I think maybe you are confused a little. Said leaders cannot just change copyright laws. Much, if not all of copyright laws that are in question are there and covered by international treaty. Congress does not negotiate treaties and if we repealed all of them (there is actually about 5 in connection with copyright) in order to make adjustments, we would lose some things of value within the treaties.
And yes, you can argue about who pushed for what treaty all day long, but the US only changed it's laws after the treaties were ratified (as part of the ratification process).
So what really needs to happen is people need to actually know who to complain to and who to demand results from, who to hold accountable and it more or less needs to be an international effort to get the changes made.
Actually, certain software should be keeping track of their own time. Transactional time stamps would be useless if I could simply change the system date and time, make an alteration, then change it back as if it happened before it really did. If the software package kept it's own time, then anything I did would still be on the correct date and time making fraud a lot more harder in some cases.
Not necessarily. There is nothing indicating that if this new book which from the article submission amounts to a dressed up atheists rant about religion, were to be free of copyright obligations that it would still be free to us. There is a good chance that the only reason it is free now is because monetary damages if publishing the book ever came to trial, would be limited or a defense of fair use could be attempted because of the non-commercial nature of the book. Without those restriction, it's quite possible that it could be a pay for book and you wouldn't get anything for free.
Another way to fight against copyright : let greed go to increased and increased madness, let them copyright ideas, let them copyright words. Then new works will be impossible to copyright, they will have to be released anonymous and for free. Let the world without copyright come from the greed of right holders (or grand-grand-children of copyright holders)
Why not just demand that our leaders pass laws and make treaties that reduces the limits on copyright terms and places some mandatory licensing schemes into play after a certain period of time? It would be much easier overall then halting progress until our elected leaders finally get fed up and do the same thing. Perhaps it would be even better if they got fed up with our complaining and constant demands in it sooner then the damages caused from halting all progress could be?
Let's make it a little better. Simply shorten the copyright terms a little and institution mandatory licensing schemes similar to public performances of recorded music for works older then 8 or 10 years (or some arbitrary number) into the copyright and possibly free or pro bono fees for non-commercial works.
(pro bono, for the lack of a better term, would be an accounting of fees not collected but reserved to be collected if a non-commercial derivative goes commercial. This concept would be to avoid You writing a book, me doing a fan fiction derivative of it, then my non-commercial work gets made into a movie while your work is ignored).
Because nothing had pointed to a genetic marker controlling that preference. It's much more likely that preference is a conditioned response attributed to something recognized in the subconscious.
It's like the taste buds on the tongue. Many people have more or less then others. This genetic different doesn't generally translate to if they all like or dislike something based on the number of receptors present. Where it does translate to is that they either really like something or really dislike something. All that changes is how strongly they feel about the sensation.
And no, the first sentence isn't gibberish at all. It's saying that you will not find one thing that turns people gay, and the function involved with someone being gay (having sex) can be done without a partner through masterbation which removes it one step further.
Sure it is. It's certainly not productive, but if you were born like that, it's entirely natural. Again, "natural" doesn't say anything about whether it's good for you or the species. There's no mandate from above to reproduce, it's just that things that do tend to persist.
I guess I was under the improper assumption that in order to evolution and the survival of the fittest to be valid, there would be some underlying desire naturally present to maintain your genes and carry the species on. And if something failed at task, they went extinct.
Evolution and nature are quite linked though. And that would be because you have a weird idea of how things work.
Evolution is a mechanism of nature. They are linked but can clearly be separate and refereed to individually in context. Nothing has to be a weird idea for that to happen.
Except for that there being nothing to suggest so far it's a learned behavior, and that you seem to assume that the current state of things is how it's always been.
Sure there is. You won't be able to pinpoint one specific thing or set of things that turns people gay, but we are talking about preference to a function that doesn't even need a partner to complete. It's a learned behavior just as certain colors are favorable to some and not others.
In ancient Greece for instance, it wasn't a bad thing, and Homo Sapiens existed for a long time before creating anything like a modern society. There still are a few lost tribes that don't know where children come from. We have no clue what the attitude was towards homosexuality through the millions of years of human evolution, and it's misleading to assume it must have been precisely the current one.
well, in ancient Greece, as well as ancient Rome and probably a few other civilizations, pederasty was common and open. Some think it was a right of passage into the military and religions of Zeus. Some people will also argue that molesting prepubescent boys is not homosexuality either. They had the corruptions of religion and government on their side which is why it was openly tolerated. But even in ancient Greece, it was largely a tool for social advancement. but still there was a large social portions that saw it as unhealthy and thought it would lead to rampant homosexuality. So it's not clear that they thought it was fine or not. Just that it existed and they had to deal with it.
