I offered you a fair alternative that you say isn't happening. Then you say it is but it's unacceptable. But you said before that it's what they should do, Which is it?
I... don't recall saying anything like this? I don't know what "fair alternative" you're referring to is or the bit where I say it's "unaccpetable". I'm simply saying if we really want to be modern about this then we'd have a serious rethink on whether or not we want the state deciding what is or isn't an acceptable arrangement for human beings to congregate in is and then allow people to manage their own affairs - it's the only sensible way to deal with marriage due to its intrinsic links to religious practice historically (and the contradictory definitions of different cultures - the whole "one man, one woman," thing being demonstrably untrue throughout history and in different places - and America specifically being what it is historically has a less justifiable claim to tradition given it can only appeal to the many shared traditions of the mostly wholly immigrant population). But I don't see that happening because people don't think that deeply when it comes to questioning why things are the way they are in the first place - it's hardly unsurprising to me then that people will see an "attack" on "traditional" marriage.
Because your contract doesn't make a hospital consider you next of kin for medical decision and visitation. It would also have some implications for retirement benefits, taxes, on and on and on.
All I'm hearing is "the current legal framework isn't setup to deal with this so it isn't setup to deal with this."
Of course, fell free to get the necessary changes in law put in place, but be prepared to deal with wingnuts quacking about people marrying pets and such.
Last time I checked this was happening with gay marriage anyway. Not that I expect such an outcome but separation of marriage and state is really the only way to allow people the freedom to arrange their lives the way they see fit.
I personally believe black people are human beings with rights and a soul. You're damned right I am intolerant of the contrary view.
I don't believe they have souls. But then again I don't believe anyone does.
Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the right to a gay marriage doesn't mean it's not a right.
Has anyone bothered to sit down and actually think about what marriage is? It is effectively a familial contract. Modern notions about love nonwithstanding that was the point for its creation - social control.
Why not strip the term of its special priviledge, lawyer up, form any contract you like and then proceed to bump uglies in any configuration you choose?
Oh right, because of irrational attachment to the word.
How come the homeopathic practitioners don't just row out into the sea and throw their goose livers in there? They could cure all diseases overnight. They must be mean capitalists if they're not doing things like that.
Where's the little glass bottles? Where's the shaking? Where's the successive titrations? You're not applying the true principles here, just a ludicrous caricature! That's why what you propse won't work. Not because it's a fundamentally incorrect Victorian era disease hypothesis.
That's the comic, not What If? - which is all about things like how much power you'd need to illuminate the shadow of the moon or what happens to the Earth's geography if you drain the oceans of water.
Geez, you really are intellectually challenged, aren't you.
High praise indeed from an Anonymous Coward.
You made a general statement about "-isms".
Which made no attempt to be an exclusive definition but clearly only pertaining to the relevant discussion of discrimination. So I ignored your irrelevant side track because it was irrelevant, and still is irrelevant.
Intellect has never even attempted to challenge you has it?
You wrote "No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question." That's not a statement about what it means "here".
I do not see how this doesn't apply to racism unless you are saying there is no discrimination based upon the property of race whether or not that property is well defined - which isn't relevant.
Furthermore, you don't get to arbitrarily redefined words and then criticize people for not accepting your redefinitions.
I certainly do when I am clearly donig so for the purposes of hypotheticals in an argument.
I will outline this again for you.
I scare quoted racism - "racism" - since as it is commonly understood has additional baggage not relevant to the basic point as to whether or not acknowledging the existence of differing properties in population groups is a priori a immoral - something you refuse to make a statement on.
If you have such a problem with the word substitute whatever you want in its place that has effective meaning and then get back to what was actually said rather than what you think was said that allows you to have some righteous moral outrage.
it's with your attempt to determine what those differences are based on race and then treat people differently accordingly.
Please quote where I made such an attempt. "Treatment," is such a broad term but I can assume that you only mean that it can be derrogatory. Since I don't know entire phenotypical properties from the first glance of an individual nor since I have no particular yardstick by which to determine if there were any particular actions to take with regard to any individual based upon that other than obvious things like a deaf person isn't going to be able to communicate with me in the same way a hearing person would - a statement you will no doubt find problematic despite its obvious practicality - I have no specific approach to take any such action. You are obviously forming a caricature in your own mind based upon simply what the example is in question which again strikes to the point that you are the one with the problem and cannot take a dispassionate approach to a subject and you are infact the one with the prejudicial problems.
