I know plenty about mental health, thankyou very much,
But clearly nothing about it in relation to this topic. You are offering your uninformed speculation up as if it had any merit which it doesn't. You don't like it, therefore it must be bad. That's the sole extent of your argument.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this kind of activity will end up with someone getting hurt.
As will damn near everything else in the world. Your point is entirely without merit once again unless you want big nanny state government to wrap us all up in Nerf so we can never get hurt.
It could work for some people sure, but it *obviously* increases the potential for jealousy, and people feeling rejected if they get too attached to any one person.
It's actually not at all obvious given that you don't know the people in question. I had a girlfriend in high school who was more jealous than all the other girls I've dated in my life put together. Some people are that way, some aren't and most fall distributed along that spectrum.
It doesn't sound like the sort of thing that people would engage in after the age of 40.
Which, again, does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance.
Nobody is trying to convince you to take up a lifestyle you're not comfortable with. Nobody is even trying to convince you that you should "approve" or stop expressing your disapproval.
But stick to facts, don't just spout ignorant baseless speculation on a topic you, by your own admission, don't know a damn thing about.
Because rationally, why does anyone deserve their rights, unless you realise that it's good and proper for them to have them, which to me is a moral judgement.
"Good and proper" really don't have much place in human relations. I'm not saying they shouldn't, just that to assume that they do or have historically is hopelessly naive. People "deserve" their rights because you want yours. It's basic enlightened self interest, and that's exactly how we ended up getting them.
There is a *huge* aftermarket of stuff for SageTV; I've got ShowAnalyzer for the commercials, I've got IMDB, I've got on-the-fly transcoding so we can watch recorded shows while out of town within the native SageTV UI, I've got a web front end, I'm working on getting DVD burnage to work; all the stuff that MythTV claims to do, only it is much easier to get working.
Well, here's what it takes to get all of that working with Gentoo:
Emerge mythtv mythdvd mythmusic
Apart from setting up your X config based on your TV, there's really nothing more to it.
I caught my daughter smoking. How? she posted photos of her doing it on hey myspace page. I looked at her after scolding and handing down the 2 week grounding and asked. "Did you even think? posting anything in public like that is exactly like running around the neighborhood screaming at the top of your lungs "I AM UNDERAGE AND SMOKING! YIPPIEEE!"
Damn, Dude. 2 weeks for smoking is fine and all, but what about another 2 months for being dumb about it;-)
I just really don't want to be like that, and I don't consider it healthy for anyone else either.
And that right there is why you keep catching so much shit on this issue.
You are not a doctor. You do not know the people in question.
You know nothing about the subject, the people involved, or anything health related about the entire subject.
You opinion is utterly without value. It is meaningless and contains no information content whatsoever.
You're welcome to not like how other people live their lives. You're welcome to live yours another way.
You are not welcome to spout misinformed ignorant drivel as if it had any merit whatsoever. When you do that you make yourself look like a fool. You also give fuel to the sick wackos who like to take ignorant crap like that and use it as if it were gospel in order to shove it into law in violation of every principle this country was based on all in order to "protect their health" or similar lies.
You are totally unqualified to judge the healthiness of that sort of behavior, so please do not spout such ignorant crap. You think it's bad for their health, but you don't know a fucking thing about it or them so your opinion is *worse* than useless.
Moral grounds seem to me to be entirely the reason we have laws in the first place, what other grounds are there?
It is not possible for you to be more wrong than you are with this statement. You could equal it, but it is not even theoretically possible for you to be farther from the truth.
Morals have nothing to do and can not possibly have anything to do with the law in a free society. This is the fundamental defining concept of America. That is what "American Values" means. Our laws are (or are supposed to be... treasonous religious nuts notwithstanding) based entirely upon *reason*. Murder is illegal because it's not your life to take. Theft is illegal because somebody else has the right to that property.
It's all about rights, property, and rational arguments.
That is the only basis for a free civil society.
The single thing that set America apart at our founding was the complete and utter rejection of *any* religious basis for law or government. That was a shocking thing at the time, but it has proven to be the single overriding requirement for a free society. You can't have freedom in a theocracy.
So, no laws are not based on morals. How could they be? There are as many different morals as there are people in the world. There is nothing even approximating an absolute moral code to base anything rational on. Why do you think there are so many religious wars between factions of the same freaking religion.
Seriously, do some reading, pay some attention and for the love of all that is holy, learn *something* about the basis of the system of government you live under before spouting such blatantly false crap which is trivially easy to learn in minutes if you have any interest in it.
