But the correct way should be that no government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary
or in line with what any religion has instituted.
I disagree to a point. The role of gov't is to promote the general welfare. The CP believes that there is historical evidence to conclude that the family is the basis of gov't, and that the traditional family is the most enduring. Besides, you can't have it both ways. Either you define marriage as "two people together" which violates some people's beliefs, or you define it as "a man and a woman together" which violates other people's beliefs.
Government is not allowed to make a distinction of people based on their gender or gender preference.
I disagree to a point, also. I don't think women should serve in the military in a combat capacity. I don't think the women should be in the trenches shooting M-16's with the men. Yet the current administration has been trying to let them have the same duties, except the "standards" are different to make it appear as if women are the same as men. There are differences between men and women. (Duh.) In some cases, those differences are directly pertinent to the subject in question. In such cases, the gov't is justified in making the distinction.
In some cases, promoting the general welfare means narrowing the definitions. Personal actions affect society. If society is adversely affected, those actions may be prohibited. How is this different than any other law?
If they are a private organization, then they don't need to be subsidized with public/federal funds.
I agree, and so does the CP. As a private organization, they do not accept federal campaign financing, on the principle of it. The gov't has no authority in the Constitution to give taxpayers' money to private organizations. It's a matter of conscience: it is tyranny to force people to finance activities they do not support, it amounts to seizure of property. I can't categorically state this as an absolute either, because while some may not want to support the military, I think the rest of us agree than the gov't should provide for the common defense. Etc.
You're right, this is probably going waaaay off-topic. But what the hey...
OK, first thing: I don't assume that other people agree with me. I simply post my opinions (in this case) and let the discussion flow from that. My belief (which you're free to not agree with) is that there is one God, and the character of God is that He is holy and righteous. He's also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. His holiness and righteousness are absolutes. It's an axiom that "nobody (human) is perfect" but God doesn't have that limitation. Therefore, He's the only one that can set a standard. If any human does, the standard is going to change, because people change and are imperfect - so it's not a standard. But an 3-omni God can set an absolute standard, and because His very nature is holy, He has.
While you think that the "standard" you've created from yourself is a result of human creation, it almost certainly derives most of its pertinent aspects from the Judeo-Christian ethic (at least I assume you're posting from a western cultural setting). Society has not always been as secular as it is now.
But the tricky thing is that I want control of *my* own life as well. I don't want people telling me how I have to live my life. [...] The problem is, a person cannot be perceived as at "upright moral person" to every one. Its along the lines of the axiom, "You can't please everyone."
It's only important that I please the One who sets the standard.
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the
religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments
forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties
of the people.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a
direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited
by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine
their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
The platform does not address homosexuality, per se. But it does say this about the AIDS and Family:
The first duty of civil government is to protect innocent human life. AIDS and HIV is a
contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil
rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to
subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual
conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or
commission place members of the public at risk of contracting AIDS or HIV.
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family. We affirm, therefore, that no
government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God
has instituted. Parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate,
and discipline their children. Assumption of any of these responsibilities by any
governmental agency usurps the role of the parents.
I think this amounts to saying that the government's job, as described in the Constitution, is to "promote the general Welfare". So do what you want, but don't expect the gov't to treat you any differently than anybody else. By this it means, "If you carry a contagious disease, you should be treated that way," and, "Gay people have the same right to marry as anyone else: a man may marry a woman."
Proper instruction for women entering marriage should be that it is their *place* to accept a submissive role to the husband, who becomes the defacto head of the household and the one with the final say on what goes.
No, because that's the view of a particular religion, and the government's job is not to dictate religion. Don't forget that these folks are the type that quote stuff like, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The CP believes that strong families build a strong nation, but how you run your family is your concern.
I hope this clears up your questions about the CP a little. I don't believe that they out to tell you how you should live your life, as you feared. I believe they're out to get gov't to stop telling you how to live your life. Read through the platform sometime. The preamble alone makes their position clear. The rest is just the same principle applied to specific issues.
My comments should not be construed as the official position of the Constitution Party.
