Okay, so I've given you the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm getting nothing but condescension from your reply, and I looked up intolerance.
The old 1994 Webster II dictionary gives a pretty flat definition: intolerant Not tolerant, esp.: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinion or beliefs, esp. religious beliefs. b. Unable or unwilling to endure.
So far it sounds like I know what intolerance means, but it's a pretty generic definition and using "Not tolerant" to define the word seems a little hokey. I checked tolerant to make sure I had a good understanding of that word too. tolerant1.Inclined to recognize and respect the beliefs, practices, or traits of others: FORBEARING 2. Capable of withstanding or enduring an adverse environmental condition. (plants tolerant of extreme cold)
Then, since it was on the same page I figured, what the hell, I'll check out tolerance too tolerance1.Recognition and respect for opinions, practices, or behavior of others.
Tolerance goes on to define other things in mechanical and medical senses, but the first definition was really how I was using the word.
Just to be extra special certain I hit up the old google define:intolerance.
I noticed a funny trend. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about fervent disagreement. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about "blowing up churches, burning crosses on your front lawn, stringing people up, or beating up random X in the street". One word REALLY popped out at me immediately - RESPECT.
That is what tolerance is about. You have taken the most extreme cases of intolerance and held them up as the only true sign that there is any intolerance, but don't you think at the point where people start setting fires and setting out to join the mob that the level of intolerance has already gotten a little out of hand? RESPECT is the root of tolerance. "rage filled rantings and crazed indignation" are generally sans respect. Respect doesn't preclude someone from disagreeing however. Disagreements are welcome, discussions are usually good for both parties when they are done with respect and tact.
And while we're talking, I thought I would rebut your second post. I used zealot twice in my original post, once to say there were zealots on both sides of the line, and the other to describe what this particular brand of zealot tends to do. We'll break out the dictionary again, because it seems that you only apply the meaning of a word to the most extreme caricature you can imagine. For the sake of brevity I'll use the most applicable definition, you can trust me or look it up if you think I've missed some important detail.
One who is zealous, esp. excessively so. A fanatically committed person.
Hmph, no fire and death here either. The dictionary is SO boring. Anyways, if you take note, you'll find that I also said that there were zealots ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. That is to say, there are excessively fervent, fanatical folks on either side of the argument.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my response, I hope that you didn't find it as sleep inducing as my original post. Perhaps I should have just posted RESPECT, which is really what needs to be shared between people of differing opinions and views. I hope that you come to agree that intolerance is more than death and carnage that is a result of when intolerance goes to the extreme, but that it is also a lack of fundamental respect that should be given to every individual, no matter how much you disagree with them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Please forgive me if I've obviously misread. While atheists may not believe, they will have probably given the idea some strong evaluation at some point in their life. It is, after all, a pretty pervasive concept. Many atheists are born into religious households, and more likely raised in communities where are large portion of the population is religious.
Neither party presents themselves as intolerant when they follow what is true in their mind. That line comes when they become incensed when they encounter someone else doesn't agree with them. That's a pretty general statement, but I think it should get my point across without covering every eventuality. Religion can be discussed politely and in great and interesting detail between people of differing beliefs if those involved are reasonable and rational.
I know more atheists that are completely intolerant of ANY religion to the point of rage filled rantings and crazed indignation when the subject arises. Aren't generalizations and anecdotal evidence just super fun? Doesn't it contribute SO MUCH to the conversation?
The fact of the matter is that there are zealots from every camp. Zealots tend to be loud and want to get your attention and you tend to remember them because they say a bunch of stupid shit. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist that hasn't had my coffee this morning and is annoyed with the whole argument. It's just more stupid shit.
The only way I'd see a Boll film is if I was drunk and could make fun of it while it was playing. That's how I watch all movies, sadly Uwe Boll movies don't get any better with intoxication... unless of course you pass out somewhere towards the beginning.
I agree, there are a variety of heinously nasty and cruel(and interesting) forms of predation, or even parasitic diseases. But that's about as much logic as I can pound of of the OP's argument. I myself don't see it as conclusive evidence of anything more than I need to take the zombie threat more seriously. I may need to read over The Zombie Survival Guide again and get some basic procedures in place to get my family to safety when the dead inevitably rise to seek the flesh of the living.