And the fact that lots of people are racists, like you are, is actually a big problem for our society.
Ignoring the fact that you basically don't know what my beliefs are with regard to people of other cultures are since I haven't said anything - although it would be rather problematic if I was the caricature you have formed in your mind for me in certain intimate interpersonal relationships that aren't relevant and you don't have to believe exist, you can simply read what I actually said on the matter rather than what you believe I have.
It doesn't matter that you believe that your racism is positive rather than negative.
Hypothetical question here: is the NBA racist? Is the 100m dash racist? Is the bobsleigh racist?
You keep on asserting I am making proscriptional statements on how one should behave rather than descriptional statements on factual matters.
So please, could you quote me somewhere where I've said we should whack a cracker or lynch darkies? I don't believe I said anything to this effect anywhere. This is all of your imagination and inability to read what is said on a controversial subject without jumping to your predujiced conclusions.
Again, *you* are the problem for "our" (since I probably am not part of it) soceity. Unthinking, emotionally laden, prejudiced moral panickers that would have us all mointored 24/7 for thoughtcrimes.
Hold it right there. I have very clearly stated what is meant here and as such the definitions you quote are irrelevant.
Would you like to address the meat of the point now?
The problem here isn't with me,
It is.
you hold racist beliefs, you simply think it's OK because you don't discriminate.
Not as you defined - clearly impossible since I already stated that I perfectly agree that what are referred to as races are a caricature of reality that have little utility. I am simply pointing out the facts here. That I am not concerned with moral panic and trying to make reality fit my prejudices rather than adjusting my perspectives to how the world is what you seem to have a problem with.
I am not going to pretend people aren't different no matter how you are going to define it because someone calls it a "moral issue" to not pretend we're all the same. So if you want to call me racist for that you go right ahead. That really is your problem.
You believe that there is a valid concept called "race" and that it is responsible for genetic differences between humans
Not really. Also the description springs from the phenomena - not the other way around.
That makes you a racist.
A racial discrimination based on fact isn't morally problematic as I outlined above. I know you don't get this.
In reality, the concept of "race" has no biological reality.
Regardless genetic differences in populations do even if catergorisation of people's based on skin colour is crude to say the least.
That is reality and you cannot pretend otherwise.
You're also mistaken that being lactose tolerant is "superior". First of all, you pay a metabolic price for your lactose tolerance. In addition, your lactose tolerance may encourage you to make bad nutritional choices.
Again why I quote it because I'm fully aware that superiority is relative to the environment one finds themselves in.
What you seem to have problem with is admitting the simple fact that people *are* *DIFFERENT* and that those differences *do* occur in population groups.
You are adept though at ignoring the vast amount of content, misunderstanding a portion of it and then attacking a strawman.
That's bullshit. "Racism" is an (incorrect) theory that there are intrinsic differences between races that make some inferior and some superior.
My ability to be tolerant of lactose is "superior" if I want to drink milk compared to the "races" of people who generally don't have that ability. Fact.
Sorry, genetic differences do exist. I'm not going to pretend that nobody is different out of misguided moral crusading. I'm perfectly happy to deal with the notion that we are all different, all have various strengths and weaknesses and that they may occur along population groups with certain shared characteristics.
It's only a problem if you use those differences to divide rather than to co-operate.
Exactly - gstoddart may very well choose not to eat any meat but the idea that because one considers a part of an animal "icky" implies that they are in any way fundamentally "bad" for human health is nothing more than bad reasoning - the same sort of bad reasoning that says slapping "organic" on a label makes the food fundamentally "good" for human health.
The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men. Logically the entire female gender consists of either people who believe themselves morally inferior to men, or are feminists.
I don't think I've ever seen feminism described in that way. The second statement does not form a valid dichotomy - even if I accepted your definition there is clearly absolutely no reason women could not see themselves as morally superior to men therefore invalidating this statement.
Meanwhile the fundamental principle of sexism (and racism, ageism, etc.) is that you are taking some empirical data (generally gathered informally) and extrapolating it to the entire gender (/race/age) group.
