I figured out as a kid back in the 1980s that outlawing sodomy was stupid and unfair. But it is also unfair to tell someone that if they are going to hire someone to watch their adolescent boys out in the woods that they can't take that person's sexual preferences into account.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, shown up the problem with "freedom".
Your freedom to decide that a gay man is potentially a predatory paedophile and therefore can't be a Scout leader directly affects his freedom . It stops him from pursuing his interest in helping young people. If you extend it to teaching (which you could if there was no law against it) it would potentially stop him from earning a living at the thing he does best.
If you can't see the difference between "convicted paedophile who shouldn't be left alone near children" and "gay man I disapprove of" you're being obtuse.
I have no right to decide that a gay man can't be a scout leader. I do have a right to decide that he can't be a scout leader for my kids. And if I run a scoiuting organization I have a right to decide whether he will be a scout leader for that organization. But I don't have the right to decide whether he will be a leader for someone else unless of course that person has entrusted with that decision making (e.g. by electting me leader of their organization).
It is very simple. Your freedom to tango is restricted only by your ability to find a willing partner. This is necessary because potential partners have a right to choose not to tango. And if they choose to tango, they have as much right to choose their partner as you do.
It's OK for a company to hire a less qualified white applicant over a black applicant?
It's OK for a company to pay a female employee less than a male employee for the same work?
To quote Jefferson on another subject of freedom, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The money I might not get paid wasn't mine to begin with, and it still isn't mine. I'm not physically hurt either.
Besides, I don't want to work for a company that wants to hire less qualified candidates nor do I want to work for a company that pays other people more money for the same work. I'll go work for someone else whose company acts more rationally. Why would you want to work for someone that doesn't want to hire you?
I'm not saying racism is "OK" in a moral sense. It is wrong and immoral. But so are a lot of other things that are perfectly legal and should remain so.
If you're having a backyard barbeque where you're giving away beer to some people, and I walk by and ask for a beer, should I have a legal recourse if you refuse to give me beer?
McDonald's should be free to choose who they will and will not serve (although the requirement to give free water should still apply regardless of race).
An airline should be free to refuse carry black passengers.
A private hospital may be a necessity so they should be required to serve anyone up to the point they are required to do so when people can't afford to pay.
A real estate developmer should be free to refuse to sell his houses to any black family/
etc.
And I think you should, when handing out free beer in your backyard, have the right to decide who you do and do not hand the beer to.
And if there is money involved when you decide to play poker, you should be free to decide who you will and will not play poker with.
And when a woman indicates a willingness to have sex, either by previous sexual activity or by provocative behavior, she should still have the right to decide who she will and will not have sex with.
I do think it would make sense to require restaurants, hotels, etc. that may want to discriminate to clearly say so - a truth in labeling sort of thing. You can't advertise something and then not provide it. Someone advertising hotel services creates a reasonable expectation that a black family can stay there. If they wish to retain the right to refuse service to black people then they should be required to say so prominantly and clearly so that black people won't have their time wasted trying to get a room at a place that won't give them a room. (It would also make boycotting such places easier for other people).
Again, you shouldn't be able to go running to a lawyer every time someone refuses to do what you want them to.
Refusing to rent an apartment to someone you disapprove of does not prevent that person from renting an apartment unless the landlord has a monopoly (and if he does then anti-trust laws and regulations can kick in and we discuss that situation).
It does if every landlord around you shares your beliefs as well. If landlords could do that, no black person would ever be able to rent a nice apartment in Mobile.
I disagree. First, the culture isn't that racist anymore. Second, when it was that racist it had the government promoting racism. Third, there is money to be made renting nice apartments to people that no one else will rent to.
However, your point about the young lady is well taken, and I should clarify that personal relationships are legally very different from business relationships. IANAL.
So if you're choosing someone to work beside you day in and day out, to share your dreams and aspirations as you build your business, to trust with all your hard work and to share your success or failure 10 hours a day 6 days a week - its not personal so the government gets to decide.
But if it is just a 15 minute fling then the government has to stay out? Don't your values seem a little illogical? And who gives you the right to impose your values on everyone else???
But I believe that when money changes hands (or is proposed to change hands) between the two parties, it fundamentally alters the legal framework regarding turning someone down. Perhaps someone legally trained could clear that up. In addition, you may have found an interesting legal hurdle regarding the perennial proposals to legalize prostitution.
You're likely right about the law as it is written, but the law as it is written sucks. People should have freedom running their own business and not just when the government decides to give it to them.