Dr. James Kennedy in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? writes:
A number of scholars have commented on how Christianity gave birth to modern science. Francis Shaeffer mentions a few of them:
Both Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) have stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian world view. Whitehead was a widely respected mathematician and philosopher, and Oppenheimer, after he became director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in 1947, wrote on a wide range of subjects related to science.... Whitehead [in his 1925 book,
Science and the Modern World] said that Christianity is the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God."
[...]
Some of the greatest pioneers of science were committed Christians. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) coined the phrase that is the title of this chapter: "Thinking God's thoughts after Him." When a scientist is engaged in the study of nature, he is looking for what laws God set up in nature. Kepler wrote: "Since we astronomers are priest of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God." Kepler wrote in The Mystery of the Universe: "Now, as God the maker played, He taught the game to Nature, Whom He created in His Image."
[...]
[Blaise] Pascal [(1623-1662)] wrote: "Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contrary to their findings. It simply transcends, without contradicting them." [...]
The Christian's God does not merely consist of a God who is the Author of mathematical truths and the order of the elements. That is the notion of the heathen and the Epicurians.... But the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of the Christians, is a God of love and consolation.
[...]
[Newton] wrote in his Principia: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Francis Shaeffer points out that humanists regret that Newton spent so much time near the end of his life writing about the Bible rather than studying the creation independent of the Creator. This criticism is predicated on their assumption that science and Scripture conflict, whereas it was the Bible that gave rise to modern science! Newton said: "I have a foundational belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
This great scientist had this to say on the subject of unbelief: "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of light and heat. This did not happen by chance."
[...]
Schaeffer observes that [Michael] Faraday [(1791-1867)] belonged to a Christian fellowship group of scientists whose position was "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." He was an active member of his Bible-oriented church and is reported to have had a strong "abiding" faith in the Bible and in prayer.
Oh, but I have thought it through. I understand that under the anarchy model, your friends would be free to turn around and kill me in return. Maybe in this case it would be justified, but then my friends could turn around and kill yours, because maybe they don't see it as justified. The cycle, once begun, never ends!
Is this right? Heck no! This is an example of an extremely immoral society that no sane person would want to live in! Yet it's a result of "relative morality" taken to its logical conclusion. There have to be laws, and those laws have to be derived from an absolute morality.
After all, what qualifies as "you giving me a reason to kill you" anyway? If morality's relative, I might value your life less than a flea's and kill you because you wore the wrong color shoes. You inherently assume an absolute standard of morality in the statement "presuming I didn't give you a reason to kill me"!
Why am I responding to an obvious troll? I don't know....
Maybe because I'm obviously not a troll? You'd do well to learn the difference between "a person posting opinions you disagree with" and "a person posting inflammatory comments with the sole purpose of baiting equally inflammatory replies". Perhaps I'm the former, but I'm definitely not the latter.
[Moderators: re-read the previous paragraph and keep it in mind while moderating. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a troll. Likewise, meta-moderators: a post you disagree with marked positively is not unfairly moderated (as long as it is Insightful/whatever to people with the opposite opinion). ]
"What God?" you ask? As if the capital "G" weren't enough to tip you off that I'm talking about the only God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If you must have His personal name it is Yahweh, which I prefer not to use lightly out of respect for Jewish readers who may even prefer His title spelled out "G-d".
I don't know about you, friend, but I'd prefer a holy and righteous God as my ruler as opposed to men who are neither.
If laws aren't based on morality, I'm going to work at changing them! I sure as heck don't want to live under the rule of immoral laws, do you?
Murder is illegal. Thou shalt not kill. Theft is illegal. Thou shalt not steal. Rape is illegal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. The US legal system is based on English common law, which is derived from moral law. A good moral foundation will do more to promote orderly conduct within a society than any number of laws you care to pass. If a person isn't good within, you can't impose goodness from without.
People don't think of the good of society first, give me a break! When it comes down to it, under pressure, man's nature is to say "every man for himself". Quite amoral. Only if a person is committed to moral conduct does he begin to think of the good of other people.
That's the beauty of PICS. PICS is merely a scheme for creating rating systems. That's why we have RSACi, SafeSurf, VWP, and probably lots of others. A couple of these will rise to the top as being the most useful for a particular context (RSACi and SafeSurf come to mind in the context discussed here - the de facto standards) and the others will fade, or be used for different contexts. So rate with RSACi and SafeSurf.
