And by advice, I of course refer to the implied "you should stop holding this ideal" which I think is the background message. I guess if you were intending to convey "You should stop following the bible altogether", then your advice would, in fact lead to consistency. Stupid communication, so hard to correctly interpret tone.
No, if he irrationally discriminated against gay people, i.e. if the belief affected his behaviour to the point that it became illogical and inconsistent, he would be a bigot. Lowering one's esteem for someone due to a sin is hardly either, as his esteem for you will probably drop the same amount for any other sin you might commit. It's asking him to lighten up on one particular sin which would make his actions illogical an unbalanced with regards to sexuality, i.e. if he followed your advice, THEN he would be a bigot.
Yeah, Earthsea was funny. How you can take 700 pages on the importance of true names and then screw up the true names of the characters.... yeah, i really don't wanna know.
Mistreating gays physically is inhumane. Not knowing what homosexuality is is ignorant. Fearing gays is homophobic. And uniting on any issue, especially an irrelevant hotbutton one like gay marriage, is Unamerican.
Hating gays fills none of these. If he wants to hate gays, jews, martians, white people, nazis, words starting with the letter "I" he's perfectly free to, and in fact, more power to him. I'm all for promoting free speech. He just can't act on his hatred unless his target is white people or nazis (sorry, couldn't resist).
On a side note, i'm not sure your equating of hate and disapproval is entirely correct, either. My parents disapprove of me, but I'm pretty sure they don't hate me.
Dude, speaking against gay marriage is not the same thing as funding persecution of gays. If speech was the same as action, slashdot would have been shut down a long time ago when 90% of its members were jailed for treason in various countries.
All you're funding by buying Cards works is free speech (oh, and his food and stuff, but i won't begrudge him that). If nothing else, every movement needs opposing voices to find any holes in a system before it's passed into law.
I probably won't see the movie, but that's because i share your premonition that it's going to suck, not because of any politics.
Eh, the only reason we don't see "bullets that don't kill" is that we can't make bullets smart enough to only target animals or people with violent intent toward the shooter (the things you're legally allowed to kill). Plus, then militaries would function on an entirely different kind of equipment than the rest of us, and the corresponding explosion of black-market firearms would rewuire too many resources to deal with.
But yeah, if not for these obvious problems, anti-gun nuts would be trying to make gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of those misusing their products. They came a bit closer with the ridiculous trigger-lock law.
I mean, it's a tax imposed as a result of death, is it not? Though the objection to it is that it taxes things that have already been taxed, so maybe "double tax" or "ridiculous tax" would be more appropriate...
Yeah, nice to have news that actually separates commentary from information, and has biases out of sync with american media by a few months to a year. Makes finding the actual information easier.
Nah, its not quite bribing. You throw money and support at people that already agree with you, generally.
In either case, the people that sell the most stuff = the winners, and they sell things for the most part by appealing to the consumer, not by forcing the consumer to buy their stuff. That's what makes it capitalism. There are some control elements, of course, that's what governments do, but the capitalist aspect seems to dominate these days.
So the claim is "businesses shouldn't use linux because it's subject to having a bajillion versions and so you won't get crap for support", and your response is "why would we want to make things easier for the companies using the OS?".... ok, guess I'm sticking with windows if I ever go into private practice.
Um, if you're under the impression that risk-takers generally win, you need to take some time to seriously reevaluate your concept of "risk". I mean, if your success is pretty much certain, it's not that risky, now, is it?
Actually, I avoid fat-free food because I'm afraid of what might have been added to replace the fat. It's just like that sugar-free nonsense: it's all very healthy until a few thousand lab rats get cancer off the substitutes. I'll stick with the oils and amino acids several million years of evolution have crafted my body to handle, thanks.
Wind and solar power are inconstant (and solar is nowhere near cost-effective yet). Hydro and tidal are probably the only source of power more destructive to the environment than fossil fuels, plus they destroy ocean and river environments, which are food sources for us (I like having food, don't you?). Nuclear is by far the least destructive and most efficient process of power generation in existence, though it has some waste disposal issues (resulting from human politics, not actual technical difficulties... go figure). I guess there's still bio-diesel, but I don't know much about that, so can't comment there.