My stab at his logic would go something along the lines of:
A just and kind god would not create a creature who's life cycle involves mind controlling another for food and fun with puppetry when good old fashioned outright killing would do.
The people part falls short because "people doing nasty things in the name of some cause and/or deity" can be attributed to misuse of free will and the devils influence.
I don't care either way. If there is a God, then he is one kick ass engineer and I hope before he banishes me to hell I can at least buy him a beer and chat for a hour or so. If there's not then it puts my bad luck into perspective, I've had a long string of fortunate events to get me here. Sadly now that I'm here all I do is work and surf slashdot.
The benefit to 9-5 generally comes when you need information from someone that doesn't operate within your same schedule.
Where I work we have pretty flexible hours. I get into work at about 6 in the morning, and I'm out by 2:30-3:00. I have a family I like to spend time with in the evening. Say you're working on a piece of a project that we are working on, and you've written some code that absolutely confounds me, but I think I may need to extend it to handle something else. I decide after spending some time trying to work out what's going on, that it's too much for me to bite off at the moment and I need to go straight to the source and see if you can give me a hand understanding what you're trying to do.
If you were in at a sane time, I could send you an im, email, or walk over and bounce a couple questions off of you. Since you don't get in until 4, I have to settle for sending an email or leaving a note explaining the situation and hope that when I check my mail in the morning that you A) replied B) understood what I was asking and C) Answered my question sufficiently enough to allow me to go about my business. If none of the requirements are met, that's now time lost.
Tossing aside all arguments that I should be fired for incompetence (maybe I'm a junior programmer who needs guidance), there's a legitimate need for all employees to be at the same place at the same time if they are working on related projects. If you're flying solo on a project that doesn't impact anyone - then where do you work, and do they have any job openings?
FFVII will always be the last good Final Fantasy in my mind. Even though the cast would change the characters never did, the angsty hero boy, the obnoxious fighter, the cutesy mascot, all there. The outline also got recycled. At some point you will lose access to magic. Your group will get broken up. Somewhere along the way there's a fight you have to lose. No, you didn't beat the last boss, there's someone pulling the strings, and that guy has 15 different forms.
Censoring text messages is hardly the first sign of censorship in Iran. From what little the article has, there is no reference of anyone being arrested as of yet for breaking the moral code via text messaging. This may come down the pike, but right now people have an honest reason to fear being sent to jail for blogging, wearing sleeveless shirts, or styling their hair wildly
Because some people want to take the literal interpretation of the Bible. Since the Bible says God made man with the snap of his fingers or whatever, that's the way it has to be. Yes, it's foolish on many levels and has massive logic holes from every direction, but some people think that that is what faith is. There IS room for evolution and religion. To be honest I think it is far more remarkable for God to have planned this incredibly vast, complex and changing system that is our universe, rather than a tacky *poof* there it is. It's smart, it's graceful, and it's cool as hell.
If this God guy exists, he is one kickass engineer.
The only reason I came into this thread was to make sure XCom was mentioned.
With XCom, Civ, and Fallout, I don't know why people even bothered to make anything else. They should have been busy gaming.
If you go to http://www.sealandgov.org/, you'll find that you can buy a title for about 30 euros. You can be a Lord/Lady or Baron/Baroness of Sealand! I'm thinking my D&D fascinated neices and nephews will be getting a title for the next gift giving event. Much better than being an honorary citizen if you ask me.
They aren't really selling the island. As a poster higher up in the thread said, they are selling tenancy. Essentially what you get for several million dollars is the authroity to run the island as it's prime authority. However the owners keep the property, they remain the "Royal Family", you must adhere to the constitution and laws already set, and must continue to run the island as it has been up until this point.
Essentially they're offering the unique opportunity for you to pay out the ass to do their administrative bullshit for them.
People will upgrade happily, with or without it coming on a new box. The anti-Microsoft mentality is not near as pervasive as Slashdotters would like to believe. At one time I was the only person in my workplace - a development shop - that had a problem with MS products. I was the butt of jokes simply because I wouldn't buy a MS trackball, because I won't willingly and knowingly buy Microsoft products.
I know guys who have camped outside their favorite software retailer to buy the latest and greatest version of Windows.
