Homosexual lifestyles don't lead to happiness, and they are generally only wealthier because men are better at earning money than women, and they don't bear the cost of raising children.
Why would anyone assume the statistics would be similar for same-sex marriage?
We won't have to assume for very long, will we? Same sex marriage is now legal in 37 of the 50 U.S. states. And Ireland. And 22 other developed countries, including Belgium, Canada, England, France, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, Spain, etc etc.
I'd argue those statistical outcomes are extremely broad-based lifestyle outcomes, not specifically tied to "marriage" per se and I would also bet a lot of those lifestyle outcomes grow out of child bearing, not just child rearing.
You can argue whatever you want. The published, peer-reviewed research says otherwise. If you have some data that disputes these findings, write it up and submit it to a journal. Otherwise, your argument means two things: jack and shit.
You are trying to say that YOU are right and THEY are wrong and should be forced to do what's right.
No, I'm saying that if you're going to profess to follow the teachings of Christ, then don't do the opposite and pretend you're following the teachings of Christ.
If some business won't serve me, I'll just say goodbye
That's fine, but can we agree that the business that refused service was the one to "cast the first stone"? And since by definition they are not "without sin", then they're not really following the teachings of Christ. Therefore making their assertions that they're refusing the gay couple service "because of religion" null and void.
If you're a Christian and you're refusing someone service, then according to the teachings of Christ you are doing it wrong.
Hence they tend to be vary paranoid because it's easy for them to put together connections (someone looks at you as you drive by == government is spying on them) that aren't there.
Can I go on the record as stating that I am 100% in favor of paranoid people designing our operating systems?
But IMHO you are entitled to be as wrong as you wish...
Too bad the baker and the pizza maker didn't have your attitude.
You know who doesn't have any problem getting a cake or a pizza? Dennis Hastert or Josh Duggar. Because molesting kids is just fine, but those two ladies wanting to get married is just beyond the pale.
Who's the MOST intolerant? is perhaps the best question to ask...
Why "MOST" and not "FIRST"?
When a gay couple walk into a bakery and ask to order a cake and are told, "we don't bake cakes for your kind", what is the INITIAL act of intolerance? Who threw the first stone? I mean, it's been a while since my bibling days, but isn't there something in there about "throwing the first stone"?
People may have different religious views than you, but, so what, its a free country. The manner in which in this society we have this oversensitization to being offended and against someones views and opinions offending someone is being used to shut down free speech and the free expression and exchange of ideas and information. Its actually the worst with the leftists who are most intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their views on matters and use "being offended" by Christians to basically attack and shut down anyone who is a professed Christain from being able to talk about their own beliefs and profess it. There's in an old phrase, I disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. So many people today, especially those on the left, are becoming increasingly opposed to people being able to express themselves and use their own perverse, twisted and insane defintions of "tolerance" to shut down any dissenting or opposing viewpoints, especially if you are a Christian and someone doesnt like your viewpoints, you are accused and labelled as being "intolerant" and "hateful" just by expressing your own viewpoints and religious ideas, not by trying to shut down others ability to express their own. What is going on here is that "intolerance" is now expressing a view that other people think are offensive, rather than trying to shutdown others peoples ability to express their own views. They have in effect turned everything upside down. Now if it is "tolerant" to suppress and censor anyone who says something you offend with, and "intolerant" for anyone to express views you disagree with. By basically saying that if you disagree with leftist atheists, muslims or whatever, you are somehow "intolerant", leftists are shutting down free speech and claiming to be "tolerant" when in fact they are "intolerant".
Why do the ones crying that their free speech has been taken away seem to be doing all the talking? Not only are there churches on every second corner from one end of the US to the other, but there are Christians preaching on the street, on the radio, all over television, at government "prayer breakfasts" and before football games and in front of doctor's offices and even on the fucking legal tender.
There is no justification at all for drug laws or suffering the tyranny lovers who make and enforce them.
They deserve to be insulted, and put in their place amongst the worst criminals in human history.
Man, you hit the turbo button there.
Passing laws against the sale of crystal meth is the same as genocide? I need some of that rock you're smoking, pal. I believe the refs in last night's Blackhawks/Lightning game should also be put in their place "amongst" the worst criminals in human history, while we're at it.
Actually, self driving cars will always have to deal with unpredictable behavior from neighboring vehicles. This will never change. They can react faster to other's wrong behaviors, evaluate and plan faster than human drivers, have greater knowledge of road conditions and environment, plus they don't get bored or inattentive.
You're speaking hypothetically.
agree pervasiveness will be more than 5 years, but you'll be able to buy any car with an autonomous driver option in less than 20 years. In 5 years the first autonomous work vehicles will be on the road (specifically long haul trucking).
Being able to buy an option in 20 years is not the same as having ubiquitous driverless cars in the next 50. And the economy is going to have something to say about it. The way things are going, with 40% of Americans earning less than $15/hr, in 50 years people may still be driving 1995 Escort wagons (which were great cars by the way, but didn't have a driverless option).
Should be a great improvement for gun sales though.
How will a gun help you with NSA spying again? Are you planning on blowing your own brains out? Because that surely solves the problem. More than one problem, in fact.
There's no doubt it would be abused by the marginally disabled or even the merely lazy, but at least this might actually help some disabled people achieve independence.
That's true. I suppose if a large market of fat people eventually makes the technology more cheaply available to the disabled, then that's a win.
Far too often measures allegedly for the disabled are implemented to make a political statement - and the effective statement is the one that spends enormous amounts of money to underline, rather than overcome, disabilities.