Basically what I'm saying is that the grandparent's statement (what was actually written, rather than what you apparrently read) is pretty much correct, especially in light of the examples parent sets forth. Go go gadget nuclear power!
So you're saying that he should express uncertainty about something he's certain about? Oh, yeah, that would really make him more honest. Besides, you do the same thing he does in your own post. If you really lived by the philosophy you push here, you'd be saying "that which I believe can never be known by human beings," rather than just flat out asserting things.
Just a little counterflaming to remind you guys that anti-religion has become just as ridiculously dogmatic as religion. (Bwahahaha)
America has other brands of chocolate, you know. Girardelli (however you spell that) comes to mind, i believe they have a production facility in San Francisco.
You don't agree with me? Well, obviously, you're a blind fool accepting the loss of/attempting to destroy our right to free pizza, linux, and killing the people I don't like. America is the home of the free! The government is just trying to confuse you with labels into giving up your freedom of choice! That's why you should follow my course of action, which is inalienably right, instead of following your own inclinations! Life to the revolition!
Seriously, guys, can we at least cut down the pot complaining about the hue of the kettle posts to below 50% once or twice? I'll support who I want, for my own reasons, and if you don't like it you can just stuff it. Or maybe gather the five people who agree with you and march on washington, i don't care. But quit with the mewling cries for attention through political extremism; it just isn't entertaining anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone whining about other people pushing their beliefs, you sure are one dogmatically judgemental fellow. Just an observation.
And by advice, I of course refer to the implied "you should stop holding this ideal" which I think is the background message. I guess if you were intending to convey "You should stop following the bible altogether", then your advice would, in fact lead to consistency. Stupid communication, so hard to correctly interpret tone.
No, if he irrationally discriminated against gay people, i.e. if the belief affected his behaviour to the point that it became illogical and inconsistent, he would be a bigot. Lowering one's esteem for someone due to a sin is hardly either, as his esteem for you will probably drop the same amount for any other sin you might commit. It's asking him to lighten up on one particular sin which would make his actions illogical an unbalanced with regards to sexuality, i.e. if he followed your advice, THEN he would be a bigot.
Yeah, Earthsea was funny. How you can take 700 pages on the importance of true names and then screw up the true names of the characters.... yeah, i really don't wanna know.
Uh, no.
Mistreating gays physically is inhumane.
Not knowing what homosexuality is is ignorant.
Fearing gays is homophobic.
And uniting on any issue, especially an irrelevant hotbutton one like gay marriage, is Unamerican.
Hating gays fills none of these. If he wants to hate gays, jews, martians, white people, nazis, words starting with the letter "I" he's perfectly free to, and in fact, more power to him. I'm all for promoting free speech. He just can't act on his hatred unless his target is white people or nazis (sorry, couldn't resist).
On a side note, i'm not sure your equating of hate and disapproval is entirely correct, either. My parents disapprove of me, but I'm pretty sure they don't hate me.
Dude, speaking against gay marriage is not the same thing as funding persecution of gays. If speech was the same as action, slashdot would have been shut down a long time ago when 90% of its members were jailed for treason in various countries.
All you're funding by buying Cards works is free speech (oh, and his food and stuff, but i won't begrudge him that). If nothing else, every movement needs opposing voices to find any holes in a system before it's passed into law.
I probably won't see the movie, but that's because i share your premonition that it's going to suck, not because of any politics.
Eh, the only reason we don't see "bullets that don't kill" is that we can't make bullets smart enough to only target animals or people with violent intent toward the shooter (the things you're legally allowed to kill). Plus, then militaries would function on an entirely different kind of equipment than the rest of us, and the corresponding explosion of black-market firearms would rewuire too many resources to deal with.
But yeah, if not for these obvious problems, anti-gun nuts would be trying to make gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of those misusing their products. They came a bit closer with the ridiculous trigger-lock law.