There are a lot of games that I look back on playing fondly as a child. My friends and I would stay up until the wee hours of the morning playing some of them - to us at that time, there were great. Inevitably we would beat them, and then we would move on to other games that we loved for a time. I've discovered after breaking them out later, that many of these games were great because I was 12 - or because I was hopped up on mike and ikes and generic cola with my friends. Those are pretty easy to spot now - and honestly, all the castlevanias fell into that category.
There are however games that are timeless and still surpise, challenge, or entertain to this day. I think you'll find that those games are the ones we still come back to years after their release. Those are the games that game designers should be looking at.
Still doing it in '95 in Marine Corps boot camp. Walking through the doorway and getting shot in both arms simultaneously was the last attack in a series of injections both with and without a needle.
If you had stayed in your 30, depending on your MOS you might have been effected by a stoploss. Nothing says thank you for your 30 years like "stick around a few more until we end this war".
With that in mind...
The gubmint just got smacked recently because they weren't changing their passwords often enough. I don't remember the catalyst but there was a subsequent audit and passwords were being kept the same for years. It was judged A Bad Thing and a government wide mandate was passed that every password for every conceivable thing that may have one was changed across the nation.
Kinda seems like as far as passwords go, they're just not gonna please everyone.
Are you serious? Bush is a non-issue in the next presidential election first of all. Secondly, we don't even KNOW who the new presidential candidates will be. So let's think about the betterment of the country rather than being all gung ho to replace one destructive idiot with another just because he or she rides under an opposing banner. I don't know about you, but the last election I saw, neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidates were worth my vote. I didn't like their issues, I didn't trust them, and I didn't vote for them.
I "threw mine away" on Libertarian, because I thought they had my interests in mind, and that they would be the best thing for this country. I knew the odds of winning at least from historical evidence were slim to none, but in the end I am happy to have voted for someone I liked rather than against someone I didn't. I think if more people voted that way - we'd be in a better place.
I'm in the same place the thread starter is, I wouldn't mind doing some freelance work - I enjoy programming and don't consider it work. To me, it's much like working a puzzle or putting together a model which other people do in their free time for enjoyment. I especially enjoy new programming problems I haven't solved before, and it's even more rewarding using a language I'm weak in to do it. Much like the originator - I lack the motovation and inspiration to dream up an "unmet need" and start hacking away on it. This is why I haven't started an open source project, and also why I haven't tried to be a part of one in some time(I've done a couple bugfixes in the past).
If I had someone that communicated a need to me, and I had a motovating factor(in this case, money) to push through those particularly uninteresting bits that live in most every application, I would be a happy camper. Open source doesn't provide the motovation, and rarely communicates a need for more than documentation or language conversion.
I appreciate the civil discussion - just want to throw that out there first. I thought the tone of your original post was likely tongue in cheek, but the subject goes beyond (maybe falls short?) religion. Additionally I'm mostly playing devils advocate. I don't know exactly where I stand on the issue, and have gone rounds on both sides of the argument, both what you've offered, and what I'm saying. I guess maybe I'm just trying to drag more folks towards my fence of indecision.
It is certainly unfair that a broken condom or that.001% that birth control fails will bring about an tremendous, life altering result. That is why I feel that two people engaging in sex must accept the possibility - no matter how unlikely that an unwanted pregnancy may be the result. Also, there are far easier outs than keeping and resenting and/or mistreating a child. You can see it coming can't you? A mile away even, I'm sure. Adoption. It's gotten to a point that it's literally so easy that you can drop your newborn child at a doorstep in a basket with a note saying "Free to a good home" and walk away.
The cost? Medical bills, possibly some derision for the adoption or the pregnancy(you can't please some folks), and a body that isn't going to spring back like it once would. No small cost, and perhaps harder than an abortion. I say perhaps because of the four women who've told me that they've had abortions, all four would near tears when they speak of it. Two that I still keep in contact with mourn the loss(one of which was a rape), yet when pressed would admit they'd probably do it again.
As far as legal precedents - laws conflict. Roe Vs Wade may support the pro-choice crowd, but if a pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homocide. Using the legal system as a basis for argument then would suggest that an unborn child is only a life if it's wanted. Would it be considered a double homocide then, if a woman was shot in line at an abortion clinic? Such thoughts feel atrociously callous.