I think that's very racist. And very wrong. And very immoral. And evil. And I would try to avoid patronizing any establishments that so discriminated.
But "wrong" and "illegal" are not and should not be synonyms.
The economy wouldn't support the situation you describe. There would be people opening hotels to serve people who otherwise couldn't find a place. There would be money in it after all. And I strongly suspect the segregation that occurred in the American south would not be readily repeated unless it had government support like it had before. We've never had a time in our country the government didn't force racism. I think we should try allowing people to choose not to be racist.
We're not talking about the society around them, we're talking about the landlord's property that the landlord paid for with his own hard work. He bought it, he paid for it, it's his to do with as he likes whether he wants to share with everyone, no one, or just some people that he selects based on his own criteria be it logical or stupid.
The landlord does not "deny their rights" unless there is some right for anyone to go use anyone else's property without their permission.
Does (x) have a detrimental effect on the surrounding society? No. Refusing to rent an apartment to someone you disapprove of does not prevent that person from renting an apartment unless the landlord has a monopoly (and if he does then anti-trust laws and regulations can kick in and we discuss that situation).
I will say that as a slashdotter I find your theory has some value. Let's see, I want to have sex with a young lady I met. Will my having sex with her have a detrimental effect on surrounding society? Is she willing to have sex? Well, if she's willing to have sex and my having sex with her won't have a detrimental effect on surrounding society, then I don't think she should have a right to refuse me just because she doesn't like the way I look, or just because she doesn't like that I don't have a lot of money, or just because she doesn't like that I don't buy her expensive gifts. These traits don't have a detrimental effect on surrounding society, and that, after all, is the the debate we should be having. This nonsense about the freedom to do what with our own body and your own stuff is a just an attempt to hide bigotry.
So long as the bigot doesn't reach out and grab the object of his bigotry, then yes his intolerance should be tolerated. The bigot mustn't be allowed to force an unpleasant interaction, but neither should the person the bigot dislikes. Both should have the right to be left-alone by those with whom they disagree.
Allowing (x) to happen does several things:
1. Signals social approval of (x)
That is, unfortunately, a fundamental fallacy that our society has embraced.
"moral" and "legal" are not synonyms and should not be treated as synonyms. They are separate concepts. Something may be moral and legal, moral and illegal, immoral and legal, or immoral and illegal. If more people understood that the culture war wouldn't be so bloody and we would have a much freer society.
The problem of "imposing homosexuality" comes when people lose their right to disapprove of it and to show that disapproval by refusing to extend the same benefits to people whose behavior they disapprove of as they do to people whose behavior they find acceptable.
Think hiring and firing, subletting an apartment, selecting members and leaders of your organization,
I figured out as a kid back in the 1980s that outlawing sodomy was stupid and unfair. But it is also unfair to tell someone that if they are going to hire someone to watch their adolescent boys out in the woods that they can't take that person's sexual preferences into account. It is even wrong to tell someone who is renting out an apartment what criteria they may or may not use in selecting a renter.
A few months ago a lot of people were boycotting Chic-fil-a because it had donated some money to a campaign that indicated a displeasure with homosexuality. That is fine, let anyone who wants to boycott any organization whose behavior they find immoral. But by that same token Chic-fil-a, or any organization or person that finds homosexuality immoral, should have the right to boycott homosexuals. It should take two to tango. If either person chooses not to tango, then there should be no tango. One person should not be allowed to force the other.
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert
I feel your pain on this. I think a business owner ought to be able to hire and fire based on whatever stupid reasons she wants without the government dictating those reasons, But of course you can't oppose the government interference without being called a racist.
I think the owner of an apartment building or a hotel ought be allowed to decide who she is willing to rent her rooms to but I can't really opposed laws restriction such freedoms without being labelled a homophobe.
I think a anyone ought to be able to decide for themselves whether or not their religious beliefs allow them to financially support procedures like a and vasectomy, but of course to support that right gets me labeled "anti-woman".
The difficult thing about freedom is that is must always include the freedom to engage in behaviors that cannot be rationally defended and behaviors that society might not approve of. So a consistent defense of freedom must always lead to a defense of behaviors that, on their own, are indefensible but that must be defended for the sake of the greater good.
Not to disagree with you, nor even to suggest that you're a Democrat, but has anyone else noticed that sexual freedom seems to be the only kind of freedom Democrats still believe in?
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert, this is why lawmakers love to bundle their censorship laws with provisions like these.