You completely missed the point. Read the quote again.
I plan to show my kids the internet, to show them where the porn is and say "If you want it, it's here. There's nothing wrong with it and nothing to be ashamed of."
Are you agreeing that joshua.aos should show his future kids all the porn and perversion available on the internet? I think showing kids alot of the stuff out there constitutes child abuse.
Nobody said the internet, with or without filters, is a baby-sitter.
<HYPOTHETICAL>
My personal morality has no qualms with killing people I think are stupid and worthless. I think you are stupid and worthless, so I kill you. I doubt you'd agree with me, but it's too late, you're dead. But hey, morality's relative, right? I can do whatever I want and you have to accept it.
</HYPOTHETICAL>
Hmmm, blows a big ol' hole in your hypothesis, doesn't it? No matter how you feel about it, there is a standard for right and wrong. You are not the one that sets that standard. (Just because you feel like doing something doesn't make it right.) Society doesn't set that standard. (Just because "everybody's doing it" doesn't make it right.) God sets the standard. "Relative morality" is a failed concept.
Site-based filtering is
broken. [...] If you don't like the content on the web, then filter on the web content by all means. Let's see PICS rating more commonly used.
This is exactly why my site has two PICS labels: the SafeSurf one, and the VWP one. Let me tell you, it was interesting to go through and rate my "Canadian-ness" or rather my "British Columbian-ness".
Darkwind! Man, I killed a lot of time there over the past 7 years or whatever it's been. I enjoyed MUDs but I'm glad I've weaned myself from them. Of course, being married now has had an affect, I'm sure...
My company had a client that wanted to filter "unacceptable" names like this. However, our solution was to have the "unacceptable" name entry send a flag by email to the client. The client then had an admin interface to manually permit/deny access. This kept the undesirables off the system, yet permitted legitimate uses of certain letter combinations. Seems like the ideal solution, to me.
This sounds more like the US in the early 1950's -- the US my grandparents talked about. All in all, it makes me wonder what happened to civility in this country.
Hmm, what happened around the 50's and early 60's that might have had this kind of impact? Public prayer in schools was outlawed, and with it the instruction in moral values. Without a moral fiber being ingrained by society (the kind of moral fiber that says things like "love your neighbor" - which you can read "be civil to your neighbor" if you want, although love has implications beyond mere civility), the society started to unravel. And before you say, "But whose 'moral values' would you teach?" think that in the 50's this was a non-question. There was only one set of moral values: those found in the Bible.
I disagree that moral leadership has a role in government, outside of the government providing good role models.
Isn't "providing good role models" moral leadership? You don't have to tell people what to do to be a leader, you can show them. And it's usually more effective, too. Billy Graham may stand on a pulpit and say, "Thus sayeth..." and whatever, but he wouldn't have nearly the respect he does if he didn't live his own life with the integrity he does. That's real moral leadership, IMO. (Do you think anyone would listen to Bill Clinton preach on the evils of extra-marital sex? He's lost his integrity.)
I think it's the government's job to be at the other end of the tunnel- to be there to impose order when people don't receive good values from [whomever].
Ummm, do you want an entity that hasn't exhibited good moral character to impose their order on you at any time??? All the more reason that a nation's leaders must be of good moral character. They have too much power. You either need to guarantee that people with that much power are upright moral people (HA!), or you limit the power of gov't so that tyrants can't abuse the citizenry. And right now we've got immoral people with lots of power, and that's a bad place to be.
The federal gov't of the United States has, over the years, usurped alot of power that rightfully belongs to the people and the states, according to the U.S. Constitution. That power needs to be brought back to where it should be, and that's why I'll be voting Constitution Party this November. I want control of my own life. Our freedom is a right we need to hold on to.
I agree that it's best to have parents responsibly raising their own children. But face it, there are some jerks out there that aren't good parents. Always have been, always will be. I for one am glad there are laws against stealing just in case some parent didn't teach their kids that taking what you want whenever you want from whomever you want isn't a good thing to do. You know?
Any gov't should be the minimum size and have the minimum power it needs in order to do what the governed cannot do individually (or on a more local gov't level). A republic (government of law) is needed to reign in the darker impulses of mankind so there is fairness in which to exercise individual freedoms.