I hope that we as a people can strive to a compromise with this issue, though it may be a paradox that can never be solved.
I'm not armed with enough information to be able to accurately guess the percentage of zealots in the anti-abortion group. If I had a gun to my head, forcing me to wager I'd say the large majority of zealots are anti-abortion. But there must be an equally strong correlation between feminists yelling "My body, my right!" Yes - it's a cop out, but I think that the reasonable individuals outnumber the zealots, perhaps moreso on the pro-abortion side.
I won't dispute the extreme example, because I understand the point you are trying to make. My response is probably equally extreme. If the "host" was forced into a situation of accepting a parasitic backpack brought about by no action of their own, then I would say cut them free. However, partaking in sexual activity protected or otherwise you must assume responsibility for the reprocussions. It's something you learn in sex ed, hell, it's something you learn early in life. It's something every person faces every day. Speed, you may get pulled over and ticketed. Buy drugs, you face the possibility of being burned in a sting. Don't show up to work, you face the possibility of being fired.
My point is that the people making the argument have no bearing on the issue. The question is a reasonable one, and rather than trying to answer the question we spend more time trying to villify and mock those asking it.
What a closed minded comment. People who are anti-abortion aren't all religious zealots. The very core of the issue is the disagreement of when life begins. Those that believe life begins at conception believe that abortion is akin to murder. Last I checked, the laws of man have a couple things addressing murder. Making stipulations on abortion based on a woman concieving due to rape or peril caused by carrying the child are an attempt to mitigate harm caused to one person by another be it emotional, physical, intentional or unintentional.
Nowhere does God come into this picture.
Slapping a label on an anti-abortion sentiment as zealotry is propaganda, much like those who are pro-abortion are painted as feminazis, or I dunno, blood bathing devil worshippers.
If it's possible to ever reach an agreement on the abortion issue, the first major step will be to stop the fucking rediculous propaganda and stereotyping on both sides - stop clumping those groups into the fringe element that exists on both sides, and start talking.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so I've given you the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm getting nothing but condescension from your reply, and I looked up intolerance.
The old 1994 Webster II dictionary gives a pretty flat definition:
intolerant Not tolerant, esp.: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinion or beliefs, esp. religious beliefs. b. Unable or unwilling to endure.
So far it sounds like I know what intolerance means, but it's a pretty generic definition and using "Not tolerant" to define the word seems a little hokey. I checked tolerant to make sure I had a good understanding of that word too.
tolerant 1.Inclined to recognize and respect the beliefs, practices, or traits of others: FORBEARING 2. Capable of withstanding or enduring an adverse environmental condition. (plants tolerant of extreme cold)
Then, since it was on the same page I figured, what the hell, I'll check out tolerance too
tolerance 1.Recognition and respect for opinions, practices, or behavior of others.
Tolerance goes on to define other things in mechanical and medical senses, but the first definition was really how I was using the word.
Just to be extra special certain I hit up the old google define:intolerance.
I noticed a funny trend. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about fervent disagreement. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about "blowing up churches, burning crosses on your front lawn, stringing people up, or beating up random X in the street". One word REALLY popped out at me immediately - RESPECT.
That is what tolerance is about. You have taken the most extreme cases of intolerance and held them up as the only true sign that there is any intolerance, but don't you think at the point where people start setting fires and setting out to join the mob that the level of intolerance has already gotten a little out of hand? RESPECT is the root of tolerance. "rage filled rantings and crazed indignation" are generally sans respect. Respect doesn't preclude someone from disagreeing however. Disagreements are welcome, discussions are usually good for both parties when they are done with respect and tact.
And while we're talking, I thought I would rebut your second post. I used zealot twice in my original post, once to say there were zealots on both sides of the line, and the other to describe what this particular brand of zealot tends to do. We'll break out the dictionary again, because it seems that you only apply the meaning of a word to the most extreme caricature you can imagine. For the sake of brevity I'll use the most applicable definition, you can trust me or look it up if you think I've missed some important detail.
One who is zealous, esp. excessively so. A fanatically committed person.
