Alright. So say I believe that being male is immoral. Well, let me say this: there are many people who don't view being male as a fundamental trait! So, when I say "You are immoral for being male", I just believe you need to 'reform your ways'. Not saying there is anything wrong with you as a PERSON, you just need to stop choosing to be male.
A relevant quote:
the American Psychological Association has stated "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
This is the same with gender! Most people experience little or no sense of choice about being born male, but they really do have the choice (sexchange).
Immoral behavior is called sin, in Christianity? This certainly is not true. Are babies immoral upon birth? Or committing some immoral act by coming into the world? Sin in Christianity is only related to morality, not equivalent to it.
Also, you are weaseling out of the things you have already said. I define "fundamental trait" however I like? If you are using my definition (explained above), then you ARE IN FACT saying that many people view sexual orientation as a simple choice, a whim. A minute ago you said it was insulting to even CONSIDER that anyone thought that.
I was trying to tell you what I meant to convey in my original post, and what your response meant in that context.
Fundamental and innate are mean two different things, your response replaces my use of 'fundamental character trait' with 'innate to one's nature', changing from "of central importance" in meaning to "existing from birth, native". That is exactly a counter argument: you responded to a straw man statement that I never backed.
Saying something is a fundamental character trait is not the same as saying it is "innate to one's nature". I would say being a nice guy can be a fundamental character trait. Being of a particular ethnicity is an innate feature, having a propensity to be tall is innate (though actually being tall depends on proper nourishment). However, to say that fundamental traits must be innate is to throw out nurture entirely.
If someone believes that a trait NOT fundamental, they then believe it is superficial. Similar to saying it based on a whim.
Fundamental character traits can change over time or quickly - traumatic events can cause someone's personality to become unrecognizable. This is a distinct class from innate attributes or whimsical attributes.
Lots of people are getting the concept wrong, but the overall sentiment is spot-on.
So, maybe they don't throw out a badly-etched master now and then. Do bad masters account for some significant loss of resources, driving up the price of CDs for you and I? No way in hell.
Normal technology has been capable of creating perfect fidelity masters for release purposes. It is not as if they publish executable content on CDs in a lossy fashion.
Now they are republishing 60 titles that they should have simply gotten the master correct in the first place (and probably did). A money grabbing ploy pure and simple.
It is recognized widely that sexuality is not simply a "lifestyle choice". Believing otherwise amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalala". Your belief that gays choose their sexuality on a whim has no bearing on reality and is therefore irrelevant.
It amounts to saying "I don't think 'motherfucker' is an insult, so you shouldn't have a problem with me calling you that".
"These parents don't see arsonists as monsters or anything like that.... They do feel that arson is immoral..."
Substitute whatever you want for homosexuality, and see how ridiculous that sounds.
Saying that a fundamental character trait is immoral is saying that the person with that trait is fundamentally immoral. Saying someone is fundamentally immoral is to say that they are evil, which amounts to calling them monsters.
Your analogy is terrible. Halo 3 is not comparable to Chuck E Cheese, and saying "I am lesbian" is not comparable to "I like dicks in my ass" or a similar vulgar phrase.
As has been noted before, there are doubtlessly individuals who advertise being straight, and no one has bee banned for this.
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
Sherwin-Williams Company, The State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., et al. The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejects the Stateâ(TM)s public nuisance claim seeking the abatement of lead paint in buildings by Sherwin-Williams and other former lead pigment manufacturers.
Cool, I'll pay for it, then not be able to play it when I'm booted to linux (90% of the time). Great.
Maybe I've seen the artist in concert several times and given them over $100 in ticket fees, which in terms of profit is more than they would get if I bought 30 albums from them off iTunes?
I disagree. Every single WOW user uses torrents - that is 11.5 million users, probably about as many as people who know what torrents are. There are many other applications that use torrents for distribution as well.
This makes me think of a friend in high school. His phone rang during our senior English class. He stood up, answered it, said "I have to take this" and walked out. Our teacher actually cried. After class, she called him a whore.
I disagree. Maybe this is a case where parents didn't motivate children enough, or something. But it isn't really comparable to cases of deficient parenting we see so often in schools.
I'm of the generation in question, and I witnessed many people text messaging in class in high school. I still see it in university as a matter of fact. The issues of respect are probably generational, and sometimes (not always) I would blame the teacher for failing to hold the students attention. On the other hand, there are students who simply always text message.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched Inspector Gadget and I'm only 18!
By the way, why is 'damn' + 'it' spelled dammit? That always mystifies me. Perhaps a fear that the 'i' will harden the silent 'n'?
Alright. So say I believe that being male is immoral. Well, let me say this: there are many people who don't view being male as a fundamental trait! So, when I say "You are immoral for being male", I just believe you need to 'reform your ways'. Not saying there is anything wrong with you as a PERSON, you just need to stop choosing to be male.