You can certainly take away from the known history of sexuality in Ancient Greece, that homosexuality wasn't thought highly of.
It's more complicated than that. Queen bees are special and raised from birth in a special way. A random female bee can't just start breeding. The colony may breed a new queen when there are too many bees around, or the old queen is not performing.
Well, yea it's more complicated. But you brought the bees up so I went with it. I'm not sure why it being complicated means much unless that was your point in bringing it about. But to be precise, if there are eggs left when the queen bee dies, they can and do condition another queen to take over. That was my intent of the comment. Drone bees do not mate at all and makes die right after sex. And the queen bee, as well as the drones, seem to both have independent control over the sex of the bees, but only the drones can initiate the fertile queens.
I have no doubt that there are people who would approve of any arbitrary law as long as they profited from it. However, if that same law unduly imposes against another, that support is the result of a lack of integrity on the part of the supporter.
Wow.. what intelectual muscle you have there. Are you this bright around all the people you try to impress?
The US has laws that make other criminal acts worse based on specific intent.
First, who said anything about the US. Why in the hell do you think only the US matters? There are hate speech laws in this world, go to Germany and praise Hitler or the Nazi's for instance. I Guess maybe you should have saved your idiot comment until you were looking in the mirror.
If you don't break those laws, which are all felonies to start with, no one gives a flying fuck what you said.
Why because you said so? You don't know shit. The hate crime law in the US is an add on to crimes that make them felonies if they weren't or more severe felonies if they were already a felony. That's the entire point of the hate crime law. If you do it out of some magical protection from hate, you get punished more then if you do because you are just an evil guy.
and yes, striking or assaulting a person in my state is a misdemeanor. Yelling Nigger, Jew, Fag, or anything derogatory to those protected classes of people will turn the misdemeanor into a felony. So yes, it is about hate speech even there.
If you do break those laws, like if you assault people, yes, it matters why you did it. That has actually always mattered under the law. It's called intent.
No.. Not all laws are concerned with intent. And for the most part, unless someone admits to the intent, you are only guessing to their thoughts at or near the time of the crime. So even there, it's the same- as a thought crime. But if the evidence of your thought crime motivating the real crime is you yelling something derogatory, then you are being punished in addition to what normal people would based on your hate speech. You simply cannot get around that. You are either guessing on what they were thinking or punishing them for what they said.
Remember, folks: Everyone who whines about the 'hate crimes laws' in the US wants to commit felonies against people, and they are worried they will get an extra year or two because they often say racist or sexist things, but they insist they're targeting people to commit felonies against randomly.
Nice argument. I think I can sum it up for you in a little shorter package. "think of the children" or maybe "If you don't agree with me, your evil", or "your either with us or against us". Oh, and assaulting someone is only a misdemeanor until you attack the thought part onto it and make it a hate crime. Then it becomes a felony.
Why don't you grow the fuck up.
Sure, they're going to beat up that black guy, and just the other day were talking about how black people should go back to Africa, but they beat him up because just didn't like his hat...they beat up a white guy last week for the same reason, so an extra year or two is totally unfair.
What's your point? I mean seriously, is it that we should tolerate people getting beat up for any reason (wearing and ugly hat) other then someone hating the other person? If the punishment for assaults and other person on person crime is not a deterrent, then why only protect certain people based on their speech? And yes, your scenario takes this directly to speech as you used talking about blacks going back to Africa as a motivator to why the person needs punished more then someone who doesn't like a hate he was wearing.
Hell, you can't even be consistent in your rant and you're calling me an idiot.
I'm surprised you didn't say don't count the same person twice too.
the fact of the matter is that there have been stories on slashdot concerning the very subject of hate speech and hate crimes and there are generally always enough people on both sides of the argument to drive the discussion to well over 500 posts and usually more.
I don't keep metrics on slashdot. I keep mental notes of what it see. There are quite a few people here who would either side with the same type of law if they saw a benefit from it or wouldn't care about it altogether.
You are suffering from confirmation bias associated with your lack of comprehension of the bible. A lot of what Thomas Paine wrote suffered from this to a great extent too.