In this case it's nice to think that everyone will make the best decisions, but people don't do that. Kids don't have enough experience to make wise choices, and parents can't always be around to mentor them. It's in the best interest of society to have some laws which restrict their freedom somewhat in order to keep them out of danger. This restriction is what more responsible parents would be doing. No, this isn't an excuse for parents not to actively parent, but c'mon...it's alot harder to be a parent today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Empowering parents to do better in their parental role is a good thing.
To respond to your statement, society can't respond with more responsible parents. How does it do that, tell everyone, "Hey be more responsible"? That kind of change has to come from within, a reshaping of the heart. Personally I think the decline of morality can only be turned around by a return to the Judeo-Christian basis the US was founded on.
You're right, laws can't make a lasting change, instead they only restrict freedom. As a society we need to realize that, and willingly embrace a code of morality, or it will be imposed on us by the gov't by the passage of more and more laws. Separation of Church and State does not mean separation of God and State...there is plenty of room for good moral leadership in gov't.
Wouldn't least common denominator make more sense? That's what I'm advocating here.
Use HTML to do logical markup - all browsers can understand this with no hassles, and the document will make sense no matter where it's read. You don't need JavaScript or server-side client sniffers. Use CSS to apply formatting - if it's ignored in old browsers the default presentation still makes sense, and it's easier to maintain besides. I'll leave you with a quote.
The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em) provides more truly useful information about the rendering environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying, "open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
How can it be less cost-effective to take a simpler yet more widely-applicable approach?
Of course it sounds like you're a convert already, I just felt I had to respond because I'm dumbfounded that companies keep choosing to waste their money by taking the more difficult route.
And I really don't care if some old browser is borked by my valid HTML+CSS either.
I agree with that- there are some things you just don't put in front of a kid. But what's the advantage to having the government draw the line, rather than the kid's parents?
So I'd say that you support school vouchers (let parents decide where their kids should go to school), lower taxes and smaller gov't (let people decide where their money should go, not the gov't), a major overhaul/reduction of the welfare state (let charities/churches handle this rather than gov't enforcement of it). Am I right? Just curious and wondering out loud.
And on Slashdot, you can belong to any religion you want, so long as it's
not Christianity.
Oh, you've noticed that too, eh? And over on MacSlash, there are even people who complain about my sig. (Hey, it's a sig, turn them off in your preferences if you don't like reading them.)
How many times have those of us in the States been asked for our SS# during purchases? I recently signed up for a new wireless phone and the sales guy needed my SS# for the application. I told him "um, nope, you don't need that, I am only buying a phone". Anyone else?
Amen to that. If I can't see that they need information, and they can't explain to me why they need the information, I don't supply the information. I'm trying to train my wife the same way, but, like most other people I know, she just gives whatever they ask for without a second thought.
We filled an app for a "buying power" card at the local grocery the other day and they wanted SS#. My wife pushed the form toward me, saying it needed my number, but I just pushed it back and said they didn't need it. No one made a stink about it.
If sites were coded to standards then less time would have to be spent second-guessing the user and more time could be spent on building the real functionality desired (and that's sort of the point of the site, isn't it?) so that they could be usable by anybody. More potential clients/customers is a good thing, right?
Why oh why is it taking the corporate world so long to realize this? Is it going to take a major law suit against a big company to make them open their eyes?
I hate "me too" posts, but you're right. I'd love to have a quality browser right now but I guess I'll settle for having a quality browser at all. Modern software development concentrates too much on "get it out the door" instead of quality.
OS X sure as heckbetter be able to run well on a G3, since that's what Apple has promised. I've got a beige G3 (2-y.o. now &rArr slower than new low-end iMacs) that I've been wanting to install on for about as long as I've had it.
Heck no, man, it would get faster! Imagine not having a bazillion AOL users hitting the net every day at 5:30, and the associated loss of a bazillion AIM messages. More than 90% of the spammers in the world would be cut off. Etc etc etc. There would be tremendous bandwidth savings.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree to a point. The role of gov't is to promote the general welfare. The CP believes that there is historical evidence to conclude that the family is the basis of gov't, and that the traditional family is the most enduring. Besides, you can't have it both ways. Either you define marriage as "two people together" which violates some people's beliefs, or you define it as "a man and a woman together" which violates other people's beliefs.
