just as distracting in itself as using one...
Find a time machine, go back to *before* the attacks, and try that again.
Pretty minor like flagging every single Muslim? I hope I just got wooshed, or you are a terrible human being.