Outlaw and block child porn. No one in their right mind can find fault in that.
Protect the children, implements blocks to do that.
Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right?
Outlaw porn altogether.
Outlaw writings about porn.
Outlaw religious satire
Outlaw religious criticism
Outlaw criticism
Outlaw free speech.
All of these have been seen before in various countries, It is a slope lawmakers won't admit, but it is invariably the end result.
This is one of the benefits of having a written constitution: There is a clear bright line where the censorship stops:
Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right?
Outlaw porn altogether.
Outlaw writings about porn.
Outlaw religious satire
Outlaw religious criticism
Outlaw criticism
Outlaw free speech.
America's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press - both of which are word media, the significance of which is that word media is necessary to communicate ideas and rational thinking.
The founders knew about porn - how many naughty sculptures and paintings did they have? And how many colonies had rules about them? Yet when they listed what was protected, they stuck to words.
Porn movies and pictures aren't words. If you want to argue they should be legal, you can write about them and describe them - that's protected. But if you want make dirty movies then the local society has some say in what may be done based on their standards of decency.
But of course the benefits of a written constitution can be undone by the arrogance of a supreme court determined to supplant the Constitution and consensual government with the jurists own ideas and values - which is why it has somehow become the case that porn is largely protected "speech" while political speech is regulated - turning the constitution on its head.
President Chen's life sentence could be taken as a sign that corruption is being addressed were it not for the overtly politcal nature of the prosecution. Whether or not he is guilty, it appears that the prosecution was as least as much aimed at discrediting the DPP and intimidating its supporters as it was aimed at actual corruption.
I don't know how S. Korea is doing in terms of corruption, but from what I can see only two cultures in history - Japanese and British/Northern European - have been able to develop a cultural intolerance of corruption on their own. Taiwan provides a good example of how it can be imposed from outside and then destroyed from outside. Under the Japanese (1895 to 1945) Taiwan developed a culture of very little corruption as the Japanese imposed and largely followed the rule of law (Japan's behavior in Taiwan was very different than in the rest of Asia). When the Chinese re-colonized Taiwan they acted like a mafia taking over a new territory, forcing people to engage in corruption or lose their livelihoods (or even their lives), and the culture of corruption returned to Taiwan where it remains hard to eradicate.
The histories Taiwan and China (including HK) suggest that corruption is heavily dependent on culture, but can be changed by an occupying power.
If you look at the map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption you see that there is very little corruption in Japan and in places heavily influenced by English and northern European culture.
China, on the other hand has a long history of corruption.
Taiwan was colonized by Japan in 1895. By WWII Taiwan had very little corruption (Japan didn't destroy Taiwan the way it did other countries). But when the Chinese re-colonized Taiwan corruption was re-introduced. Taiwanese who tried to refused to participate in the corruption found their livelihoods destroyed. Japan as an outside occupying power was able to mostly eliminate corruption, and China as an outside occupying power was able to make it once again part of the culture.
HK did a lot to end corruption, but they did it while occupied by the British, not while being controlled by China. Again we see a foreign power being necessary to end corruption in a society heavily influenced by Chinese culture.
But in mainland China, where no foreign power ever gained supremacy over day-to-day operations, corruption has stubbornly remained.
Despite Taiwan's attempt at Democracy, corruption is still a large problem there. Whether or not former President Chen is guilty, the irregularities of his prosecution, and wide net used to intimidate DPP supporters suggests that his prosecution was as much political as it was aimed at corruption.
Very few societies have managed to remove corruption from themselves on their own. I'm not sure anyone knows how they did it or how long it took.
Stealing is wrong because it deprives others of something. In this case he did not deprive anyone of anything, so there was no theft. He gained information, but he didn't deprive anyone else of that information. We do have copyright law so that people will be encouraged to produce information because they can sell that information. Gaining the information without paying for it thwarts the good purpose of the copyright and is therefore wrong. But if the people owning the copyright are not selling the information, then the copyright law has already failed. What then is the harm of copying the information? Copyright law was not created for the purpose of making information secret.
Just like everyone is required to learn some basic chemistry, physics, math and biology, everyone ought to learn how to do some simple programming. They don't need to be experts. They don't need to learn fancy algorithms, data structures, numerical analysis, or NP-Completeness, but anyone interested in STEM ought to be able to write fizzbuzz in at least one language such as pascal, C, or even the old fashioned BASIC.