It's certainly enabling it. Remove a negative consequence of a choice makes that choice much more attractive.
Right, so the normal natural healthy choice is more attractive. That is entirely a good thing.
Keeping your children healthy is well worth letting them see your tacit acceptance of their sex life, but don't pretend when you tell them "this is so you won't get sick when you have sex" that what they're going to hear isn't "have sex."
Which means what? Your kids will have sex. That's a fact. It's an entirely normal healthy thing. So talking about how they *will* have sex is the only decent moral course of action. Anything else is flat out lying.
Pretending it won't because *you* are too weak to deal with reality is an entirely *bad* course of action with no possible positives.
As a cheap shot, I'll assume you dont have one because if you did she'd be bitching about it. Trust me, MythTV has an almost subzero WAF...
It's through the roof in my house. The wife gets all of her British shows off of UKNova, podcasts, etc etc etc and they download right to the shared directory. Boom.
She just bought a used XBox to use as a frontend in the bedroom.
So given how solid MythTV is and has been for some time now, your argument is both wrong and sadly out of date.
It is not "naive" to expect common sense in the justice system.
Yes, it most certainly is. Look around.
You're right that it would be good if they were related and if people gave enough of a shit to put the asshats who make these laws out of office and in prison where they belong.
Now, being realistic, do you really *expect* that to happen?
No, I'll bet you really don't. If you do, then you are *extremely* naive.
In fact, I'd love to see someone try something like that, so we could get this ridiculous concept of corporations collectively having the same rights as individuals blown to the hell it came from.
You seem to think that Congress has a shred of either integrity or shame. That is a badly flawed idea.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.
Yes, but you might have noticed that the largest conflict in the whole immigration debate is within the Republican party. The "neocons" he's referring to are really "the monied interests" who are the Republican party's most important base.
The people you're referring to are the "rest" of the Republican party, usually known as "tools". You might have noticed that pretty much none of the things they claim to want tend to happen.
Small government? Fiscal Responsibility? Stopping immigration?
No real interest on the part of the party to do any of these things, since it's only the "tools" who want them and "tools" are merely things to be used.
Al Qaeda's real strength is in a rather novel new concept- individualized warfare, where anybody can declare war on anybody even without an army to back them up.
No, Al Queda's greatest strength by far is the US government and media organizations providing hundreds of millions (at least) in free publicity to blow the threat of a few scattered loons into a totally made up global conspiracy. That is something they could not have done for themselves.
What happened to respecting other peoples cultures and religious beliefs anyway?
They are *tolerated* not respected. This is as it should be. As in "Wow, you believe in some idiotic shit. Oh well, whatever floats your boat" as opposed to "OMFG you believe in the divinity of the taco?!? I'm never eating at Taco Bell again out of respect for your stupid,yet deserving of respect religion".
Which ethnic group is, per capita, most likely to commit the crimes of both rape and pillaging?
Pirates!
Pirates have nothing on Vikings in this context as is made clear by the Ancient Swedish Epic "Invaders"
Longboats have been sighted the evidence of war has begun Many Nordic fighting men their swords and shields all gleam in the sun Call to arms defend yourselves get ready to stand and fight for your lives Judgement day has come around so be prepared don't run stand your ground
They're coming in from the sea they've come the enemy beneath the blazing sun the battle has to be won Invaders... Pillaging Invaders... Looting
Set ablaze the campfires alert the other men from inland Warning must be given there's not enough men here for a stand The Vikings are too many too powerful to take on our own We must have reinforcements we cannot fight this battle alone
They're coming over the hill they've come to attack they're coming in for the kill there's no turning back Invaders... Fighting Invaders... Marauding
Axes grind and maces clash as wounded fighters fall to the ground Severed limbs and fatal woundings bloody corpses lay all around The smell of death and burning flesh the battle weary light to the end The Saxons have been overpowered victims of the mighty Norsemen
You'd better scatter and run the battle's lost and not won you'd better get away to fight another day Invaders... Raping Invaders... Plundering
the previous administration, every foreign intelligence agency, the UN. two senate committees and one british. even afterwards, the dulefer report. there was alot we didn't know, and alot we got wrong. but lies? hardly.
Given that a lot of that was based on intentionally falsified evidence, your argument is meaningless.
accepting blindly that the war was a lie, that's faith.