I mean his critique of inconsistencies in proverbs basically consists of "we have better ones available". His critique of the old testament is completely based on "I can find no proof". Disbelief and doubt are not inconsistencies, it's disbelief and doubt. Like any competent atheist (in which there are quite a few incompetent ones), he puts for an argument that more or less runs the line of, the Church and State are one empire destine to take freedoms from man, I can't find proof so I'm not going to believe, and well, we have better ideas now.
In fact, there are many counters to Paine's work out there- most of which ignore his "I don't believe" line of reasoning and completely focus on where he got things completely wrong.. Some almost as old as his own work. Many of the point to Dr. Strong's concordance for accurate and meaningful translations which sort of stop Paine's interpretations cold. Unfortunately, this was publish about 100 or more years after Thomas Paine's work. Dr. Strong's concordance is something I recommend too.
I'm not sure how you can claim some assertive rules from that news article. IT says that a jury found against the WBC to the sum of 3 million dollars but it was overturned on appeal.
The disconnect between the stated reasons why it was overturned and what happened was in that even though the WBC might have had a legitimate right to protest, they didn't have a legitimate right to protest this one person's funeral. That is why the supreme court picked it up and is going to decide on it.
You do have a right to conduct your life and not be bothered by other people regardless of their right to free speech. This is supported by legal noise ordinances that have been completely upheld by the courts as well as zoning laws and rules requiring strip clubs and bars to be located so many feet away from schools, parks and other public places of interest and even zoning regulations requiring commercial businesess and other non-residential entities, and even the practice of that to be conducted in zones other then strict residential zoning. The point of contention here with this case is whether the dead soldier's funeral was a default place of public interest or a private matter altogether. If it's found to be one, the WBC had a right to be there. If it is private, they are subject to the laws regulating against it and any liability that might come from it.
Please do not pretend that something is absolutely true when that very truth is being decided in the courts as of right now.
From an evolutionary standpoint.. no, it's not natural to not want to carry your genes on. That's entirely how evolution as we know it works.
Again, if it happens in nature, it's natural.
And again, I siad nothing about in Nature, I said from an evolutionary standpoint.. The rest of your comment is nothing but you listening to yourself because it has little or nothing to do with what I said.
Besides, the fact that homosexuality hasn't been bred out of the gene pool suggests there is some advantage to it. One theory is that since people with a preference for their own gender don't have children, they're available to support the rest of the family. So if say, a father passes the "gay gene" to two children, one of who turns out straight and the other gay, the gay one is fairly likely to end up living alone or at least without children. By doing so, he'll have more money and will be able to support his brother in times of need. By helping his brother survive, he also helps perpetuate the gay gene his brother carries.
Actually, the suggestion is more obvious then that and can be derived without attaching some anthropomorphic altruism to it. If it hasn't been bread out of the gene pool, it's because it's either a choice someone makes and not a genetic mutation, or it's because the mutation occurred as a kill switch in the offspring of two somehow incompatible parents. Your reliance on social behaviors is somewhat disqualified as the vast majority of fathers tend to disown their homosexual offspring as it somehow shows a sign of weakness in them to accept them. And it's societal customs, that seems to be changing that somewhat (it's a learned behavior).
Also it's funny that you have such a rigid conception of how things are supposed to be, when they vary so much. Look at other organisms, like bees. A hive has a grand total of one breeding female, and is populated entirely by sterile females except during the short time males are needed for breeding. But as weird as that is from a human point of view, it's entirely natural and has been working for bees perfectly fine.
And if that queen bee, or one breading female bee, turns gay and stops producing offspring, the entire hive is wiped out. Well actually, no because there are other breading females capable of taker her place. In fact, that's pretty much how the hives spread.
The point of evolution is to allow the fit genes to survive and move on while suppressing the unfit. If you are mentally grouping yourself into the unfit portion and committing genetic suicide, you have gave up on survival of the fittest. BTW, Just because it's not evolutionarily natural, doesn't mean it's wrong. I never said or implied that.
Here's the counterpoint to your very uneducated Darwinian argument:
A substantially (large) proportion of the human population (~10%) keeps popping out with this particular behavioral trait, i.e., homosexuality (there are others traits, but let's leave it at that.). Much to religious people's chagrin, it just doesn't seem to go away, as much as they pray and curse. It has been so for millenia.
That's if you actually believe they were born that way and it's not a choice they tend to make because of a predisposition. And of course, there is a difference there. You can be genetically predisposition to like both the color red, and the sleek curves of a corvette yet never buy a red corvette or even drive one. It also doesn't mean you will never be happy if you don't have or drive a red corvette, it just means you won't get what you want.