Hmph, no fire and death here either. The dictionary is SO boring. Anyways, if you take note, you'll find that I also said that there were zealots ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. That is to say, there are excessively fervent, fanatical folks on either side of the argument.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my response, I hope that you didn't find it as sleep inducing as my original post. Perhaps I should have just posted RESPECT, which is really what needs to be shared between people of differing opinions and views. I hope that you come to agree that intolerance is more than death and carnage that is a result of when intolerance goes to the extreme, but that it is also a lack of fundamental respect that should be given to every individual, no matter how much you disagree with them.
Ah caffeine =) Sorry for the cranky post above.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Please forgive me if I've obviously misread. While atheists may not believe, they will have probably given the idea some strong evaluation at some point in their life. It is, after all, a pretty pervasive concept. Many atheists are born into religious households, and more likely raised in communities where are large portion of the population is religious.
Neither party presents themselves as intolerant when they follow what is true in their mind. That line comes when they become incensed when they encounter someone else doesn't agree with them. That's a pretty general statement, but I think it should get my point across without covering every eventuality. Religion can be discussed politely and in great and interesting detail between people of differing beliefs if those involved are reasonable and rational.
I know more atheists that are completely intolerant of ANY religion to the point of rage filled rantings and crazed indignation when the subject arises. Aren't generalizations and anecdotal evidence just super fun? Doesn't it contribute SO MUCH to the conversation?
The fact of the matter is that there are zealots from every camp. Zealots tend to be loud and want to get your attention and you tend to remember them because they say a bunch of stupid shit. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist that hasn't had my coffee this morning and is annoyed with the whole argument. It's just more stupid shit.
Brokeback Mountain to the rescue!
I agree, there are a variety of heinously nasty and cruel(and interesting) forms of predation, or even parasitic diseases. But that's about as much logic as I can pound of of the OP's argument. I myself don't see it as conclusive evidence of anything more than I need to take the zombie threat more seriously. I may need to read over The Zombie Survival Guide again and get some basic procedures in place to get my family to safety when the dead inevitably rise to seek the flesh of the living.
My stab at his logic would go something along the lines of:
A just and kind god would not create a creature who's life cycle involves mind controlling another for food and fun with puppetry when good old fashioned outright killing would do.
The people part falls short because "people doing nasty things in the name of some cause and/or deity" can be attributed to misuse of free will and the devils influence.
I don't care either way. If there is a God, then he is one kick ass engineer and I hope before he banishes me to hell I can at least buy him a beer and chat for a hour or so. If there's not then it puts my bad luck into perspective, I've had a long string of fortunate events to get me here. Sadly now that I'm here all I do is work and surf slashdot.
The benefit to 9-5 generally comes when you need information from someone that doesn't operate within your same schedule.
Where I work we have pretty flexible hours. I get into work at about 6 in the morning, and I'm out by 2:30-3:00. I have a family I like to spend time with in the evening. Say you're working on a piece of a project that we are working on, and you've written some code that absolutely confounds me, but I think I may need to extend it to handle something else. I decide after spending some time trying to work out what's going on, that it's too much for me to bite off at the moment and I need to go straight to the source and see if you can give me a hand understanding what you're trying to do.
If you were in at a sane time, I could send you an im, email, or walk over and bounce a couple questions off of you. Since you don't get in until 4, I have to settle for sending an email or leaving a note explaining the situation and hope that when I check my mail in the morning that you A) replied B) understood what I was asking and C) Answered my question sufficiently enough to allow me to go about my business. If none of the requirements are met, that's now time lost.
Tossing aside all arguments that I should be fired for incompetence (maybe I'm a junior programmer who needs guidance), there's a legitimate need for all employees to be at the same place at the same time if they are working on related projects. If you're flying solo on a project that doesn't impact anyone - then where do you work, and do they have any job openings?
Hell yes, X-COM. Always the first game that pops into my head when these stories pop up.
FFVII will always be the last good Final Fantasy in my mind. Even though the cast would change the characters never did, the angsty hero boy, the obnoxious fighter, the cutesy mascot, all there. The outline also got recycled. At some point you will lose access to magic. Your group will get broken up. Somewhere along the way there's a fight you have to lose. No, you didn't beat the last boss, there's someone pulling the strings, and that guy has 15 different forms.
Now I just kinda wish they'd go away.