That way, when someone has an idea for a wonderful app, they'll have some idea of whether it is likely to be possible and how difficult it would be to write (first decision-try to learn programming and write it myself, or should I hire professionals (and how many professionals)). If the decision is to hire programmers, the boss won't be completely in the dark about what needs to be done or completely clueless when the programmer is talking.
But even if you don't have a wonderful new app that you want to get rich on, you may just be doing or managing some work and wonder "could this task be automated"? Having a basic idea of what a program is will help you there.
When someone talks about how computers are used to track your activities, understanding what they can do is important.
Computers are a pretty important part of our lives these days. They are so central to our society that no one should be considered educated if they don't have a basic understand of what a computer program is or if they can't write a simple program. This is true just like it is true that everyone should understand things like the theory of evolution, the idea that physics is based on math, that everything is made of atoms containing electrons and protons, and that life is made of cells.
I don't mind it been presented as an american invention if it can help bring the US in the 20th century.
This is the 21st century. Like disco and Joanie Loves Chachi, metric is best left in the 20th century. It's time for the world to move forward and join America in using a proper measuring system.
That's another example of why I disagree on the "dumber and less capable" comment. Kids aren't dumber, they're just learning different things. As for the question of foreign policy - I'm not so concerned that they won't understand the intricacies of money and trading. If we compare banking and trade to gambling, I'm not concerned about whether they will understand gamblers working together to cheat the system, or that they won't understand the subtle probabilities presented by each hand, or that they won't understand that people will bluff and otherwise decieve. My concern is they will forget that a "Smith and Wesson beats four aces". Or just as dangerous, they may believe that they'll always be able to talk people into not bringing a Smith and Wesson to the game.
I disagree on the "dumber and less capable" part. They're capabilities are different. I think the schools do a better job of teaching the kids to be organized and to think abstractly. But when you say "never been in a fight" I think you hit on something that worries me.
These kids are going to vote. If the schools protect them too much from each other, they'll never understand what people are like. Kids today don't get out and play - they stay inside and play video games. The rules are enforced for them (they don't have to argue the rules with each other). They don't have to figure out who the quarterback is. And they don't have to worry about people who break the rules and try to bully others into accepting their rule breaking.
In short, they'll suck at foreign policy because they'll assume everyone is basically good and willing to follow the rules. Older voters already seem to include a lot of people who don't understand that foreign leaders typically have more in common with Al Capone than with Martin Luther King.
You're right about the generation that grew up while computers were growing up likely understand the internals much better (at least those who were at all interested). However kids today don't need to understand the internals to hack anymore. They just need to find the right hacking software.
I would say a simple password will work against the 4 yr old for at least the next 5 years. After that it's only partly a technical problem. It is also a question of how well your kids listen to you and what kinds of friends they're making.. Possibly in upper elementary school, probably by middle school, and certainly in high school, there will be kids who know how to get the software to crack their parents computers. Complain about your parents restrictions to the right person and they'll likely offer to get you a flash drive that will let them bypass the protections (and perhaps give you some viruses).
The kids have physical access to the computer. If they're well behaved kids who don't feel a strong need to bypass the rules you've set, then regular passwords should continue to work. But if they're the kind of kids who regularly go behind your back then I doubt there is much you can do.
Another question, if I may, when is the last time you needed to know how big a sheet of paper is when not working in a program that will tell you or a sheet and a ruler at hand? Would knowing the size to 3 millimeters have been precise enough on that occasion?
I frequently go at it the other way. I need to get an approximate measure of something but I don't have ruler or yardstick handy. I can grab a sheet of paper knowing that one side is 8.5 inches and the other is 11 inches.
Yeah experience shows that you have to make the old units illegal, otherwise people keep using them.
That sounds like as good a reason as any to avoid converting. The idea that the government micromanaging our lives to the point of telling us what measurements we can use makes me shudder.
We had a group that was concerned and willing to hit the streets to demonstrate. But they weren't a "torch bearing mob" they were responsible citizens. However they were largely conservative in their outlook - wanting a reduction in spending and a reduction in taxes - so they had to be stopped! The pen is mightier than the sword and lies are far more effective than fire-hoses, so the Tea Party was immediately mis-portrayed as a bunch of racists. Now the name has generally become toxic, only mentioned for the purpose discrediting them and the responsible government they stood for.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Slashdot Mirror
I figured out as a kid back in the 1980s that outlawing sodomy was stupid and unfair. But it is also unfair to tell someone that if they are going to hire someone to watch their adolescent boys out in the woods that they can't take that person's sexual preferences into account.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, shown up the problem with "freedom".