Well, the evidence for homosexuality being a genetic disorder or weird mutation is pretty weak too. For one, it would kill itself out of the gene pool given enough time and we know it has existed since the beginning of recorded history almost. I for one refuse to accept that homosexuals (which the term in and of itself is descriptive of an act, not a preference), are genetic mutants destined to remove their genetic information from the gene pool. In fact, I know several who are very smart and articulate and appear to actually enhance the gene pool if they were to ever reproduce. I don't buy the genetic mutation for homosexuality just as I don't buy the concept of a genetic mutation causing people to rape others. It's a nonstarter because a choice to do the defining act has to be made. And I will say right now, one of those acts is perfectly legitimate between consenting adults, the other isn't.
Contrary to what you argued, instead of it being "unnatural" as you claimed, it would seem that there must be some Darwinian explanation for that trait to remain in the human population gene pool, because otherwise, if it weren't so, it would already have been eliminated, for precisely the reasons you pointed out.
well, yea. there is a Darwinian explanation, It's that these people are not genetic freaks at all, they have certain preferences and choose to act on them. But in doing so, they are removing their genes from the gene pool unless they act differently from their preferences and reproduce or use man made interference in the process.
Anyways.. I think the point I was trying to make is especially exemplified within your comment. and kudos for being the only person out of 6 so far to reply that actually caught the evolutionary part of the comment and kept your comments in line with that. But the point I was trying to make was that substituting one absurdity for another is in no way cause to make fun of the other absurdity. We may disagree on the mechanics of evolution_and_homosexuality, and of course I think the fact that it hasn't bread itself out of the gene pool is support for it being just a choice based around a predisposition for something in particular (it may not even be about sex either). But in the end, doing what they are doing as the GP applied isn't really any way to stop what they are doing.
Ok, first, before you start making claims of ignorance, you can reread my post and see exactly where I said natural within the scope of biological evolution- darwinism, not nature in general. Your entire point about homosexual animals in nature points to your complete lack of reading comprehension and you own ignorance.
For any species to survive, they need to reproduce. According to natural selection, the strongest traits that give the most advantage survive. It is not natural in this sense, that a portion of the gene pool would intentionally commit suicide.
And yes, from an evolutionary standpoint, couples who cannot have kids are having sex naturally if they know the act will not produce offspring. But they do not lose any rights just as homosexuals do no lose any rights. They from an evolutionary standpoint, simply aren't going to forward their genes to the next generation.
I made a specific comment about a specific situation only to show how absurd the parent's specific comment about a specific situation was and here you and half of slashdot are ignoring the entire thing to jump to whatever you want it to mean.
Did you miss the part about this pertaining to evolution? Yes, organisms hit the kill switch all the time and go extinct in nature. But it's not natural to want to do so when you know it will happen.
Eh? There's no intention in evolution. There's only genes that get passed on.
agreed.. so it made just as much sense as the parent's idiotic statement.. Hence the "Yea.. something still doesn't sound quite right".
so your saying that if something commits genetic suicide in the wild, it's still natural according to evolution?
BTW, you should probably reread what I said. Does "But from a purely biological evolution standpoint, Darwin needed but not God," make it appear that I was intentionally limiting my comment to the specifics of evolution and survival of the fittest and not nature in general?
Because not only does that appear to be the case from the wording alone, it was also the entire point and intent of placing those specific words into that one line of thought.
Your right, a mob doesn't need to have a head. I never said they did. But they do need to be rallied to a common enough cause at a common enough time, and that's were organization turns 200 people carrying signs from rowdy in a crowd to a 2000 people and growing protest trying to overturn the government. At some point, the concept will grow on it's own depending on if there is any merit to the cause or not (as the people see it).
As for the centers where people go, so can the government agents, so can the people wanting the status quo, There will be people more vocal then others who can be arrested, there can be efforts put in place more easily to disrupt protests and so on. And most likely, outsiders encouraging the protests can be caught and taken out of the mix. With the internet, the ability to do a lot of this is lost. With the internet, outsiders can provoke the population all day long and there is nothing you can do about it outside of taking the internet down.
I was reading a lot of the forums and tweets of the last protest coups.. There is a lot of stuff said that was almost identical in both by people who had strikingly similar names or monikers. If you think the protests were just the citizens of a country getting mad, you are sorely mistaken. There was a lot of outside influence in them. It may have been just the citizens in the end, but it definitely wasn't in the beginning.
