I have a serious problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, so the state should stay out of it.
Only if you live in some sort of theocracy.
Here in the UK (for instance), you can marry without setting foot in a church or saying the word god. Marriage is a state approved contract giving specific legal rights, which is why gay people also need to be able to marry.
Because this is so obviously the case, non-religious people have a hard time believing that opponents of gay marriage are anything other than backdoor homophobes.
Personally I can see merit in both sides and I bet if you give each argument and fair chance you would too. And that's why the issue is such a difficult one. It's only through setting up absurd strawman arguments that you can really dismiss the whole debate.
Utter bullshit. Not every question is finely balanced between two equally plausible alternatives.
This comes down to whether you (a) believe religious freedom should be absolute and trump any other consideration, and (b) believe that any government interference whatsoever in your life is wrong. These two extreme views are the only justificaiton for allowing businesses to discriminate against gays.
You are free to believe both of these things, in the same way that you are free to believe in neo-nazism or paedophilia: you should expect a lot of people to vehemently disagree with you.
As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.
Families, communities and companies are all part of society. You can't ringfence one element and say it has nothing to do with the rest.
Well, you can if you're of the Ayn Rand school, of course, but I'm talking about non-psychopathic views of the world.
there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened.
This is the classic right wing false equivalence argument, like saying that you once saw a black guy being offensive to a white guy, so there's just as much anti-white as anti-black racism.
I think he means the way Ars is basically tumblr these days. And yeah, there is a huge contingent both in the userbase and the people running it that promotes social justice ideals at the cost of anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity.
I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses "social justice" or SJW as an insult.
ps. the cure for Islam is not censorship, it is telling the truth. And the truth is that Islam is man-made and invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik *after* the time Mohammed was said to have died. If you defeat the Narrative of Islamic ideology then the whole thing falls apart, including the motivation for the current worldwide jihad and the transformation of Western culture to be more Sharia-compliant
All religions are man-made inventions, with an ethical and theological system built on sand.
And you don't seem to like Free Speech and are intolerant of Diversity of Opinion. How sad it is that you are so narrow minded you cannot accept that others may have different worldviews than merely following the herd-like Leftist ideology.
You reactionaires are hilariously consistent in pulling out the "freedom of speech" card every time someone criticises one of your obnoxious right wing opinions.
You are free to say what you like, and I am free to criticise what you say. Being open minded doesn't mean not having an opinion on anything.
It reminds me of the unabomber who had top career choice of a math professor at Berkeley but threw away that job to move into the backcountry to build mail bombs.
I read recently that he was one of the subjects of the CIA's MK Ultra mind-altering experiments. He suffered some sort of psychotic breakdown, rather than simply throwing away his job.
We have self driving cars, it wouldn't be hard to make planes with computers that loon balls can't crash. We just haven't bothered yet.
We have cars that can drive along a highway on a clear day without requiring human involvement. Planes have autopilot. In neither case are we close to having a human-equivalent artificial intelligence in control.
I might agree with you, if mental-health diagnoses had any predictive power. But suicides are pretty much impossible to predict.
That is simply not true. Doctors can certainly tell if someone is at high risk of suicide. Just because you can't predict something with 100% accuracy doesn't mean you can't say that there is a strong probability of it happening.
Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".
What has the state got to do with it? Airlines are private commercial entities with a duty of care towards their passengers. They are also responsible to their shareholders for minimising their liability for huge damages.
The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.
Airline pilots are largely convinced of their own superiority to begin with.
Hell, I suspect the C-level of executives in most large corporations gets you your "narcissistic areshole" out of the gate. All the ones I've ever met certainly are.
People kill themselves because they're depressed, not because they're narcissistic arseholes, so I don't see what your point is.
And there were rules about not eating the same dish at meals beforehand for the same reason - don't want all 3 cabin staff to have food poisoning from the same bad shellfish in the paella.
Glad to see that Airplane! had a beneficial effect on air safety rules.
I'm not sure a terrorist who had control of a plane and didn't mind killing themselves would just dive into a mountain. Why not turn round and crash into the airport? Surely you'd be bound to cause more death, destruction and disruption?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a serious problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, so the state should stay out of it.
Only if you live in some sort of theocracy.
Here in the UK (for instance), you can marry without setting foot in a church or saying the word god. Marriage is a state approved contract giving specific legal rights, which is why gay people also need to be able to marry.
Because this is so obviously the case, non-religious people have a hard time believing that opponents of gay marriage are anything other than backdoor homophobes.
Personally I can see merit in both sides and I bet if you give each argument and fair chance you would too. And that's why the issue is such a difficult one. It's only through setting up absurd strawman arguments that you can really dismiss the whole debate.
Utter bullshit. Not every question is finely balanced between two equally plausible alternatives.
This comes down to whether you (a) believe religious freedom should be absolute and trump any other consideration, and (b) believe that any government interference whatsoever in your life is wrong. These two extreme views are the only justificaiton for allowing businesses to discriminate against gays.