Your freedom to decide that a gay man is potentially a predatory paedophile and therefore can't be a Scout leader directly affects his freedom . It stops him from pursuing his interest in helping young people. If you extend it to teaching (which you could if there was no law against it) it would potentially stop him from earning a living at the thing he does best.
If you can't see the difference between "convicted paedophile who shouldn't be left alone near children" and "gay man I disapprove of" you're being obtuse.
I have no right to decide that a gay man can't be a scout leader. I do have a right to decide that he can't be a scout leader for my kids. And if I run a scoiuting organization I have a right to decide whether he will be a scout leader for that organization. But I don't have the right to decide whether he will be a leader for someone else unless of course that person has entrusted with that decision making (e.g. by electting me leader of their organization).
It is very simple. Your freedom to tango is restricted only by your ability to find a willing partner. This is necessary because potential partners have a right to choose not to tango. And if they choose to tango, they have as much right to choose their partner as you do.
To quote Jefferson on another subject of freedom, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Was he talking about slavery I wonder?
No. He was talking about a freedom
It's OK for a company to hire a less qualified white applicant over a black applicant?
It's OK for a company to pay a female employee less than a male employee for the same work?
To quote Jefferson on another subject of freedom, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The money I might not get paid wasn't mine to begin with, and it still isn't mine. I'm not physically hurt either.
Besides, I don't want to work for a company that wants to hire less qualified candidates nor do I want to work for a company that pays other people more money for the same work. I'll go work for someone else whose company acts more rationally. Why would you want to work for someone that doesn't want to hire you?
I'm not saying racism is "OK" in a moral sense. It is wrong and immoral. But so are a lot of other things that are perfectly legal and should remain so.
If you're having a backyard barbeque where you're giving away beer to some people, and I walk by and ask for a beer, should I have a legal recourse if you refuse to give me beer?
McDonald's should be free to choose who they will and will not serve (although the requirement to give free water should still apply regardless of race).
An airline should be free to refuse carry black passengers.
A private hospital may be a necessity so they should be required to serve anyone up to the point they are required to do so when people can't afford to pay.
A real estate developmer should be free to refuse to sell his houses to any black family/
etc.
And I think you should, when handing out free beer in your backyard, have the right to decide who you do and do not hand the beer to.
And if there is money involved when you decide to play poker, you should be free to decide who you will and will not play poker with.
And when a woman indicates a willingness to have sex, either by previous sexual activity or by provocative behavior, she should still have the right to decide who she will and will not have sex with.
I do think it would make sense to require restaurants, hotels, etc. that may want to discriminate to clearly say so - a truth in labeling sort of thing. You can't advertise something and then not provide it. Someone advertising hotel services creates a reasonable expectation that a black family can stay there. If they wish to retain the right to refuse service to black people then they should be required to say so prominantly and clearly so that black people won't have their time wasted trying to get a room at a place that won't give them a room. (It would also make boycotting such places easier for other people).
Again, you shouldn't be able to go running to a lawyer every time someone refuses to do what you want them to.
Refusing to rent an apartment to someone you disapprove of does not prevent that person from renting an apartment unless the landlord has a monopoly (and if he does then anti-trust laws and regulations can kick in and we discuss that situation).
It does if every landlord around you shares your beliefs as well. If landlords could do that, no black person would ever be able to rent a nice apartment in Mobile.
I disagree. First, the culture isn't that racist anymore. Second, when it was that racist it had the government promoting racism. Third, there is money to be made renting nice apartments to people that no one else will rent to.
However, your point about the young lady is well taken, and I should clarify that personal relationships are legally very different from business relationships. IANAL.
So if you're choosing someone to work beside you day in and day out, to share your dreams and aspirations as you build your business, to trust with all your hard work and to share your success or failure 10 hours a day 6 days a week - its not personal so the government gets to decide.
But if it is just a 15 minute fling then the government has to stay out? Don't your values seem a little illogical? And who gives you the right to impose your values on everyone else???
But I believe that when money changes hands (or is proposed to change hands) between the two parties, it fundamentally alters the legal framework regarding turning someone down. Perhaps someone legally trained could clear that up. In addition, you may have found an interesting legal hurdle regarding the perennial proposals to legalize prostitution.
You're likely right about the law as it is written, but the law as it is written sucks. People should have freedom running their own business and not just when the government decides to give it to them.