No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything - i.e. validity is irrelevent other than if you care about those things. A valid statement that is sexist is still valid even if one wishes to classify it as morally problematic.
An example of this would be mischaracterizing feminism per se, a basic principle agreed on by - for the sake of argument - all women, as an extreme viewpoint held by a small but vocal minority.
In other words: No True Scotsman has sugar in his porridge. I can only go by what people say. For a group of people who better characterise what you sum up feminists as Humanists would be a good choice.
OP expected to be called a sexist for making a fundamentally sexist remark, and I did so.
It's a fundamentally feminist-ist remark - not based on sex. By your definition above he is applying not to the entire set of women but the entire set of women who are feminists. These sets are not equal.
The real question here is why are you arguing with me, for calling him on his sexism, and not him, for being blatantly and admittedly and unapologetically sexist?
Because even if he is sexist, because even if sexism is a priori a moral evil, a clear reading of his statement is directed towards a feminist perspective, not a female one, regardless of whether or not you accept it as a valid one or a strawman.
Or, because they don't think the working classes should be forced to eat the bits of meat swept off the floor of a factory because it's all they can afford.
Not really. It's just a part and parcel of how "mission doc"'s work.
it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality"
Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group?
Feminist = entire gender group?
Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals.
Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.
Anyway, the UK used to have some artificial food stuff called Turkey Twizzlers that were kinda sorta artificial.
I don't think they were artificial in any way - not any more than any other food - they were just made from all the bits of meat swept off the floor at Bernard Matthew's factory and that offended the sensibilities of the do-gooder middle class who are always shocked and appalled at what the working classes eat.
And no big screen for sports events because the nitwit in charge doesn't like sports?
I do not know what makes you think this is "not a real pub" when landlords will happily make such a decision if they so choose and they have the choice.
I for one am more than happy to drink in pubs that don't have Sky Sports. You do not sound like someone who has much experience of proper pubs.
You know there are modern ports for these such that you don't need to use DOSbox right? I'd recommend the JonoF port of Duke Nukem 3D along with the various hi-res texture pack downloads and models that have been made. If you're a purist this may not be what you're looking for but the extras are optional.
I can't remember which Quake engine port I'm using (not at home and there's an absolute tonne) but there's also a hi-res texture pack that was done for it and it really looks good without changing the style at all and I'd definitely recommend seeking that out to get the same classic experience with a face-lift.
Other game I've played recently a lot on PC is StarCraft II - again catching up a bit - and if you like StarCraft you'll probably like this. Best of all you can just go ahead and get the "Starter Edition" and decide for yourself. I particularly like the StarBattle Arcade game which you can play on that version I believe - it's basically capital ship battles with a bunch of smaller fighters like something out of Babylon 5.
I recently got a PS3 (it's cheap!) and have been playing through the "older" games I missed out on having not been playing games recently. If you're looking for something different I'd highly recommend The Last Of Us as this is basically what I'd think of if you asked me how an "interactive movie" should be done in that it tells a great story whilst also being a proper game in its own right.
Slashdot Mirror
I... don't recall saying anything like this? I don't know what "fair alternative" you're referring to is or the bit where I say it's "unaccpetable". I'm simply saying if we really want to be modern about this then we'd have a serious rethink on whether or not we want the state deciding what is or isn't an acceptable arrangement for human beings to congregate in is and then allow people to manage their own affairs - it's the only sensible way to deal with marriage due to its intrinsic links to religious practice historically (and the contradictory definitions of different cultures - the whole "one man, one woman," thing being demonstrably untrue throughout history and in different places - and America specifically being what it is historically has a less justifiable claim to tradition given it can only appeal to the many shared traditions of the mostly wholly immigrant population). But I don't see that happening because people don't think that deeply when it comes to questioning why things are the way they are in the first place - it's hardly unsurprising to me then that people will see an "attack" on "traditional" marriage.
It works on so many levels.
All I'm hearing is "the current legal framework isn't setup to deal with this so it isn't setup to deal with this."
Last time I checked this was happening with gay marriage anyway. Not that I expect such an outcome but separation of marriage and state is really the only way to allow people the freedom to arrange their lives the way they see fit.