It's not a matter of what they say, it's where they say it at. And within that, the right to petition your government is completely within play.
for instance, you cannot enter my home and preach about my fish tank needing cleaned without my permission. You can however, stand on the court house steps and preach about needing to clean your fish tank. Now we have noise ordinances and laws about holding events and such. and that's a sovereign right of almost any political subdivision in any state.
Phelps has a case in front of the supreme court right now that deals with this specifically. The WBC is claiming that by serving as a soldier in a war, those fallen soldiers have placed themselves into the public spectrum. the counter argument is that these are private people and their disruption of a private event is not only criminal but tortuous and they own them money. Now most areas have more strict laws concerning the dead and most civil laws pertaining to them are construe liberally (in a literal sense) in favor of the grieving person(s).
If it's about a private event, the WBC is screwed and not allowed to disrupt it. If it's a public event, then there is a lot more they can get away with. But by all means, your right to free speech does not carry a right to be heard or a right to a place to be heard at. Except at public (read civil, not I can see you) event and places.
Well, miracles are a little more then coincidence. Generally, there has to be a high improbability for the thing that happened to not have happened at all in order to be claimed to be a miracle.
I'm not sure saying well viruses and bot nets exist would be enough to make the claim your computer was suffering from that when it participated in an illegal activity.
chances are, when they are named in a lawsuit, an order to clone the hard drive will come with it and they will likely look for the ddos software and ignore the virus or trojan or whatever put it there.
You are likely going to have to show your computer was controlled outside of your awareness and that you took steps to prevent that which failed in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
I think maybe you are confused a little. Said leaders cannot just change copyright laws. Much, if not all of copyright laws that are in question are there and covered by international treaty. Congress does not negotiate treaties and if we repealed all of them (there is actually about 5 in connection with copyright) in order to make adjustments, we would lose some things of value within the treaties.
And yes, you can argue about who pushed for what treaty all day long, but the US only changed it's laws after the treaties were ratified (as part of the ratification process).
So what really needs to happen is people need to actually know who to complain to and who to demand results from, who to hold accountable and it more or less needs to be an international effort to get the changes made.
Actually, certain software should be keeping track of their own time. Transactional time stamps would be useless if I could simply change the system date and time, make an alteration, then change it back as if it happened before it really did. If the software package kept it's own time, then anything I did would still be on the correct date and time making fraud a lot more harder in some cases.
Not necessarily. There is nothing indicating that if this new book which from the article submission amounts to a dressed up atheists rant about religion, were to be free of copyright obligations that it would still be free to us. There is a good chance that the only reason it is free now is because monetary damages if publishing the book ever came to trial, would be limited or a defense of fair use could be attempted because of the non-commercial nature of the book. Without those restriction, it's quite possible that it could be a pay for book and you wouldn't get anything for free.
Why not just demand that our leaders pass laws and make treaties that reduces the limits on copyright terms and places some mandatory licensing schemes into play after a certain period of time? It would be much easier overall then halting progress until our elected leaders finally get fed up and do the same thing. Perhaps it would be even better if they got fed up with our complaining and constant demands in it sooner then the damages caused from halting all progress could be?
Let's make it a little better. Simply shorten the copyright terms a little and institution mandatory licensing schemes similar to public performances of recorded music for works older then 8 or 10 years (or some arbitrary number) into the copyright and possibly free or pro bono fees for non-commercial works.
(pro bono, for the lack of a better term, would be an accounting of fees not collected but reserved to be collected if a non-commercial derivative goes commercial. This concept would be to avoid You writing a book, me doing a fan fiction derivative of it, then my non-commercial work gets made into a movie while your work is ignored).
Most of the casts/crew doesn't show up until the first episode so your still in a pickle about not having everyone.
Unless your thinking about subdividing it into back stories of everyone. And you can throw that idea out right now cause it would suck.
Because nothing had pointed to a genetic marker controlling that preference. It's much more likely that preference is a conditioned response attributed to something recognized in the subconscious.
It's like the taste buds on the tongue. Many people have more or less then others. This genetic different doesn't generally translate to if they all like or dislike something based on the number of receptors present. Where it does translate to is that they either really like something or really dislike something. All that changes is how strongly they feel about the sensation.
And no, the first sentence isn't gibberish at all. It's saying that you will not find one thing that turns people gay, and the function involved with someone being gay (having sex) can be done without a partner through masterbation which removes it one step further.
I guess I was under the improper assumption that in order to evolution and the survival of the fittest to be valid, there would be some underlying desire naturally present to maintain your genes and carry the species on. And if something failed at task, they went extinct.