You are free to believe both of these things, in the same way that you are free to believe in neo-nazism or paedophilia: you should expect a lot of people to vehemently disagree with you.
does the using this word qualify for Godwin's law?
No, it just makes you sound like a stupid fucking arsebiscuit.
As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.
Families, communities and companies are all part of society. You can't ringfence one element and say it has nothing to do with the rest.
Well, you can if you're of the Ayn Rand school, of course, but I'm talking about non-psychopathic views of the world.
there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened.
This is the classic right wing false equivalence argument, like saying that you once saw a black guy being offensive to a white guy, so there's just as much anti-white as anti-black racism.
calling someone an "extreme capitalist" is not an insult
That's what an extreme capitalist would say.
I think he means the way Ars is basically tumblr these days. And yeah, there is a huge contingent both in the userbase and the people running it that promotes social justice ideals at the cost of anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity.
I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses "social justice" or SJW as an insult.
Standing out is what you want in business every time.
So you go to meetings dressed in just crotchless lace panties, a rubber basque and a swastika headband?
ps. the cure for Islam is not censorship, it is telling the truth. And the truth is that Islam is man-made and invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik *after* the time Mohammed was said to have died. If you defeat the Narrative of Islamic ideology then the whole thing falls apart, including the motivation for the current worldwide jihad and the transformation of Western culture to be more Sharia-compliant
All religions are man-made inventions, with an ethical and theological system built on sand.
Except your own, of course.
I've been here a while too. Long enough to remember when /. was so reflexively liberal and dogmatic that only one voice on any topic was ever heard.
You must only ever have visited when all the US readers were asleep then.
Tech is filled with manginas and blue pilled guys.
And men with the emotional, social and verbal sophistication of a twelve year old boy who's just had his first beer.
And you don't seem to like Free Speech and are intolerant of Diversity of Opinion. How sad it is that you are so narrow minded you cannot accept that others may have different worldviews than merely following the herd-like Leftist ideology.
You reactionaires are hilariously consistent in pulling out the "freedom of speech" card every time someone criticises one of your obnoxious right wing opinions.
You are free to say what you like, and I am free to criticise what you say. Being open minded doesn't mean not having an opinion on anything.
It reminds me of the unabomber who had top career choice of a math professor at Berkeley but threw away that job to move into the backcountry to build mail bombs.
I read recently that he was one of the subjects of the CIA's MK Ultra mind-altering experiments. He suffered some sort of psychotic breakdown, rather than simply throwing away his job.
We have self driving cars, it wouldn't be hard to make planes with computers that loon balls can't crash. We just haven't bothered yet.
We have cars that can drive along a highway on a clear day without requiring human involvement. Planes have autopilot. In neither case are we close to having a human-equivalent artificial intelligence in control.
Putting a second guy in a room with you absolutely makes you more aware of your legal and moral consequences.
I'm not convinced that someone who is at the stage where they are prepared to kill 150 people is really interested in legality or morality.
Hiding a passenger jet would be an impressive achievement. You'd need state support, and even then it would be risky.
And perhaps more importantly, what would be the point? Gaining possession of a commercial airliner is not like hijacking a B52 loaded with nukes.
If (say) Al Qaeda had the plane, they won't be able to just aim it at another high profile target and assume no one will notice.
And countries like Russia must have plenty of their own passenger jets.
approximately 1/3rd of people are suffering from mental illness (typically depression) at any point in time
That can only be true if you define depression as "feeling a bit low".
I might agree with you, if mental-health diagnoses had any predictive power. But suicides are pretty much impossible to predict.
That is simply not true. Doctors can certainly tell if someone is at high risk of suicide. Just because you can't predict something with 100% accuracy doesn't mean you can't say that there is a strong probability of it happening.
Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".
What has the state got to do with it? Airlines are private commercial entities with a duty of care towards their passengers. They are also responsible to their shareholders for minimising their liability for huge damages.
Know many pilots?
The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.
Airline pilots are largely convinced of their own superiority to begin with.
Hell, I suspect the C-level of executives in most large corporations gets you your "narcissistic areshole" out of the gate. All the ones I've ever met certainly are.
People kill themselves because they're depressed, not because they're narcissistic arseholes, so I don't see what your point is.
And there were rules about not eating the same dish at meals beforehand for the same reason - don't want all 3 cabin staff to have food poisoning from the same bad shellfish in the paella.
Glad to see that Airplane! had a beneficial effect on air safety rules.
They also hate calling something a "terrorist attack" if there isn't a pre-announced political message for the reasons behind the attack.
Well isn't that pretty much the definition of terrorism?
There was no warning from Al Qaeda before 9/11, that doesn't stop it being terrorism.
my first guess is that he's an ISIS sympathizer
I'm not sure a terrorist who had control of a plane and didn't mind killing themselves would just dive into a mountain. Why not turn round and crash into the airport? Surely you'd be bound to cause more death, destruction and disruption?
Real cosmetics.
Sounds like an expensive way of getting drunk to me.
Fry's and Costco nazi's can go fuck themselves.
Yeah, fight the fucking power bro.