I don't believe they have souls. But then again I don't believe anyone does.
Has anyone bothered to sit down and actually think about what marriage is? It is effectively a familial contract. Modern notions about love nonwithstanding that was the point for its creation - social control.
Why not strip the term of its special priviledge, lawyer up, form any contract you like and then proceed to bump uglies in any configuration you choose?
Oh right, because of irrational attachment to the word.
Where's the little glass bottles? Where's the shaking? Where's the successive titrations? You're not applying the true principles here, just a ludicrous caricature! That's why what you propse won't work. Not because it's a fundamentally incorrect Victorian era disease hypothesis.
Only works when done in a pseudo-sciency way by a homeopathic practitioner - of course.
I don't think the people selling this believed in homeopathy somehow.
That's the comic, not What If? - which is all about things like how much power you'd need to illuminate the shadow of the moon or what happens to the Earth's geography if you drain the oceans of water.
Now, now, we'll have no facts on risk analysis here.
Radiation is scary and must be stopped at all costs.
That's why I'm starting a Kickstarter to blow up that most nefarious of radiation sources - The Sun.
High praise indeed from an Anonymous Coward.
Which made no attempt to be an exclusive definition but clearly only pertaining to the relevant discussion of discrimination. So I ignored your irrelevant side track because it was irrelevant, and still is irrelevant.
Intellect has never even attempted to challenge you has it?
I would have to start first.
I do not see how this doesn't apply to racism unless you are saying there is no discrimination based upon the property of race whether or not that property is well defined - which isn't relevant.
I certainly do when I am clearly donig so for the purposes of hypotheticals in an argument.
I will outline this again for you.
I scare quoted racism - "racism" - since as it is commonly understood has additional baggage not relevant to the basic point as to whether or not acknowledging the existence of differing properties in population groups is a priori a immoral - something you refuse to make a statement on.
If you have such a problem with the word substitute whatever you want in its place that has effective meaning and then get back to what was actually said rather than what you think was said that allows you to have some righteous moral outrage.
Please quote where I made such an attempt. "Treatment," is such a broad term but I can assume that you only mean that it can be derrogatory. Since I don't know entire phenotypical properties from the first glance of an individual nor since I have no particular yardstick by which to determine if there were any particular actions to take with regard to any individual based upon that other than obvious things like a deaf person isn't going to be able to communicate with me in the same way a hearing person would - a statement you will no doubt find problematic despite its obvious practicality - I have no specific approach to take any such action. You are obviously forming a caricature in your own mind based upon simply what the example is in question which again strikes to the point that you are the one with the problem and cannot take a dispassionate approach to a subject and you are infact the one with the prejudicial problems.
Ignoring the fact that you basically don't know what my beliefs are with regard to people of other cultures are since I haven't said anything - although it would be rather problematic if I was the caricature you have formed in your mind for me in certain intimate interpersonal relationships that aren't relevant and you don't have to believe exist, you can simply read what I actually said on the matter rather than what you believe I have.
Hypothetical question here: is the NBA racist? Is the 100m dash racist? Is the bobsleigh racist?
You keep on asserting I am making proscriptional statements on how one should behave rather than descriptional statements on factual matters.
So please, could you quote me somewhere where I've said we should whack a cracker or lynch darkies? I don't believe I said anything to this effect anywhere. This is all of your imagination and inability to read what is said on a controversial subject without jumping to your predujiced conclusions.
Again, *you* are the problem for "our" (since I probably am not part of it) soceity. Unthinking, emotionally laden, prejudiced moral panickers that would have us all mointored 24/7 for thoughtcrimes.
Hold it right there. I have very clearly stated what is meant here and as such the definitions you quote are irrelevant.
Would you like to address the meat of the point now?
It is.
Not as you defined - clearly impossible since I already stated that I perfectly agree that what are referred to as races are a caricature of reality that have little utility. I am simply pointing out the facts here. That I am not concerned with moral panic and trying to make reality fit my prejudices rather than adjusting my perspectives to how the world is what you seem to have a problem with.
I am not going to pretend people aren't different no matter how you are going to define it because someone calls it a "moral issue" to not pretend we're all the same. So if you want to call me racist for that you go right ahead. That really is your problem.