I disagree to a point, also. I don't think women should serve in the military in a combat capacity. I don't think the women should be in the trenches shooting M-16's with the men. Yet the current administration has been trying to let them have the same duties, except the "standards" are different to make it appear as if women are the same as men. There are differences between men and women. (Duh.) In some cases, those differences are directly pertinent to the subject in question. In such cases, the gov't is justified in making the distinction.
In some cases, promoting the general welfare means narrowing the definitions. Personal actions affect society. If society is adversely affected, those actions may be prohibited. How is this different than any other law?
I agree, and so does the CP. As a private organization, they do not accept federal campaign financing, on the principle of it. The gov't has no authority in the Constitution to give taxpayers' money to private organizations. It's a matter of conscience: it is tyranny to force people to finance activities they do not support, it amounts to seizure of property. I can't categorically state this as an absolute either, because while some may not want to support the military, I think the rest of us agree than the gov't should provide for the common defense. Etc.
You're right, this is probably going waaaay off-topic. But what the hey...
OK, first thing: I don't assume that other people agree with me. I simply post my opinions (in this case) and let the discussion flow from that. My belief (which you're free to not agree with) is that there is one God, and the character of God is that He is holy and righteous. He's also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. His holiness and righteousness are absolutes. It's an axiom that "nobody (human) is perfect" but God doesn't have that limitation. Therefore, He's the only one that can set a standard. If any human does, the standard is going to change, because people change and are imperfect - so it's not a standard. But an 3-omni God can set an absolute standard, and because His very nature is holy, He has.
While you think that the "standard" you've created from yourself is a result of human creation, it almost certainly derives most of its pertinent aspects from the Judeo-Christian ethic (at least I assume you're posting from a western cultural setting). Society has not always been as secular as it is now.
It's only important that I please the One who sets the standard.
From the CP platform regarding religion:
The platform does not address homosexuality, per se. But it does say this about the AIDS and Family:
I think this amounts to saying that the government's job, as described in the Constitution, is to "promote the general Welfare". So do what you want, but don't expect the gov't to treat you any differently than anybody else. By this it means, "If you carry a contagious disease, you should be treated that way," and, "Gay people have the same right to marry as anyone else: a man may marry a woman."
No, because that's the view of a particular religion, and the government's job is not to dictate religion. Don't forget that these folks are the type that quote stuff like, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The CP believes that strong families build a strong nation, but how you run your family is your concern.
I hope this clears up your questions about the CP a little. I don't believe that they out to tell you how you should live your life, as you feared. I believe they're out to get gov't to stop telling you how to live your life. Read through the platform sometime. The preamble alone makes their position clear. The rest is just the same principle applied to specific issues.
My comments should not be construed as the official position of the Constitution Party.
Dr. James Kennedy in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? writes:
Please discuss.
Oh, but I have thought it through. I understand that under the anarchy model, your friends would be free to turn around and kill me in return. Maybe in this case it would be justified, but then my friends could turn around and kill yours, because maybe they don't see it as justified. The cycle, once begun, never ends!
Is this right? Heck no! This is an example of an extremely immoral society that no sane person would want to live in! Yet it's a result of "relative morality" taken to its logical conclusion. There have to be laws, and those laws have to be derived from an absolute morality.
After all, what qualifies as "you giving me a reason to kill you" anyway? If morality's relative, I might value your life less than a flea's and kill you because you wore the wrong color shoes. You inherently assume an absolute standard of morality in the statement "presuming I didn't give you a reason to kill me"!
Maybe because I'm obviously not a troll? You'd do well to learn the difference between "a person posting opinions you disagree with" and "a person posting inflammatory comments with the sole purpose of baiting equally inflammatory replies". Perhaps I'm the former, but I'm definitely not the latter.
[Moderators: re-read the previous paragraph and keep it in mind while moderating. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a troll. Likewise, meta-moderators: a post you disagree with marked positively is not unfairly moderated (as long as it is Insightful/whatever to people with the opposite opinion). ]
"What God?" you ask? As if the capital "G" weren't enough to tip you off that I'm talking about the only God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If you must have His personal name it is Yahweh, which I prefer not to use lightly out of respect for Jewish readers who may even prefer His title spelled out "G-d".