Censoring text messages is hardly the first sign of censorship in Iran. From what little the article has, there is no reference of anyone being arrested as of yet for breaking the moral code via text messaging. This may come down the pike, but right now people have an honest reason to fear being sent to jail for blogging, wearing sleeveless shirts, or styling their hair wildly
Because some people want to take the literal interpretation of the Bible. Since the Bible says God made man with the snap of his fingers or whatever, that's the way it has to be. Yes, it's foolish on many levels and has massive logic holes from every direction, but some people think that that is what faith is. There IS room for evolution and religion. To be honest I think it is far more remarkable for God to have planned this incredibly vast, complex and changing system that is our universe, rather than a tacky *poof* there it is. It's smart, it's graceful, and it's cool as hell.
If this God guy exists, he is one kickass engineer.
The only reason I came into this thread was to make sure XCom was mentioned. With XCom, Civ, and Fallout, I don't know why people even bothered to make anything else. They should have been busy gaming.
If you go to http://www.sealandgov.org/, you'll find that you can buy a title for about 30 euros. You can be a Lord/Lady or Baron/Baroness of Sealand! I'm thinking my D&D fascinated neices and nephews will be getting a title for the next gift giving event. Much better than being an honorary citizen if you ask me.
They aren't really selling the island. As a poster higher up in the thread said, they are selling tenancy. Essentially what you get for several million dollars is the authroity to run the island as it's prime authority. However the owners keep the property, they remain the "Royal Family", you must adhere to the constitution and laws already set, and must continue to run the island as it has been up until this point.
Essentially they're offering the unique opportunity for you to pay out the ass to do their administrative bullshit for them.
Rock.
Sadly, Keanu taught me the story of Buddha...
People will upgrade happily, with or without it coming on a new box. The anti-Microsoft mentality is not near as pervasive as Slashdotters would like to believe. At one time I was the only person in my workplace - a development shop - that had a problem with MS products. I was the butt of jokes simply because I wouldn't buy a MS trackball, because I won't willingly and knowingly buy Microsoft products.
I know guys who have camped outside their favorite software retailer to buy the latest and greatest version of Windows.
Vista will be no exception.
There are a lot of games that I look back on playing fondly as a child. My friends and I would stay up until the wee hours of the morning playing some of them - to us at that time, there were great. Inevitably we would beat them, and then we would move on to other games that we loved for a time. I've discovered after breaking them out later, that many of these games were great because I was 12 - or because I was hopped up on mike and ikes and generic cola with my friends. Those are pretty easy to spot now - and honestly, all the castlevanias fell into that category.
There are however games that are timeless and still surpise, challenge, or entertain to this day. I think you'll find that those games are the ones we still come back to years after their release. Those are the games that game designers should be looking at.
Still doing it in '95 in Marine Corps boot camp. Walking through the doorway and getting shot in both arms simultaneously was the last attack in a series of injections both with and without a needle.
If you had stayed in your 30, depending on your MOS you might have been effected by a stoploss. Nothing says thank you for your 30 years like "stick around a few more until we end this war".
Moving along, Aye aye sir.
With that in mind... The gubmint just got smacked recently because they weren't changing their passwords often enough. I don't remember the catalyst but there was a subsequent audit and passwords were being kept the same for years. It was judged A Bad Thing and a government wide mandate was passed that every password for every conceivable thing that may have one was changed across the nation. Kinda seems like as far as passwords go, they're just not gonna please everyone.
Are you serious? Bush is a non-issue in the next presidential election first of all. Secondly, we don't even KNOW who the new presidential candidates will be. So let's think about the betterment of the country rather than being all gung ho to replace one destructive idiot with another just because he or she rides under an opposing banner. I don't know about you, but the last election I saw, neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidates were worth my vote. I didn't like their issues, I didn't trust them, and I didn't vote for them.
I "threw mine away" on Libertarian, because I thought they had my interests in mind, and that they would be the best thing for this country. I knew the odds of winning at least from historical evidence were slim to none, but in the end I am happy to have voted for someone I liked rather than against someone I didn't. I think if more people voted that way - we'd be in a better place.