Not really. Also the description springs from the phenomena - not the other way around.
A racial discrimination based on fact isn't morally problematic as I outlined above. I know you don't get this.
Regardless genetic differences in populations do even if catergorisation of people's based on skin colour is crude to say the least.
That is reality and you cannot pretend otherwise.
Again why I quote it because I'm fully aware that superiority is relative to the environment one finds themselves in.
What you seem to have problem with is admitting the simple fact that people *are* *DIFFERENT* and that those differences *do* occur in population groups.
You are adept though at ignoring the vast amount of content, misunderstanding a portion of it and then attacking a strawman.
My ability to be tolerant of lactose is "superior" if I want to drink milk compared to the "races" of people who generally don't have that ability. Fact.
Sorry, genetic differences do exist. I'm not going to pretend that nobody is different out of misguided moral crusading. I'm perfectly happy to deal with the notion that we are all different, all have various strengths and weaknesses and that they may occur along population groups with certain shared characteristics.
It's only a problem if you use those differences to divide rather than to co-operate.
Exactly - gstoddart may very well choose not to eat any meat but the idea that because one considers a part of an animal "icky" implies that they are in any way fundamentally "bad" for human health is nothing more than bad reasoning - the same sort of bad reasoning that says slapping "organic" on a label makes the food fundamentally "good" for human health.
I don't think I've ever seen feminism described in that way. The second statement does not form a valid dichotomy - even if I accepted your definition there is clearly absolutely no reason women could not see themselves as morally superior to men therefore invalidating this statement.
No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything - i.e. validity is irrelevent other than if you care about those things. A valid statement that is sexist is still valid even if one wishes to classify it as morally problematic.
In other words: No True Scotsman has sugar in his porridge. I can only go by what people say. For a group of people who better characterise what you sum up feminists as Humanists would be a good choice.
It's a fundamentally feminist-ist remark - not based on sex. By your definition above he is applying not to the entire set of women but the entire set of women who are feminists. These sets are not equal.
Because even if he is sexist, because even if sexism is a priori a moral evil, a clear reading of his statement is directed towards a feminist perspective, not a female one, regardless of whether or not you accept it as a valid one or a strawman.
And with ease.
Read more carefully.
Important qualifier there.
Not really. It's just a part and parcel of how "mission doc"'s work.
This pretty much sums it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Why exactly other than a feeling that you don't like offal?
Feminist = entire gender group?
Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.
I don't think they were artificial in any way - not any more than any other food - they were just made from all the bits of meat swept off the floor at Bernard Matthew's factory and that offended the sensibilities of the do-gooder middle class who are always shocked and appalled at what the working classes eat.
I do not know what makes you think this is "not a real pub" when landlords will happily make such a decision if they so choose and they have the choice.
I for one am more than happy to drink in pubs that don't have Sky Sports. You do not sound like someone who has much experience of proper pubs.
You know there are modern ports for these such that you don't need to use DOSbox right? I'd recommend the JonoF port of Duke Nukem 3D along with the various hi-res texture pack downloads and models that have been made. If you're a purist this may not be what you're looking for but the extras are optional.
I can't remember which Quake engine port I'm using (not at home and there's an absolute tonne) but there's also a hi-res texture pack that was done for it and it really looks good without changing the style at all and I'd definitely recommend seeking that out to get the same classic experience with a face-lift.
Other game I've played recently a lot on PC is StarCraft II - again catching up a bit - and if you like StarCraft you'll probably like this. Best of all you can just go ahead and get the "Starter Edition" and decide for yourself. I particularly like the StarBattle Arcade game which you can play on that version I believe - it's basically capital ship battles with a bunch of smaller fighters like something out of Babylon 5.
I recently got a PS3 (it's cheap!) and have been playing through the "older" games I missed out on having not been playing games recently. If you're looking for something different I'd highly recommend The Last Of Us as this is basically what I'd think of if you asked me how an "interactive movie" should be done in that it tells a great story whilst also being a proper game in its own right.
This is Galactica Actual. Spool up.
Well now I'm a little sad I didn't know about that because that sounds like the best feature I never had a chance to use.
Then there was some outsourcing to the Middle East but there's been a real backlash against them recently.
And then he tries to get his son in to fix everything...