Evolution is a mechanism of nature. They are linked but can clearly be separate and refereed to individually in context. Nothing has to be a weird idea for that to happen.
Sure there is. You won't be able to pinpoint one specific thing or set of things that turns people gay, but we are talking about preference to a function that doesn't even need a partner to complete. It's a learned behavior just as certain colors are favorable to some and not others.
well, in ancient Greece, as well as ancient Rome and probably a few other civilizations, pederasty was common and open. Some think it was a right of passage into the military and religions of Zeus. Some people will also argue that molesting prepubescent boys is not homosexuality either. They had the corruptions of religion and government on their side which is why it was openly tolerated. But even in ancient Greece, it was largely a tool for social advancement. but still there was a large social portions that saw it as unhealthy and thought it would lead to rampant homosexuality. So it's not clear that they thought it was fine or not. Just that it existed and they had to deal with it.
You can certainly take away from the known history of sexuality in Ancient Greece, that homosexuality wasn't thought highly of.
Well, yea it's more complicated. But you brought the bees up so I went with it. I'm not sure why it being complicated means much unless that was your point in bringing it about. But to be precise, if there are eggs left when the queen bee dies, they can and do condition another queen to take over. That was my intent of the comment. Drone bees do not mate at all and makes die right after sex. And the queen bee, as well as the drones, seem to both have independent control over the sex of the bees, but only the drones can initiate the fertile queens.
Nuff said.
Wow.. what intelectual muscle you have there. Are you this bright around all the people you try to impress?
First, who said anything about the US. Why in the hell do you think only the US matters? There are hate speech laws in this world, go to Germany and praise Hitler or the Nazi's for instance. I Guess maybe you should have saved your idiot comment until you were looking in the mirror.
Why because you said so? You don't know shit. The hate crime law in the US is an add on to crimes that make them felonies if they weren't or more severe felonies if they were already a felony. That's the entire point of the hate crime law. If you do it out of some magical protection from hate, you get punished more then if you do because you are just an evil guy.
and yes, striking or assaulting a person in my state is a misdemeanor. Yelling Nigger, Jew, Fag, or anything derogatory to those protected classes of people will turn the misdemeanor into a felony. So yes, it is about hate speech even there.
No.. Not all laws are concerned with intent. And for the most part, unless someone admits to the intent, you are only guessing to their thoughts at or near the time of the crime. So even there, it's the same- as a thought crime. But if the evidence of your thought crime motivating the real crime is you yelling something derogatory, then you are being punished in addition to what normal people would based on your hate speech. You simply cannot get around that. You are either guessing on what they were thinking or punishing them for what they said.
Nice argument. I think I can sum it up for you in a little shorter package. "think of the children" or maybe "If you don't agree with me, your evil", or "your either with us or against us". Oh, and assaulting someone is only a misdemeanor until you attack the thought part onto it and make it a hate crime. Then it becomes a felony.
Why don't you grow the fuck up.
What's your point? I mean seriously, is it that we should tolerate people getting beat up for any reason (wearing and ugly hat) other then someone hating the other person? If the punishment for assaults and other person on person crime is not a deterrent, then why only protect certain people based on their speech? And yes, your scenario takes this directly to speech as you used talking about blacks going back to Africa as a motivator to why the person needs punished more then someone who doesn't like a hate he was wearing.
Hell, you can't even be consistent in your rant and you're calling me an idiot.
I'm surprised you didn't say don't count the same person twice too.
the fact of the matter is that there have been stories on slashdot concerning the very subject of hate speech and hate crimes and there are generally always enough people on both sides of the argument to drive the discussion to well over 500 posts and usually more.
I don't keep metrics on slashdot. I keep mental notes of what it see. There are quite a few people here who would either side with the same type of law if they saw a benefit from it or wouldn't care about it altogether.
You are suffering from confirmation bias associated with your lack of comprehension of the bible. A lot of what Thomas Paine wrote suffered from this to a great extent too.
I mean his critique of inconsistencies in proverbs basically consists of "we have better ones available". His critique of the old testament is completely based on "I can find no proof". Disbelief and doubt are not inconsistencies, it's disbelief and doubt. Like any competent atheist (in which there are quite a few incompetent ones), he puts for an argument that more or less runs the line of, the Church and State are one empire destine to take freedoms from man, I can't find proof so I'm not going to believe, and well, we have better ideas now.