I think that's very racist. And very wrong. And very immoral. And evil. And I would try to avoid patronizing any establishments that so discriminated.
But "wrong" and "illegal" are not and should not be synonyms.
The economy wouldn't support the situation you describe. There would be people opening hotels to serve people who otherwise couldn't find a place. There would be money in it after all. And I strongly suspect the segregation that occurred in the American south would not be readily repeated unless it had government support like it had before. We've never had a time in our country the government didn't force racism. I think we should try allowing people to choose not to be racist.
We're not talking about the society around them, we're talking about the landlord's property that the landlord paid for with his own hard work. He bought it, he paid for it, it's his to do with as he likes whether he wants to share with everyone, no one, or just some people that he selects based on his own criteria be it logical or stupid.
The landlord does not "deny their rights" unless there is some right for anyone to go use anyone else's property without their permission.
Does (x) have a detrimental effect on the surrounding society? No. Refusing to rent an apartment to someone you disapprove of does not prevent that person from renting an apartment unless the landlord has a monopoly (and if he does then anti-trust laws and regulations can kick in and we discuss that situation).
I will say that as a slashdotter I find your theory has some value. Let's see, I want to have sex with a young lady I met. Will my having sex with her have a detrimental effect on surrounding society? Is she willing to have sex? Well, if she's willing to have sex and my having sex with her won't have a detrimental effect on surrounding society, then I don't think she should have a right to refuse me just because she doesn't like the way I look, or just because she doesn't like that I don't have a lot of money, or just because she doesn't like that I don't buy her expensive gifts. These traits don't have a detrimental effect on surrounding society, and that, after all, is the the debate we should be having. This nonsense about the freedom to do what with our own body and your own stuff is a just an attempt to hide bigotry.
So long as the bigot doesn't reach out and grab the object of his bigotry, then yes his intolerance should be tolerated. The bigot mustn't be allowed to force an unpleasant interaction, but neither should the person the bigot dislikes. Both should have the right to be left-alone by those with whom they disagree.
Allowing (x) to happen does several things: 1. Signals social approval of (x)
That is, unfortunately, a fundamental fallacy that our society has embraced.
"moral" and "legal" are not synonyms and should not be treated as synonyms. They are separate concepts. Something may be moral and legal, moral and illegal, immoral and legal, or immoral and illegal. If more people understood that the culture war wouldn't be so bloody and we would have a much freer society.
The problem of "imposing homosexuality" comes when people lose their right to disapprove of it and to show that disapproval by refusing to extend the same benefits to people whose behavior they disapprove of as they do to people whose behavior they find acceptable.
Think hiring and firing, subletting an apartment, selecting members and leaders of your organization,
I figured out as a kid back in the 1980s that outlawing sodomy was stupid and unfair. But it is also unfair to tell someone that if they are going to hire someone to watch their adolescent boys out in the woods that they can't take that person's sexual preferences into account. It is even wrong to tell someone who is renting out an apartment what criteria they may or may not use in selecting a renter.
A few months ago a lot of people were boycotting Chic-fil-a because it had donated some money to a campaign that indicated a displeasure with homosexuality. That is fine, let anyone who wants to boycott any organization whose behavior they find immoral. But by that same token Chic-fil-a, or any organization or person that finds homosexuality immoral, should have the right to boycott homosexuals. It should take two to tango. If either person chooses not to tango, then there should be no tango. One person should not be allowed to force the other.
Exactly.
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert
I feel your pain on this. I think a business owner ought to be able to hire and fire based on whatever stupid reasons she wants without the government dictating those reasons, But of course you can't oppose the government interference without being called a racist.
I think the owner of an apartment building or a hotel ought be allowed to decide who she is willing to rent her rooms to but I can't really opposed laws restriction such freedoms without being labelled a homophobe.
I think a anyone ought to be able to decide for themselves whether or not their religious beliefs allow them to financially support procedures like a and vasectomy, but of course to support that right gets me labeled "anti-woman".
The difficult thing about freedom is that is must always include the freedom to engage in behaviors that cannot be rationally defended and behaviors that society might not approve of. So a consistent defense of freedom must always lead to a defense of behaviors that, on their own, are indefensible but that must be defended for the sake of the greater good.
Not to disagree with you, nor even to suggest that you're a Democrat, but has anyone else noticed that sexual freedom seems to be the only kind of freedom Democrats still believe in?
Exactly.
I really, REALLY hate these cases, because you can't really oppose them without being labelled as a pervert, this is why lawmakers love to bundle their censorship laws with provisions like these.
