Having "unenforced" laws on the books that everyone breaks is dangerous because it allows police to selectively enforce those laws when they want to harass a specific individual or group
Yes, you did. But you also wrote it in the first place and it gave me some insight into who you are and how you think. Perhaps not the impression you intended to make but that is the nature of such slips of the tongue (or the finger in this case). Sort of like a person who writes "niggers" then crosses it out and writes "African Americans".
When I wrote that, I was thinking of those arrogant atheists who call themselves "freethinkers" or "brights".
You seem to like labels. Why did you bring religion (or the lack of it) into this discussion? Are there no theists that consider themselves open-minded when they are in fact not?
Then 5 seconds later I realized I had expressed myself poorly, because, the way I wrote, it looked as if there were no non-"freethinking" atheists. (I don't object to the word "freethinker" per se, I object to the arrogant Dawkins worldview that atheists are "more rational" or "think more freely" than theists).
So you have a beef with Dawkins and could not help but bring it to this discussion?
And this is precisely that sort of judgmental arrogance that I criticize on "freethinkers".
There are some atheists who are assholes. There are also some Spaniards who are assholes, there are even some asshole albinos and I have it on good authority that assholes are to be found among both carpenters and philatelists.
This is what corrections are for, and you chose to completely ignore my correction.
Human interaction is a complex thing. You inadvertently showed me one side of you that you later regretted showing. Nonetheless, I formed some conclusions based on what I saw. It is possible that my conclusions were wrong but your correction did not persuade me that that was the case.
And regarding euphemism: intellectual honesty compels you to use the expression "sexually permissive" and not "open minded".
Absolutely and categorically false. Sounds to me like you are setting up a strawman...
By using the term "open-minded", you imply that chaste people are "closed minded", and you have zero arguments for that.
And, sure enough, here it comes. Let me quote you your original argument: "Pornography [...] makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands)". I would like to hear your definition of chastity which, apparently, accepts sex between husband and wife, but only as long as it is not the kind of sex the husband desires.
In short, take a good, hard look at your own arguments before you lecture others about intellectual honesty.
That "Open minded" is not supposed to mean "a person who strictly adheres to Open Minded(TM) beliefs". And this is, unfortunately, what the word is used for most of the time.
If you go back and re-read my previous post, you will find the definition of "open minded" that I used. You are of course free to dispute its validity, but you will have to excuse me if I refuse to argue a definition that you pulled out of your hat and that has nothing to do with the topic of our conversation.
"Open-minded", in my view, is a person that evaluates an idea based on its merits.
That is a good starting point, but a crucial part that you left out is the ability to re-evaluate their preconceptions in light of new data while considering said merits.
A decent open-mided woman could very well evaluate the idea of "accept being treated worse a she-dog" based on its merits, and reject it.
The sexual fantasies and fetishes of most people are neither abusive no degrading. In fact, I would venture that many women are willing to entertain their partners' "bizarre fantasies" specifically because they are treated with respect.
Don't use "open-minded" as an euphemism for "a person who adheres to my personal world-view".
Never did. However, an open-minded person is willing consider my personal world-view and accept or rejects various parts of it based on their merit.
This euphemism is particularly abused by atheists, which is why "open-minded" has become nearly synonymous with "sexually permissive atheist"
Ah, now the cat gets out of the bag. You, sir, are definitely not an open-minded person. Furthermore, I have a strong feeling that you only have little knowledge (and many misconceptions) of both atheism or sexual permissiveness. Unfortunately, I doubt my ability to educate you.
Pornography is unhealthy and, among other evils, makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands).
Stop generalizing and find a more open-minded wife.
One of the first acts of the newly appointment George W DOJ was to throw in the towel on the US vs. Microsoft litigation, and give them a soft and warm pat on the wrist. Yep, that's the party that's against crony capitalism.
Any party stops being against crony capitalism once they get in power.
How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.
I know a professional who would disagree with you about personal responsibility. He has made his living for the last ~30 years providing people with a very final dose of personal responsibility. All it takes is someone willing to pay for his services.
A long time ago, when I used to use IE, I would disable 3rd-party cookies and, if a web site would not function correctly, I could see a list of blocked cookies and add exceptions for those sites.
Unfortunately, FF does not tell me what it blocked, so the exceptions option is less than useful.
The fact that H.R. can not see beyond simple rules and labels is hurting corporations. The fact they're too stupid to understand this simply backs up my point.
Nope. It's a buyers' market. The corporations are doing just fine.
Better to be called a leech than to be a parasite and a blight on society.
My connection, my router, my computer, my firewall, my browser, my screen, my eyes, my brain. If I decide to block your crap in any of these stages, I will damn well do so and if you have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself with a jackhammer.
Any bits that enter my residence and stay there are mine to do with as I please. Don't like it? Find a different business model.
An in case you didn't get it, let me reiterate: My connection, my router, my computer, my firewall, my browser, my screen, my eyes, my brain, MY RULES.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI
Cue the idiots who can't spell "Cue."
The word you're looking for is "illiterates".
Long live petrus romanus!
Romani ite domum!
Having "unenforced" laws on the books that everyone breaks is dangerous because it allows police to selectively enforce those laws when they want to harass a specific individual or group
FTFY.
Bonobos?
You know very well I corrected the "atheism" part
Yes, you did. But you also wrote it in the first place and it gave me some insight into who you are and how you think. Perhaps not the impression you intended to make but that is the nature of such slips of the tongue (or the finger in this case). Sort of like a person who writes "niggers" then crosses it out and writes "African Americans".
When I wrote that, I was thinking of those arrogant atheists who call themselves "freethinkers" or "brights".