A relevant quote:
the American Psychological Association has stated "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
This is the same with gender! Most people experience little or no sense of choice about being born male, but they really do have the choice (sexchange).
Immoral behavior is called sin, in Christianity? This certainly is not true. Are babies immoral upon birth? Or committing some immoral act by coming into the world? Sin in Christianity is only related to morality, not equivalent to it.
Also, you are weaseling out of the things you have already said. I define "fundamental trait" however I like? If you are using my definition (explained above), then you ARE IN FACT saying that many people view sexual orientation as a simple choice, a whim. A minute ago you said it was insulting to even CONSIDER that anyone thought that.
I was trying to tell you what I meant to convey in my original post, and what your response meant in that context.
Fundamental and innate are mean two different things, your response replaces my use of 'fundamental character trait' with 'innate to one's nature', changing from "of central importance" in meaning to "existing from birth, native". That is exactly a counter argument: you responded to a straw man statement that I never backed.
Saying something is a fundamental character trait is not the same as saying it is "innate to one's nature". I would say being a nice guy can be a fundamental character trait. Being of a particular ethnicity is an innate feature, having a propensity to be tall is innate (though actually being tall depends on proper nourishment). However, to say that fundamental traits must be innate is to throw out nurture entirely.
If someone believes that a trait NOT fundamental, they then believe it is superficial. Similar to saying it based on a whim.
Fundamental character traits can change over time or quickly - traumatic events can cause someone's personality to become unrecognizable. This is a distinct class from innate attributes or whimsical attributes.
Are bosenovae in any way related to Bossanova?
Lots of people are getting the concept wrong, but the overall sentiment is spot-on.
So, maybe they don't throw out a badly-etched master now and then. Do bad masters account for some significant loss of resources, driving up the price of CDs for you and I? No way in hell.
Normal technology has been capable of creating perfect fidelity masters for release purposes. It is not as if they publish executable content on CDs in a lossy fashion.
Now they are republishing 60 titles that they should have simply gotten the master correct in the first place (and probably did). A money grabbing ploy pure and simple.
It is recognized widely that sexuality is not simply a "lifestyle choice". Believing otherwise amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalala". Your belief that gays choose their sexuality on a whim has no bearing on reality and is therefore irrelevant.
It amounts to saying "I don't think 'motherfucker' is an insult, so you shouldn't have a problem with me calling you that".
"These parents don't see arsonists as monsters or anything like that. ...
They do feel that arson is immoral..."
Substitute whatever you want for homosexuality, and see how ridiculous that sounds.
Saying that a fundamental character trait is immoral is saying that the person with that trait is fundamentally immoral. Saying someone is fundamentally immoral is to say that they are evil, which amounts to calling them monsters.
Your analogy is terrible. Halo 3 is not comparable to Chuck E Cheese, and saying "I am lesbian" is not comparable to "I like dicks in my ass" or a similar vulgar phrase.
As has been noted before, there are doubtlessly individuals who advertise being straight, and no one has bee banned for this.
Forcing every other member of the industry to pay you to be in business isn't "reducing competition"?
Sounds an awful lot like buying up all the barrel-making plants and refusing to sell them to other oil companies.
Woah.
But hey, (almost) all of that money was printed by the government at some point!
So NPR is 100% funded by the government and counterfeiters!
Hmm...
Searched for Micro-dicked weasels.
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
You want goatse.fr
It is the only currently running second-level domain for goatse (As per the Wikipedia article).
Sounds like a cool firm. Check it:
Sherwin-Williams Company, The
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., et al.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejects the Stateâ(TM)s public nuisance claim seeking the abatement of lead paint in buildings by Sherwin-Williams and other former lead pigment manufacturers.
Awesome.
What does Boxxy have to do with the chans plz?
That's why they should use the GIMP Lens Flare filter!
Dammit AC, did you just use the phrase "unimaginative philistine"?
Why would this be tied in to the kernel?
But how would it make money?
Cool, I'll pay for it, then not be able to play it when I'm booted to linux (90% of the time). Great.
Maybe I've seen the artist in concert several times and given them over $100 in ticket fees, which in terms of profit is more than they would get if I bought 30 albums from them off iTunes?
I disagree. Every single WOW user uses torrents - that is 11.5 million users, probably about as many as people who know what torrents are. There are many other applications that use torrents for distribution as well.
And yet Boxxy doesn't get an article because of WP:NN :'(
This makes me think of a friend in high school. His phone rang during our senior English class.
He stood up, answered it, said "I have to take this" and walked out. Our teacher actually cried.
After class, she called him a whore.
I disagree. Maybe this is a case where parents didn't motivate children enough, or something. But it isn't really comparable to cases of deficient parenting we see so often in schools.
I'm of the generation in question, and I witnessed many people text messaging in class in high school. I still see it in university as a matter of fact. The issues of respect are probably generational, and sometimes (not always) I would blame the teacher for failing to hold the students attention. On the other hand, there are students who simply always text message.