I mean, it's a tax imposed as a result of death, is it not? Though the objection to it is that it taxes things that have already been taxed, so maybe "double tax" or "ridiculous tax" would be more appropriate...
Wait, I'm off topic, never mind.
Yeah, nice to have news that actually separates commentary from information, and has biases out of sync with american media by a few months to a year. Makes finding the actual information easier.
99.9999% of dupes left out for brevity.
Aye, it's almost like they're actual engineers (read: lazy, and damned good at being lazy). I wasn't aware that the software industry had those.
Nah, its not quite bribing. You throw money and support at people that already agree with you, generally.
In either case, the people that sell the most stuff = the winners, and they sell things for the most part by appealing to the consumer, not by forcing the consumer to buy their stuff. That's what makes it capitalism. There are some control elements, of course, that's what governments do, but the capitalist aspect seems to dominate these days.
So the claim is "businesses shouldn't use linux because it's subject to having a bajillion versions and so you won't get crap for support", and your response is "why would we want to make things easier for the companies using the OS?".... ok, guess I'm sticking with windows if I ever go into private practice.
Um, if you're under the impression that risk-takers generally win, you need to take some time to seriously reevaluate your concept of "risk". I mean, if your success is pretty much certain, it's not that risky, now, is it?
Actually, I avoid fat-free food because I'm afraid of what might have been added to replace the fat. It's just like that sugar-free nonsense: it's all very healthy until a few thousand lab rats get cancer off the substitutes. I'll stick with the oils and amino acids several million years of evolution have crafted my body to handle, thanks.
aluminum ions in water can be nasty, i hear.
Which they won't be.
He specified "good" alternatives.
Wind and solar power are inconstant (and solar is nowhere near cost-effective yet). Hydro and tidal are probably the only source of power more destructive to the environment than fossil fuels, plus they destroy ocean and river environments, which are food sources for us (I like having food, don't you?). Nuclear is by far the least destructive and most efficient process of power generation in existence, though it has some waste disposal issues (resulting from human politics, not actual technical difficulties... go figure). I guess there's still bio-diesel, but I don't know much about that, so can't comment there.
Basically what I'm saying is that the grandparent's statement (what was actually written, rather than what you apparrently read) is pretty much correct, especially in light of the examples parent sets forth. Go go gadget nuclear power!
I feel much better about my intelligence after watching a bunch of other commenters completely miss the joke.
So you're saying that he should express uncertainty about something he's certain about? Oh, yeah, that would really make him more honest. Besides, you do the same thing he does in your own post. If you really lived by the philosophy you push here, you'd be saying "that which I believe can never be known by human beings," rather than just flat out asserting things.
Just a little counterflaming to remind you guys that anti-religion has become just as ridiculously dogmatic as religion. (Bwahahaha)
Uh.... if he's supposed to be doing a research paper on anything besides porn, I'd have to go with the being distracted by porn being bad, yeah.
Yeah, I'd say that Greece was the first nation to screw up democracy. I believe Sumer was the first to screw up a legal system, though. :P
America has other brands of chocolate, you know. Girardelli (however you spell that) comes to mind, i believe they have a production facility in San Francisco.
Ye gods! It's the chocolate version of a Mac user!
This is what pisses me off about slashdot.
You don't agree with me? Well, obviously, you're a blind fool accepting the loss of/attempting to destroy our right to free pizza, linux, and killing the people I don't like. America is the home of the free! The government is just trying to confuse you with labels into giving up your freedom of choice! That's why you should follow my course of action, which is inalienably right, instead of following your own inclinations! Life to the revolition!
Seriously, guys, can we at least cut down the pot complaining about the hue of the kettle posts to below 50% once or twice? I'll support who I want, for my own reasons, and if you don't like it you can just stuff it. Or maybe gather the five people who agree with you and march on washington, i don't care. But quit with the mewling cries for attention through political extremism; it just isn't entertaining anymore.
Thanks.