You seem to like labels.
Why did you bring religion (or the lack of it) into this discussion? Are there no theists that consider themselves open-minded when they are in fact not?
Then 5 seconds later I realized I had expressed myself poorly, because, the way I wrote, it looked as if there were no non-"freethinking" atheists. (I don't object to the word "freethinker" per se, I object to the arrogant Dawkins worldview that atheists are "more rational" or "think more freely" than theists).
So you have a beef with Dawkins and could not help but bring it to this discussion?
And this is precisely that sort of judgmental arrogance that I criticize on "freethinkers".
There are some atheists who are assholes. There are also some Spaniards who are assholes, there are even some asshole albinos and I have it on good authority that assholes are to be found among both carpenters and philatelists.
This is what corrections are for, and you chose to completely ignore my correction.
Human interaction is a complex thing. You inadvertently showed me one side of you that you later regretted showing. Nonetheless, I formed some conclusions based on what I saw. It is possible that my conclusions were wrong but your correction did not persuade me that that was the case.
And regarding euphemism: intellectual honesty compels you to use the expression "sexually permissive" and not "open minded".
Absolutely and categorically false. Sounds to me like you are setting up a strawman...
By using the term "open-minded", you imply that chaste people are "closed minded", and you have zero arguments for that.
And, sure enough, here it comes. Let me quote you your original argument: "Pornography [...] makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands)". I would like to hear your definition of chastity which, apparently, accepts sex between husband and wife, but only as long as it is not the kind of sex the husband desires.
In short, take a good, hard look at your own arguments before you lecture others about intellectual honesty.
That "Open minded" is not supposed to mean "a person who strictly adheres to Open Minded(TM) beliefs". And this is, unfortunately, what the word is used for most of the time.
If you go back and re-read my previous post, you will find the definition of "open minded" that I used. You are of course free to dispute its validity, but you will have to excuse me if I refuse to argue a definition that you pulled out of your hat and that has nothing to do with the topic of our conversation.
"open-minded" is not the word.
Yes, it is.
"Open-minded", in my view, is a person that evaluates an idea based on its merits.
That is a good starting point, but a crucial part that you left out is the ability to re-evaluate their preconceptions in light of new data while considering said merits.
A decent open-mided woman could very well evaluate the idea of "accept being treated worse a she-dog" based on its merits, and reject it.
The sexual fantasies and fetishes of most people are neither abusive no degrading.
In fact, I would venture that many women are willing to entertain their partners' "bizarre fantasies" specifically because they are treated with respect.
Don't use "open-minded" as an euphemism for "a person who adheres to my personal world-view".
Never did. However, an open-minded person is willing consider my personal world-view and accept or rejects various parts of it based on their merit.
This euphemism is particularly abused by atheists, which is why "open-minded" has become nearly synonymous with "sexually permissive atheist"
Ah, now the cat gets out of the bag.
You, sir, are definitely not an open-minded person. Furthermore, I have a strong feeling that you only have little knowledge (and many misconceptions) of both atheism or sexual permissiveness. Unfortunately, I doubt my ability to educate you.
P.S.,
My earlier advice still stands.
Pornography is unhealthy and, among other evils, makes men stop desiring their wives (because they are not willing to do the bizarre fantasies of their husbands).
Stop generalizing and find a more open-minded wife.
One of the first acts of the newly appointment George W DOJ was to throw in the towel on the US vs. Microsoft litigation, and give them a soft and warm pat on the wrist. Yep, that's the party that's against crony capitalism.
Any party stops being against crony capitalism once they get in power.
I doubt it.
My guess is that they will drop all modicum of impartiality and due process and extradite him anyway.
How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.
So?
And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...
"Starting"?
The difference between theory and practice is much larger in practice than in theory.
And this attitude is exactly the incentive that they need to go on abusing.
That shouldn't happen in the US, it just shouldn't. There shouldn't even be the shadow of a possibility that it could possibly have happened.
The fact that there is no law criminalizing this behaviour shows that it is by design.
IANAL but AFAIK, a TOS is not a contract.
Posted so cannot upmod. Have a salute instead.
I know a professional who would disagree with you about personal responsibility. He has made his living for the last ~30 years providing people with a very final dose of personal responsibility. All it takes is someone willing to pay for his services.
Sounds like the perfect case for crowd-funding.
Is it time for mob justice yet?
Justice is the judges job to ensure everything proceeds fairly. lawyers only care about winning their case.
The judge's job is to ensure that the game is played by the rules. Whether the rules are "just" or not is completely irrelevant.
Unilaterally changing the contract == just cause ???
A long time ago, when I used to use IE, I would disable 3rd-party cookies and, if a web site would not function correctly, I could see a list of blocked cookies and add exceptions for those sites.
Unfortunately, FF does not tell me what it blocked, so the exceptions option is less than useful.
Is there an extension that can help?
The fact that H.R. can not see beyond simple rules and labels is hurting corporations. The fact they're too stupid to understand this simply backs up my point.
Nope. It's a buyers' market. The corporations are doing just fine.
Better to be called a leech than to be a parasite and a blight on society.
My connection, my router, my computer, my firewall, my browser, my screen, my eyes, my brain.
If I decide to block your crap in any of these stages, I will damn well do so and if you have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself with a jackhammer.
Any bits that enter my residence and stay there are mine to do with as I please. Don't like it? Find a different business model.
An in case you didn't get it, let me reiterate:
My connection, my router, my computer, my firewall, my browser, my screen, my eyes, my brain, MY RULES .
Now, kindly, STFU and GTFO.