Part of that comes from the fact that as a society, we just don't know how to talk about people who have physical challenges. And for the most part we don't know how to talk TO people with physical challenges, so we get solutions that are meant to make the able-bodied feel good about themselves rather than actually making life better for the disabled.
You can use one of them computer things on that Internet.
A computer on the Internet is not a 4000 lb hunk of metal rolling at 70mph on public roadways, in front of schools and in crowded urban areas.
Nobody who is driving today will ever see ubiquitous self-driving cars. You don't realize the deep connection between the automobile and drivers' need for autonomy. How closely the desire to own a car is tied to the desire to drive.
And the biggest problem with self-driving cars is that they don't really show their benefit until everybody's using them. A busy highway filled with a mixture of human-driven and machine-driven cars would make for a very enjoyable Michael Bay movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Research peer-reviewed at 8chan.
We won't have to assume for very long, will we? Same sex marriage is now legal in 37 of the 50 U.S. states. And Ireland. And 22 other developed countries, including Belgium, Canada, England, France, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, Spain, etc etc.
The data will be forthcoming.
You can argue whatever you want. The published, peer-reviewed research says otherwise. If you have some data that disputes these findings, write it up and submit it to a journal. Otherwise, your argument means two things: jack and shit.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/resea...
No, I'm saying that if you're going to profess to follow the teachings of Christ, then don't do the opposite and pretend you're following the teachings of Christ.
That's fine, but can we agree that the business that refused service was the one to "cast the first stone"? And since by definition they are not "without sin", then they're not really following the teachings of Christ. Therefore making their assertions that they're refusing the gay couple service "because of religion" null and void.
If you're a Christian and you're refusing someone service, then according to the teachings of Christ you are doing it wrong.
FYI: They are widows and widowers because they're so old, proving that the happiness from marriage lasts beyond the death of the spouse.
Can I go on the record as stating that I am 100% in favor of paranoid people designing our operating systems?
If we're referencing his participation in online forums, I'm not sure that there is any such thing as typed Tourette's.
Why wouldn't they? Married couples are wealthier, tend to live longer and describe themselves as happier then their unmarried peers.
It may not be to your liking, but there's no question that getting married is a statistically beneficial life choice.
http://www.today.com/money/why...
http://www.mensjournal.com/hea...
Why does the nature of the relationship of their customers matter to the bakers?
Do you vet your clients for morality?
And in your mind, those two 60 year-old women who just got legally married are equivalent to Nazis?
I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER, HERE! Can someone reach into the Godwin Prize Bag and see what our contestant has won?
Too bad the baker and the pizza maker didn't have your attitude.
You know who doesn't have any problem getting a cake or a pizza? Dennis Hastert or Josh Duggar. Because molesting kids is just fine, but those two ladies wanting to get married is just beyond the pale.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Why "MOST" and not "FIRST"?
When a gay couple walk into a bakery and ask to order a cake and are told, "we don't bake cakes for your kind", what is the INITIAL act of intolerance? Who threw the first stone? I mean, it's been a while since my bibling days, but isn't there something in there about "throwing the first stone"?
My guess is you can't do most things without being intolerant.
Why do the ones crying that their free speech has been taken away seem to be doing all the talking? Not only are there churches on every second corner from one end of the US to the other, but there are Christians preaching on the street, on the radio, all over television, at government "prayer breakfasts" and before football games and in front of doctor's offices and even on the fucking legal tender.
Not bad for an "oppressed group".
For the record, are we talking about the Silk Road warriors or the FBI?
And someone else said, "there ought to not be a law" and then pretended it was so. And got caught.
Man, you hit the turbo button there.
Passing laws against the sale of crystal meth is the same as genocide? I need some of that rock you're smoking, pal. I believe the refs in last night's Blackhawks/Lightning game should also be put in their place "amongst" the worst criminals in human history, while we're at it.
You're speaking hypothetically.
Being able to buy an option in 20 years is not the same as having ubiquitous driverless cars in the next 50. And the economy is going to have something to say about it. The way things are going, with 40% of Americans earning less than $15/hr, in 50 years people may still be driving 1995 Escort wagons (which were great cars by the way, but didn't have a driverless option).
Timothy McVeigh really stopped NSA spying dead in it's tracks, yeah buddy.
I'm still interested in hearing how buying guns is going to stop NSA spying, if any 2A activist cares to explain.
I can appreciate the sentiment, but I've got to tell you, I'm not hopeful.
http://legalinsurrection.com/w...
http://ammoland.com/wp-content...
It might require ever-better-informed and educated consumers.
I'm so tired of you, America.
https://youtu.be/UUkcJlekP9s
How will a gun help you with NSA spying again? Are you planning on blowing your own brains out? Because that surely solves the problem. More than one problem, in fact.
If you were, you'd remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's true. I suppose if a large market of fat people eventually makes the technology more cheaply available to the disabled, then that's a win.
Part of that comes from the fact that as a society, we just don't know how to talk about people who have physical challenges. And for the most part we don't know how to talk TO people with physical challenges, so we get solutions that are meant to make the able-bodied feel good about themselves rather than actually making life better for the disabled.
A computer on the Internet is not a 4000 lb hunk of metal rolling at 70mph on public roadways, in front of schools and in crowded urban areas.
Nobody who is driving today will ever see ubiquitous self-driving cars. You don't realize the deep connection between the automobile and drivers' need for autonomy. How closely the desire to own a car is tied to the desire to drive.
And the biggest problem with self-driving cars is that they don't really show their benefit until everybody's using them. A busy highway filled with a mixture of human-driven and machine-driven cars would make for a very enjoyable Michael Bay movie.