I'm in the same place the thread starter is, I wouldn't mind doing some freelance work - I enjoy programming and don't consider it work. To me, it's much like working a puzzle or putting together a model which other people do in their free time for enjoyment. I especially enjoy new programming problems I haven't solved before, and it's even more rewarding using a language I'm weak in to do it. Much like the originator - I lack the motovation and inspiration to dream up an "unmet need" and start hacking away on it. This is why I haven't started an open source project, and also why I haven't tried to be a part of one in some time(I've done a couple bugfixes in the past).
If I had someone that communicated a need to me, and I had a motovating factor(in this case, money) to push through those particularly uninteresting bits that live in most every application, I would be a happy camper. Open source doesn't provide the motovation, and rarely communicates a need for more than documentation or language conversion.
I appreciate the civil discussion - just want to throw that out there first. I thought the tone of your original post was likely tongue in cheek, but the subject goes beyond (maybe falls short?) religion. Additionally I'm mostly playing devils advocate. I don't know exactly where I stand on the issue, and have gone rounds on both sides of the argument, both what you've offered, and what I'm saying. I guess maybe I'm just trying to drag more folks towards my fence of indecision.
.001% that birth control fails will bring about an tremendous, life altering result. That is why I feel that two people engaging in sex must accept the possibility - no matter how unlikely that an unwanted pregnancy may be the result. Also, there are far easier outs than keeping and resenting and/or mistreating a child. You can see it coming can't you? A mile away even, I'm sure. Adoption. It's gotten to a point that it's literally so easy that you can drop your newborn child at a doorstep in a basket with a note saying "Free to a good home" and walk away.
It is certainly unfair that a broken condom or that
The cost? Medical bills, possibly some derision for the adoption or the pregnancy(you can't please some folks), and a body that isn't going to spring back like it once would. No small cost, and perhaps harder than an abortion. I say perhaps because of the four women who've told me that they've had abortions, all four would near tears when they speak of it. Two that I still keep in contact with mourn the loss(one of which was a rape), yet when pressed would admit they'd probably do it again.
As far as legal precedents - laws conflict. Roe Vs Wade may support the pro-choice crowd, but if a pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homocide. Using the legal system as a basis for argument then would suggest that an unborn child is only a life if it's wanted. Would it be considered a double homocide then, if a woman was shot in line at an abortion clinic? Such thoughts feel atrociously callous.
I hope that we as a people can strive to a compromise with this issue, though it may be a paradox that can never be solved.
I'm not armed with enough information to be able to accurately guess the percentage of zealots in the anti-abortion group. If I had a gun to my head, forcing me to wager I'd say the large majority of zealots are anti-abortion. But there must be an equally strong correlation between feminists yelling "My body, my right!" Yes - it's a cop out, but I think that the reasonable individuals outnumber the zealots, perhaps moreso on the pro-abortion side.
I won't dispute the extreme example, because I understand the point you are trying to make. My response is probably equally extreme. If the "host" was forced into a situation of accepting a parasitic backpack brought about by no action of their own, then I would say cut them free. However, partaking in sexual activity protected or otherwise you must assume responsibility for the reprocussions. It's something you learn in sex ed, hell, it's something you learn early in life. It's something every person faces every day. Speed, you may get pulled over and ticketed. Buy drugs, you face the possibility of being burned in a sting. Don't show up to work, you face the possibility of being fired.
My point is that the people making the argument have no bearing on the issue. The question is a reasonable one, and rather than trying to answer the question we spend more time trying to villify and mock those asking it.
What a closed minded comment. People who are anti-abortion aren't all religious zealots. The very core of the issue is the disagreement of when life begins. Those that believe life begins at conception believe that abortion is akin to murder. Last I checked, the laws of man have a couple things addressing murder. Making stipulations on abortion based on a woman concieving due to rape or peril caused by carrying the child are an attempt to mitigate harm caused to one person by another be it emotional, physical, intentional or unintentional.
Nowhere does God come into this picture.
Slapping a label on an anti-abortion sentiment as zealotry is propaganda, much like those who are pro-abortion are painted as feminazis, or I dunno, blood bathing devil worshippers.
If it's possible to ever reach an agreement on the abortion issue, the first major step will be to stop the fucking rediculous propaganda and stereotyping on both sides - stop clumping those groups into the fringe element that exists on both sides, and start talking.