In fact, there are many counters to Paine's work out there- most of which ignore his "I don't believe" line of reasoning and completely focus on where he got things completely wrong.. Some almost as old as his own work. Many of the point to Dr. Strong's concordance for accurate and meaningful translations which sort of stop Paine's interpretations cold. Unfortunately, this was publish about 100 or more years after Thomas Paine's work. Dr. Strong's concordance is something I recommend too.
I'm not sure how you can claim some assertive rules from that news article. IT says that a jury found against the WBC to the sum of 3 million dollars but it was overturned on appeal.
The disconnect between the stated reasons why it was overturned and what happened was in that even though the WBC might have had a legitimate right to protest, they didn't have a legitimate right to protest this one person's funeral. That is why the supreme court picked it up and is going to decide on it.
You do have a right to conduct your life and not be bothered by other people regardless of their right to free speech. This is supported by legal noise ordinances that have been completely upheld by the courts as well as zoning laws and rules requiring strip clubs and bars to be located so many feet away from schools, parks and other public places of interest and even zoning regulations requiring commercial businesess and other non-residential entities, and even the practice of that to be conducted in zones other then strict residential zoning. The point of contention here with this case is whether the dead soldier's funeral was a default place of public interest or a private matter altogether. If it's found to be one, the WBC had a right to be there. If it is private, they are subject to the laws regulating against it and any liability that might come from it.
Please do not pretend that something is absolutely true when that very truth is being decided in the courts as of right now.
You will find a lot more then you realize.
Most posters on slashdot do not mind questionable laws they can benefit from or that do not directly effect them.
So is hate speech laws.. and we are ok with them aren't we?
From an evolutionary standpoint.. no, it's not natural to not want to carry your genes on. That's entirely how evolution as we know it works.
And again, I siad nothing about in Nature, I said from an evolutionary standpoint.. The rest of your comment is nothing but you listening to yourself because it has little or nothing to do with what I said.
Actually, the suggestion is more obvious then that and can be derived without attaching some anthropomorphic altruism to it. If it hasn't been bread out of the gene pool, it's because it's either a choice someone makes and not a genetic mutation, or it's because the mutation occurred as a kill switch in the offspring of two somehow incompatible parents. Your reliance on social behaviors is somewhat disqualified as the vast majority of fathers tend to disown their homosexual offspring as it somehow shows a sign of weakness in them to accept them. And it's societal customs, that seems to be changing that somewhat (it's a learned behavior).
And if that queen bee, or one breading female bee, turns gay and stops producing offspring, the entire hive is wiped out. Well actually, no because there are other breading females capable of taker her place. In fact, that's pretty much how the hives spread.
The point of evolution is to allow the fit genes to survive and move on while suppressing the unfit. If you are mentally grouping yourself into the unfit portion and committing genetic suicide, you have gave up on survival of the fittest. BTW, Just because it's not evolutionarily natural, doesn't mean it's wrong. I never said or implied that.
That's if you actually believe they were born that way and it's not a choice they tend to make because of a predisposition. And of course, there is a difference there. You can be genetically predisposition to like both the color red, and the sleek curves of a corvette yet never buy a red corvette or even drive one. It also doesn't mean you will never be happy if you don't have or drive a red corvette, it just means you won't get what you want.
Well, the evidence for homosexuality being a genetic disorder or weird mutation is pretty weak too. For one, it would kill itself out of the gene pool given enough time and we know it has existed since the beginning of recorded history almost. I for one refuse to accept that homosexuals (which the term in and of itself is descriptive of an act, not a preference), are genetic mutants destined to remove their genetic information from the gene pool. In fact, I know several who are very smart and articulate and appear to actually enhance the gene pool if they were to ever reproduce. I don't buy the genetic mutation for homosexuality just as I don't buy the concept of a genetic mutation causing people to rape others. It's a nonstarter because a choice to do the defining act has to be made. And I will say right now, one of those acts is perfectly legitimate between consenting adults, the other isn't.
well, yea. there is a Darwinian explanation, It's that these people are not genetic freaks at all, they have certain preferences and choose to act on them. But in doing so, they are removing their genes from the gene pool unless they act differently from their preferences and reproduce or use man made interference in the process.
Anyways.. I think the point I was trying to make is especially exemplified within your comment. and kudos for being the only person out of 6 so far to reply that actually caught the evolutionary part of the comment and kept your comments in line with that. But the point I was trying to make was that substituting one absurdity for another is in no way cause to make fun of the other absurdity. We may disagree on the mechanics of evolution_and_homosexuality, and of course I think the fact that it hasn't bread itself out of the gene pool is support for it being just a choice based around a predisposition for something in particular (it may not even be about sex either). But in the end, doing what they are doing as the GP applied isn't really any way to stop what they are doing.