I don't know about you, friend, but I'd prefer a holy and righteous God as my ruler as opposed to men who are neither.
If laws aren't based on morality, I'm going to work at changing them! I sure as heck don't want to live under the rule of immoral laws, do you?
Murder is illegal. Thou shalt not kill. Theft is illegal. Thou shalt not steal. Rape is illegal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. The US legal system is based on English common law, which is derived from moral law. A good moral foundation will do more to promote orderly conduct within a society than any number of laws you care to pass. If a person isn't good within, you can't impose goodness from without.
People don't think of the good of society first, give me a break! When it comes down to it, under pressure, man's nature is to say "every man for himself". Quite amoral. Only if a person is committed to moral conduct does he begin to think of the good of other people.
That's the beauty of PICS. PICS is merely a scheme for creating rating systems. That's why we have RSACi, SafeSurf, VWP, and probably lots of others. A couple of these will rise to the top as being the most useful for a particular context (RSACi and SafeSurf come to mind in the context discussed here - the de facto standards) and the others will fade, or be used for different contexts. So rate with RSACi and SafeSurf.
You completely missed the point. Read the quote again.
Are you agreeing that joshua.aos should show his future kids all the porn and perversion available on the internet? I think showing kids alot of the stuff out there constitutes child abuse.
Nobody said the internet, with or without filters, is a baby-sitter.
<HYPOTHETICAL>
My personal morality has no qualms with killing people I think are stupid and worthless. I think you are stupid and worthless, so I kill you. I doubt you'd agree with me, but it's too late, you're dead. But hey, morality's relative, right? I can do whatever I want and you have to accept it.
</HYPOTHETICAL>
Hmmm, blows a big ol' hole in your hypothesis, doesn't it? No matter how you feel about it, there is a standard for right and wrong. You are not the one that sets that standard. (Just because you feel like doing something doesn't make it right.) Society doesn't set that standard. (Just because "everybody's doing it" doesn't make it right.) God sets the standard. "Relative morality" is a failed concept.
This is exactly why my site has two PICS labels: the SafeSurf one, and the VWP one. Let me tell you, it was interesting to go through and rate my "Canadian-ness" or rather my "British Columbian-ness".
Darkwind! Man, I killed a lot of time there over the past 7 years or whatever it's been. I enjoyed MUDs but I'm glad I've weaned myself from them. Of course, being married now has had an affect, I'm sure...
My company had a client that wanted to filter "unacceptable" names like this. However, our solution was to have the "unacceptable" name entry send a flag by email to the client. The client then had an admin interface to manually permit/deny access. This kept the undesirables off the system, yet permitted legitimate uses of certain letter combinations. Seems like the ideal solution, to me.
Hmm, what happened around the 50's and early 60's that might have had this kind of impact? Public prayer in schools was outlawed, and with it the instruction in moral values. Without a moral fiber being ingrained by society (the kind of moral fiber that says things like "love your neighbor" - which you can read "be civil to your neighbor" if you want, although love has implications beyond mere civility), the society started to unravel. And before you say, "But whose 'moral values' would you teach?" think that in the 50's this was a non-question. There was only one set of moral values: those found in the Bible.
Isn't "providing good role models" moral leadership? You don't have to tell people what to do to be a leader, you can show them. And it's usually more effective, too. Billy Graham may stand on a pulpit and say, "Thus sayeth..." and whatever, but he wouldn't have nearly the respect he does if he didn't live his own life with the integrity he does. That's real moral leadership, IMO. (Do you think anyone would listen to Bill Clinton preach on the evils of extra-marital sex? He's lost his integrity.)
Ummm, do you want an entity that hasn't exhibited good moral character to impose their order on you at any time??? All the more reason that a nation's leaders must be of good moral character. They have too much power. You either need to guarantee that people with that much power are upright moral people (HA!), or you limit the power of gov't so that tyrants can't abuse the citizenry. And right now we've got immoral people with lots of power, and that's a bad place to be.
The federal gov't of the United States has, over the years, usurped alot of power that rightfully belongs to the people and the states, according to the U.S. Constitution. That power needs to be brought back to where it should be, and that's why I'll be voting Constitution Party this November. I want control of my own life. Our freedom is a right we need to hold on to.