It's not a question of faith. It is backed up be every single scrap of evidence with no exceptions. We know they made up bullshit about Uranium. They were called on it and outed a CIA agent in revenge. We know that Bush flat out lied in the State of the Union because Tenet told him not to say it was solid because it was totally unverified.
We know that in 2000, the Project For a New American Century put out a document making the case for invading Iraq "in order to ensure American economic world domination in the coming Century". We know further that they knew the American people wouldn't buy their bullshit unless there was an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor on the US which they could misuse as an excuse to invade Iraq.
The paper is still on their website.
So we know all of those things to be true.
and yes there were saddam/al qaeda links.
Laughable at best. Certainly nothing to do with 9/11 contrary to what the administration willfully tried to mislead us into believing.
so, given what we knew, what the situation was, and what was going to be the situation in the very near future, there was really no other option. maybe there were other options, but nobody was presenting any.
Maybe you should have paid some attention at the time. We already were using other options (inspections) and they worked, hence the lack of WMDs which the administration said that they knew for a fact were there and further that they knew exactly where they were. That's another big lie.
So, maybe you think it was such a good idea to invade that you think it was ok to lie about the threat, which is your prerogative. To pretend that all of those massive lies never happened when they're all well documented parts of the public record really maKes you look like a fool.
And you claim to be a Libertarian, yet you think Reagan was either a conservative *or* a good president? Wow, you really don't pay any attention to anything before you jump on the bandwagon, do you?
Just because the 'teenage girl' didn't exist doesn't diminish your intent.
But it does make the entire extent of your crime to be your own thoughts. Laws as stupid as that can not under any possible set of circumstances exist in a free society. Yet more proof that we don't live in anything like a free society.
I am not saying 3 months suspension is appropriate, but not punishing a kid for the violations...really doesn't make sense to have the rules in the first place.
So you give little Suzy 30 days suspension and put her parents in the stocks for 24 hours where the community can pelt them with rotten fruit for being such whiny little children and trying to rob the freaking school district.
That's the clear, clean, simple obvious solution for dealing with people too cowardly to deal with reality.
Most societies are prone to evil? What kind of claptrap is that, exactly?
You might consider picking up a random history book and opening it to a random page. Try it a few times, and the truth of the OP's statement will become clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I know plenty about mental health, thankyou very much,
But clearly nothing about it in relation to this topic. You are offering your uninformed speculation up as if it had any merit which it doesn't. You don't like it, therefore it must be bad. That's the sole extent of your argument.
it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this kind of activity will end up with someone getting hurt.
As will damn near everything else in the world. Your point is entirely without merit once again unless you want big nanny state government to wrap us all up in Nerf so we can never get hurt.
It could work for some people sure, but it *obviously* increases the potential for jealousy, and people feeling rejected if they get too attached to any one person.
It's actually not at all obvious given that you don't know the people in question.
I had a girlfriend in high school who was more jealous than all the other girls I've dated in my life put together. Some people are that way, some aren't and most fall distributed along that spectrum.
It doesn't sound like the sort of thing that people would engage in after the age of 40.
Which, again, does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance.
Nobody is trying to convince you to take up a lifestyle you're not comfortable with. Nobody is even trying to convince you that you should "approve" or stop expressing your disapproval.
But stick to facts, don't just spout ignorant baseless speculation on a topic you, by your own admission, don't know a damn thing about.
Because rationally, why does anyone deserve their rights, unless you realise that it's good and proper for them to have them, which to me is a moral judgement.
"Good and proper" really don't have much place in human relations. I'm not saying they shouldn't, just that to assume that they do or have historically is hopelessly naive.
People "deserve" their rights because you want yours. It's basic enlightened self interest, and that's exactly how we ended up getting them.
There is a *huge* aftermarket of stuff for SageTV; I've got ShowAnalyzer for the commercials, I've got IMDB, I've got on-the-fly transcoding so we can watch recorded shows while out of town within the native SageTV UI, I've got a web front end, I'm working on getting DVD burnage to work; all the stuff that MythTV claims to do, only it is much easier to get working.
Well, here's what it takes to get all of that working with Gentoo:
Emerge mythtv mythdvd mythmusic
Apart from setting up your X config based on your TV, there's really nothing more to it.
That's just made me wonder, had the Romans impaled Jesus vertically, would the religion have become as popular?
Given that the Romans didn't use crosses and did impale people vertically, the answer is obvious.