Ok, first, before you start making claims of ignorance, you can reread my post and see exactly where I said natural within the scope of biological evolution- darwinism, not nature in general. Your entire point about homosexual animals in nature points to your complete lack of reading comprehension and you own ignorance.
For any species to survive, they need to reproduce. According to natural selection, the strongest traits that give the most advantage survive. It is not natural in this sense, that a portion of the gene pool would intentionally commit suicide.
And yes, from an evolutionary standpoint, couples who cannot have kids are having sex naturally if they know the act will not produce offspring. But they do not lose any rights just as homosexuals do no lose any rights. They from an evolutionary standpoint, simply aren't going to forward their genes to the next generation.
I made a specific comment about a specific situation only to show how absurd the parent's specific comment about a specific situation was and here you and half of slashdot are ignoring the entire thing to jump to whatever you want it to mean.
Did you miss the part about this pertaining to evolution? Yes, organisms hit the kill switch all the time and go extinct in nature. But it's not natural to want to do so when you know it will happen.
agreed.. so it made just as much sense as the parent's idiotic statement.. Hence the "Yea.. something still doesn't sound quite right".
Lol..
so your saying that if something commits genetic suicide in the wild, it's still natural according to evolution?
BTW, you should probably reread what I said. Does "But from a purely biological evolution standpoint, Darwin needed but not God," make it appear that I was intentionally limiting my comment to the specifics of evolution and survival of the fittest and not nature in general?
Because not only does that appear to be the case from the wording alone, it was also the entire point and intent of placing those specific words into that one line of thought.
lol.. well, as far as we have imagined to know anyways.
Your right, a mob doesn't need to have a head. I never said they did. But they do need to be rallied to a common enough cause at a common enough time, and that's were organization turns 200 people carrying signs from rowdy in a crowd to a 2000 people and growing protest trying to overturn the government. At some point, the concept will grow on it's own depending on if there is any merit to the cause or not (as the people see it).
As for the centers where people go, so can the government agents, so can the people wanting the status quo, There will be people more vocal then others who can be arrested, there can be efforts put in place more easily to disrupt protests and so on. And most likely, outsiders encouraging the protests can be caught and taken out of the mix. With the internet, the ability to do a lot of this is lost. With the internet, outsiders can provoke the population all day long and there is nothing you can do about it outside of taking the internet down.
I was reading a lot of the forums and tweets of the last protest coups.. There is a lot of stuff said that was almost identical in both by people who had strikingly similar names or monikers. If you think the protests were just the citizens of a country getting mad, you are sorely mistaken. There was a lot of outside influence in them. It may have been just the citizens in the end, but it definitely wasn't in the beginning.
It's not a matter of what they say, it's where they say it at. And within that, the right to petition your government is completely within play.
for instance, you cannot enter my home and preach about my fish tank needing cleaned without my permission. You can however, stand on the court house steps and preach about needing to clean your fish tank. Now we have noise ordinances and laws about holding events and such. and that's a sovereign right of almost any political subdivision in any state.
Phelps has a case in front of the supreme court right now that deals with this specifically. The WBC is claiming that by serving as a soldier in a war, those fallen soldiers have placed themselves into the public spectrum. the counter argument is that these are private people and their disruption of a private event is not only criminal but tortuous and they own them money. Now most areas have more strict laws concerning the dead and most civil laws pertaining to them are construe liberally (in a literal sense) in favor of the grieving person(s).
If it's about a private event, the WBC is screwed and not allowed to disrupt it. If it's a public event, then there is a lot more they can get away with. But by all means, your right to free speech does not carry a right to be heard or a right to a place to be heard at. Except at public (read civil, not I can see you) event and places.
You don't know the sky wizard is fictional. On what proof do you base that on? Nothing scientific is it?
Well, miracles are a little more then coincidence. Generally, there has to be a high improbability for the thing that happened to not have happened at all in order to be claimed to be a miracle.
I'm not sure saying well viruses and bot nets exist would be enough to make the claim your computer was suffering from that when it participated in an illegal activity.
chances are, when they are named in a lawsuit, an order to clone the hard drive will come with it and they will likely look for the ddos software and ignore the virus or trojan or whatever put it there.
You are likely going to have to show your computer was controlled outside of your awareness and that you took steps to prevent that which failed in some way.