Outlaw and block child porn. No one in their right mind can find fault in that. Protect the children, implements blocks to do that. Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right? Outlaw porn altogether. Outlaw writings about porn. Outlaw religious satire Outlaw religious criticism Outlaw criticism Outlaw free speech.
All of these have been seen before in various countries, It is a slope lawmakers won't admit, but it is invariably the end result.
This is one of the benefits of having a written constitution: There is a clear bright line where the censorship stops:
Outlaw animal porn, it is after all filthy, right?
Outlaw porn altogether.
Outlaw writings about porn.
Outlaw religious satire
Outlaw religious criticism
Outlaw criticism
Outlaw free speech.
America's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press - both of which are word media, the significance of which is that word media is necessary to communicate ideas and rational thinking.
The founders knew about porn - how many naughty sculptures and paintings did they have? And how many colonies had rules about them? Yet when they listed what was protected, they stuck to words.
Porn movies and pictures aren't words. If you want to argue they should be legal, you can write about them and describe them - that's protected. But if you want make dirty movies then the local society has some say in what may be done based on their standards of decency.
But of course the benefits of a written constitution can be undone by the arrogance of a supreme court determined to supplant the Constitution and consensual government with the jurists own ideas and values - which is why it has somehow become the case that porn is largely protected "speech" while political speech is regulated - turning the constitution on its head.
President Chen's life sentence could be taken as a sign that corruption is being addressed were it not for the overtly politcal nature of the prosecution. Whether or not he is guilty, it appears that the prosecution was as least as much aimed at discrediting the DPP and intimidating its supporters as it was aimed at actual corruption.
I don't know how S. Korea is doing in terms of corruption, but from what I can see only two cultures in history - Japanese and British/Northern European - have been able to develop a cultural intolerance of corruption on their own. Taiwan provides a good example of how it can be imposed from outside and then destroyed from outside. Under the Japanese (1895 to 1945) Taiwan developed a culture of very little corruption as the Japanese imposed and largely followed the rule of law (Japan's behavior in Taiwan was very different than in the rest of Asia). When the Chinese re-colonized Taiwan they acted like a mafia taking over a new territory, forcing people to engage in corruption or lose their livelihoods (or even their lives), and the culture of corruption returned to Taiwan where it remains hard to eradicate.
The histories Taiwan and China (including HK) suggest that corruption is heavily dependent on culture, but can be changed by an occupying power.
If you look at the map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption you see that there is very little corruption in Japan and in places heavily influenced by English and northern European culture.
China, on the other hand has a long history of corruption.
Taiwan was colonized by Japan in 1895. By WWII Taiwan had very little corruption (Japan didn't destroy Taiwan the way it did other countries). But when the Chinese re-colonized Taiwan corruption was re-introduced. Taiwanese who tried to refused to participate in the corruption found their livelihoods destroyed. Japan as an outside occupying power was able to mostly eliminate corruption, and China as an outside occupying power was able to make it once again part of the culture.
HK did a lot to end corruption, but they did it while occupied by the British, not while being controlled by China. Again we see a foreign power being necessary to end corruption in a society heavily influenced by Chinese culture.
But in mainland China, where no foreign power ever gained supremacy over day-to-day operations, corruption has stubbornly remained.
Despite Taiwan's attempt at Democracy, corruption is still a large problem there. Whether or not former President Chen is guilty, the irregularities of his prosecution, and wide net used to intimidate DPP supporters suggests that his prosecution was as much political as it was aimed at corruption.
Very few societies have managed to remove corruption from themselves on their own. I'm not sure anyone knows how they did it or how long it took.
Stealing is wrong because it deprives others of something. In this case he did not deprive anyone of anything, so there was no theft. He gained information, but he didn't deprive anyone else of that information. We do have copyright law so that people will be encouraged to produce information because they can sell that information. Gaining the information without paying for it thwarts the good purpose of the copyright and is therefore wrong. But if the people owning the copyright are not selling the information, then the copyright law has already failed. What then is the harm of copying the information? Copyright law was not created for the purpose of making information secret.
Just like everyone is required to learn some basic chemistry, physics, math and biology, everyone ought to learn how to do some simple programming. They don't need to be experts. They don't need to learn fancy algorithms, data structures, numerical analysis, or NP-Completeness, but anyone interested in STEM ought to be able to write fizzbuzz in at least one language such as pascal, C, or even the old fashioned BASIC.