I caught my daughter smoking. How? she posted photos of her doing it on hey myspace page. I looked at her after scolding and handing down the 2 week grounding and asked. "Did you even think? posting anything in public like that is exactly like running around the neighborhood screaming at the top of your lungs "I AM UNDERAGE AND SMOKING! YIPPIEEE!"
Damn, Dude.
2 weeks for smoking is fine and all, but what about another 2 months for being dumb about it
I just really don't want to be like that, and I don't consider it healthy for anyone else either.
And that right there is why you keep catching so much shit on this issue.
You are not a doctor. You do not know the people in question.
You know nothing about the subject, the people involved, or anything health related about the entire subject.
You opinion is utterly without value. It is meaningless and contains no information content whatsoever.
You're welcome to not like how other people live their lives. You're welcome to live yours another way.
You are not welcome to spout misinformed ignorant drivel as if it had any merit whatsoever.
When you do that you make yourself look like a fool. You also give fuel to the sick wackos who like to take ignorant crap like that and use it as if it were gospel in order to shove it into law in violation of every principle this country was based on all in order to "protect their health" or similar lies.
You are totally unqualified to judge the healthiness of that sort of behavior, so please do not spout such ignorant crap.
You think it's bad for their health, but you don't know a fucking thing about it or them so your opinion is *worse* than useless.
See how clear and simple that is?
Moral grounds seem to me to be entirely the reason we have laws in the first place, what other grounds are there?
It is not possible for you to be more wrong than you are with this statement.
You could equal it, but it is not even theoretically possible for you to be farther from the truth.
Morals have nothing to do and can not possibly have anything to do with the law in a free society.
This is the fundamental defining concept of America. That is what "American Values" means.
Our laws are (or are supposed to be... treasonous religious nuts notwithstanding) based entirely upon *reason*.
Murder is illegal because it's not your life to take. Theft is illegal because somebody else has the right to that property.
It's all about rights, property, and rational arguments.
That is the only basis for a free civil society.
The single thing that set America apart at our founding was the complete and utter rejection of *any* religious basis for law or government. That was a shocking thing at the time, but it has proven to be the single overriding requirement for a free society. You can't have freedom in a theocracy.
So, no laws are not based on morals. How could they be? There are as many different morals as there are people in the world.
There is nothing even approximating an absolute moral code to base anything rational on. Why do you think there are so many religious wars between factions of the same freaking religion.
Seriously, do some reading, pay some attention and for the love of all that is holy, learn *something* about the basis of the system of government you live under before spouting such blatantly false crap which is trivially easy to learn in minutes if you have any interest in it.
It's certainly enabling it. Remove a negative consequence of a choice makes that choice much more attractive.
Right, so the normal natural healthy choice is more attractive. That is entirely a good thing.
Keeping your children healthy is well worth letting them see your tacit acceptance of their sex life, but don't pretend when you tell them "this is so you won't get sick when you have sex" that what they're going to hear isn't "have sex."
Which means what? Your kids will have sex. That's a fact. It's an entirely normal healthy thing.
So talking about how they *will* have sex is the only decent moral course of action.
Anything else is flat out lying.
Pretending it won't because *you* are too weak to deal with reality is an entirely *bad* course of action with no possible positives.
As a cheap shot, I'll assume you dont have one because if you did she'd be bitching about it. Trust me, MythTV has an almost subzero WAF...
It's through the roof in my house. The wife gets all of her British shows off of UKNova, podcasts, etc etc etc and they download right to the shared directory. Boom.
She just bought a used XBox to use as a frontend in the bedroom.
So given how solid MythTV is and has been for some time now, your argument is both wrong and sadly out of date.
Taco? The Great Gordita will punish your heresy, unbeliever.
;-)
All due respect, but you're going to have to ask him to get in line
It is not "naive" to expect common sense in the justice system.
Yes, it most certainly is.
Look around.
You're right that it would be good if they were related and if people gave enough of a shit to put the asshats who make these laws out of office and in prison where they belong.
Now, being realistic, do you really *expect* that to happen?
No, I'll bet you really don't.
If you do, then you are *extremely* naive.
In fact, I'd love to see someone try something like that, so we could get this ridiculous concept of corporations collectively having the same rights as individuals blown to the hell it came from.
You seem to think that Congress has a shred of either integrity or shame.
That is a badly flawed idea.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.
Yes, but you might have noticed that the largest conflict in the whole immigration debate is within the Republican party. The "neocons" he's referring to are really "the monied interests" who are the Republican party's most important base.
The people you're referring to are the "rest" of the Republican party, usually known as "tools".