I agree that it's best to have parents responsibly raising their own children. But face it, there are some jerks out there that aren't good parents. Always have been, always will be. I for one am glad there are laws against stealing just in case some parent didn't teach their kids that taking what you want whenever you want from whomever you want isn't a good thing to do. You know?
Any gov't should be the minimum size and have the minimum power it needs in order to do what the governed cannot do individually (or on a more local gov't level). A republic (government of law) is needed to reign in the darker impulses of mankind so there is fairness in which to exercise individual freedoms.
In this case it's nice to think that everyone will make the best decisions, but people don't do that. Kids don't have enough experience to make wise choices, and parents can't always be around to mentor them. It's in the best interest of society to have some laws which restrict their freedom somewhat in order to keep them out of danger. This restriction is what more responsible parents would be doing. No, this isn't an excuse for parents not to actively parent, but c'mon...it's alot harder to be a parent today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Empowering parents to do better in their parental role is a good thing.
To respond to your statement, society can't respond with more responsible parents. How does it do that, tell everyone, "Hey be more responsible"? That kind of change has to come from within, a reshaping of the heart. Personally I think the decline of morality can only be turned around by a return to the Judeo-Christian basis the US was founded on.
You're right, laws can't make a lasting change, instead they only restrict freedom. As a society we need to realize that, and willingly embrace a code of morality, or it will be imposed on us by the gov't by the passage of more and more laws. Separation of Church and State does not mean separation of God and State...there is plenty of room for good moral leadership in gov't.
Wouldn't least common denominator make more sense? That's what I'm advocating here.
Use HTML to do logical markup - all browsers can understand this with no hassles, and the document will make sense no matter where it's read. You don't need JavaScript or server-side client sniffers. Use CSS to apply formatting - if it's ignored in old browsers the default presentation still makes sense, and it's easier to maintain besides. I'll leave you with a quote.
How can it be less cost-effective to take a simpler yet more widely-applicable approach?
Of course it sounds like you're a convert already, I just felt I had to respond because I'm dumbfounded that companies keep choosing to waste their money by taking the more difficult route.
And I really don't care if some old browser is borked by my valid HTML+CSS either.
So I'd say that you support school vouchers (let parents decide where their kids should go to school), lower taxes and smaller gov't (let people decide where their money should go, not the gov't), a major overhaul/reduction of the welfare state (let charities/churches handle this rather than gov't enforcement of it). Am I right? Just curious and wondering out loud.
Oh, you've noticed that too, eh? And over on MacSlash, there are even people who complain about my sig. (Hey, it's a sig, turn them off in your preferences if you don't like reading them.)
Amen to that. If I can't see that they need information, and they can't explain to me why they need the information, I don't supply the information. I'm trying to train my wife the same way, but, like most other people I know, she just gives whatever they ask for without a second thought.
We filled an app for a "buying power" card at the local grocery the other day and they wanted SS#. My wife pushed the form toward me, saying it needed my number, but I just pushed it back and said they didn't need it. No one made a stink about it.
If sites were coded to standards then less time would have to be spent second-guessing the user and more time could be spent on building the real functionality desired (and that's sort of the point of the site, isn't it?) so that they could be usable by anybody. More potential clients/customers is a good thing, right?
Why oh why is it taking the corporate world so long to realize this? Is it going to take a major law suit against a big company to make them open their eyes?
I hate "me too" posts, but you're right. I'd love to have a quality browser right now but I guess I'll settle for having a quality browser at all. Modern software development concentrates too much on "get it out the door" instead of quality.
Mozilla is up to 1020? Sheesh! No wonder it's taking so long!
grumble grumble roman numerals grumble grumble
OS X sure as heck better be able to run well on a G3, since that's what Apple has promised. I've got a beige G3 (2-y.o. now &rArr slower than new low-end iMacs) that I've been wanting to install on for about as long as I've had it.
Heck no, man, it would get faster! Imagine not having a bazillion AOL users hitting the net every day at 5:30, and the associated loss of a bazillion AIM messages. More than 90% of the spammers in the world would be cut off. Etc etc etc. There would be tremendous bandwidth savings.
Nuke the US. It's best for the net.