That way, when someone has an idea for a wonderful app, they'll have some idea of whether it is likely to be possible and how difficult it would be to write (first decision-try to learn programming and write it myself, or should I hire professionals (and how many professionals)). If the decision is to hire programmers, the boss won't be completely in the dark about what needs to be done or completely clueless when the programmer is talking.
But even if you don't have a wonderful new app that you want to get rich on, you may just be doing or managing some work and wonder "could this task be automated"? Having a basic idea of what a program is will help you there.
When someone talks about how computers are used to track your activities, understanding what they can do is important.
Computers are a pretty important part of our lives these days. They are so central to our society that no one should be considered educated if they don't have a basic understand of what a computer program is or if they can't write a simple program. This is true just like it is true that everyone should understand things like the theory of evolution, the idea that physics is based on math, that everything is made of atoms containing electrons and protons, and that life is made of cells.
Passing a law is not the same as having it followed, as recent Presidential actions on immigration have demonstrated.
I don't mind it been presented as an american invention if it can help bring the US in the 20th century.
This is the 21st century. Like disco and Joanie Loves Chachi, metric is best left in the 20th century. It's time for the world to move forward and join America in using a proper measuring system.
That's another example of why I disagree on the "dumber and less capable" comment. Kids aren't dumber, they're just learning different things. As for the question of foreign policy - I'm not so concerned that they won't understand the intricacies of money and trading. If we compare banking and trade to gambling, I'm not concerned about whether they will understand gamblers working together to cheat the system, or that they won't understand the subtle probabilities presented by each hand, or that they won't understand that people will bluff and otherwise decieve. My concern is they will forget that a "Smith and Wesson beats four aces". Or just as dangerous, they may believe that they'll always be able to talk people into not bringing a Smith and Wesson to the game.
I disagree on the "dumber and less capable" part. They're capabilities are different. I think the schools do a better job of teaching the kids to be organized and to think abstractly. But when you say "never been in a fight" I think you hit on something that worries me.
These kids are going to vote. If the schools protect them too much from each other, they'll never understand what people are like. Kids today don't get out and play - they stay inside and play video games. The rules are enforced for them (they don't have to argue the rules with each other). They don't have to figure out who the quarterback is. And they don't have to worry about people who break the rules and try to bully others into accepting their rule breaking.
In short, they'll suck at foreign policy because they'll assume everyone is basically good and willing to follow the rules. Older voters already seem to include a lot of people who don't understand that foreign leaders typically have more in common with Al Capone than with Martin Luther King.
You're right about the generation that grew up while computers were growing up likely understand the internals much better (at least those who were at all interested). However kids today don't need to understand the internals to hack anymore. They just need to find the right hacking software.
I would say a simple password will work against the 4 yr old for at least the next 5 years. After that it's only partly a technical problem. It is also a question of how well your kids listen to you and what kinds of friends they're making.. Possibly in upper elementary school, probably by middle school, and certainly in high school, there will be kids who know how to get the software to crack their parents computers. Complain about your parents restrictions to the right person and they'll likely offer to get you a flash drive that will let them bypass the protections (and perhaps give you some viruses).
The kids have physical access to the computer. If they're well behaved kids who don't feel a strong need to bypass the rules you've set, then regular passwords should continue to work. But if they're the kind of kids who regularly go behind your back then I doubt there is much you can do.
Another question, if I may, when is the last time you needed to know how big a sheet of paper is when not working in a program that will tell you or a sheet and a ruler at hand? Would knowing the size to 3 millimeters have been precise enough on that occasion?
I frequently go at it the other way. I need to get an approximate measure of something but I don't have ruler or yardstick handy. I can grab a sheet of paper knowing that one side is 8.5 inches and the other is 11 inches.
Yeah experience shows that you have to make the old units illegal, otherwise people keep using them.
That sounds like as good a reason as any to avoid converting. The idea that the government micromanaging our lives to the point of telling us what measurements we can use makes me shudder.
We had a group that was concerned and willing to hit the streets to demonstrate. But they weren't a "torch bearing mob" they were responsible citizens. However they were largely conservative in their outlook - wanting a reduction in spending and a reduction in taxes - so they had to be stopped! The pen is mightier than the sword and lies are far more effective than fire-hoses, so the Tea Party was immediately mis-portrayed as a bunch of racists. Now the name has generally become toxic, only mentioned for the purpose discrediting them and the responsible government they stood for.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
- The Hollow Men