You might have noticed that pretty much none of the things they claim to want tend to happen.
Small government? Fiscal Responsibility? Stopping immigration?
No real interest on the part of the party to do any of these things, since it's only the "tools" who want them and "tools" are merely things to be used.
Al Qaeda's real strength is in a rather novel new concept- individualized warfare, where anybody can declare war on anybody even without an army to back them up.
No, Al Queda's greatest strength by far is the US government and media organizations providing hundreds of millions (at least) in free publicity to blow the threat of a few scattered loons into a totally made up global conspiracy.
That is something they could not have done for themselves.
This has as much to do with socialized medicine as search algorithms have to do with lacrosse.
How else are you going to find a Lacrosse team that actually *did* rape somebody without a good search algorithm?
What happened to respecting other peoples cultures and religious beliefs anyway?
They are *tolerated* not respected.
This is as it should be.
As in "Wow, you believe in some idiotic shit. Oh well, whatever floats your boat" as opposed to "OMFG you believe in the divinity of the taco?!? I'm never eating at Taco Bell again out of respect for your stupid
Which ethnic group is, per capita, most likely to commit the crimes of both rape and pillaging?
Pirates!
Pirates have nothing on Vikings in this context as is made clear by the Ancient Swedish Epic "Invaders"
.into the latest, most expensive, least-desirable version of Windows yet, a product that makes ME look enchanting by comparison.
Come on Dude, don't be so hard on yourself.
the previous administration, every foreign intelligence agency, the UN. two senate committees and one british. even afterwards, the dulefer report. there was alot we didn't know, and alot we got wrong. but lies? hardly.
Given that a lot of that was based on intentionally falsified evidence, your argument is meaningless.
accepting blindly that the war was a lie, that's faith.
It's not a question of faith. It is backed up be every single scrap of evidence with no exceptions. We know they made up bullshit about Uranium. They were called on it and outed a CIA agent in revenge.
We know that Bush flat out lied in the State of the Union because Tenet told him not to say it was solid because it was totally unverified.
We know that in 2000, the Project For a New American Century put out a document making the case for invading Iraq "in order to ensure American economic world domination in the coming Century".
We know further that they knew the American people wouldn't buy their bullshit unless there was an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor on the US which they could misuse as an excuse to invade Iraq.
The paper is still on their website.
So we know all of those things to be true.
and yes there were saddam/al qaeda links.
Laughable at best. Certainly nothing to do with 9/11 contrary to what the administration willfully tried to mislead us into believing.
so, given what we knew, what the situation was, and what was going to be the situation in the very near future, there was really no other option. maybe there were other options, but nobody was
presenting any.
Maybe you should have paid some attention at the time. We already were using other options (inspections) and they worked, hence the lack of WMDs which the administration said that they knew for a fact were there and further that they knew exactly where they were. That's another big lie.
So, maybe you think it was such a good idea to invade that you think it was ok to lie about the threat, which is your prerogative. To pretend that all of those massive lies never happened when they're all well documented parts of the public record really maKes you look like a fool.
And you claim to be a Libertarian, yet you think Reagan was either a conservative *or* a good president? Wow, you really don't pay any attention to anything before you jump on the bandwagon, do you?
No, I didn't copy/paste that. I've worked for both HP and Micron. I don't think I have to explain any further...
;-)
Fair enough lol
Quite intuitive, really...
Good lord, Man.
Did you copy/paste that from somewhere or have you reached the point where that BS flows off your tongue that smoothly?
No. It's not. Kind of how these idiots have girlfriends in 'Second Life' but not in their actual life.
Yeah, but that's only true for half of them.
The other half *are* the girlfriends in Second Life, but not even girls in their actual life.
Just because the 'teenage girl' didn't exist doesn't diminish your intent.
But it does make the entire extent of your crime to be your own thoughts. Laws as stupid as that can not under any possible set of circumstances exist in a free society. Yet more proof that we don't live in anything like a free society.
I am not saying 3 months suspension is appropriate, but not punishing a kid for the violations...really doesn't make sense to have the rules in the first place.
So you give little Suzy 30 days suspension and put her parents in the stocks for 24 hours where the community can pelt them with rotten fruit for being such whiny little children and trying to rob the freaking school district.
That's the clear, clean, simple obvious solution for dealing with people too cowardly to deal with reality.
Most societies are prone to evil? What kind of claptrap is that, exactly?
You might consider picking up a random history book and opening it to a random page.
Try it a few times, and the truth of the OP's statement will become clear.