Comment Re:I think this is bullshit (Score 1) 1746
Considering I said nothing of the kind in EITHER of my posts, who is the moron for propping up strawmen?
Considering I said nothing of the kind in EITHER of my posts, who is the moron for propping up strawmen?
No, only a handful of other countries grant free speech without ridiculous exceptions for things like blasphemy, attacking the authority of the State, etc. However, the US seems hell-bent on finding ways to add such exceptions in the name of "safety", "counter-terrorism", etc, so I am not so sure that is as much of a positive as it used to be.
Anyway, that was the point of the statement and, no, I am not a moron. Are you?
Can someone please post some meaningful, hopefully peer reviewed scientific evidence as to when and where we decided this was a fact?
You're on the Internet.. surely you can find some decent links to relevant scientific research and evidence. If not, here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
As for it being a fact, I don't think anyone can or should claim it as a fact, but the bulk of the research is leaning VERY strongly in that direction. In general, that usually means we're heading towards at least a de facto acceptance of it.
Specifically, when did we learn that homosexuality was genetic, ingrained, inescapable, and as intrinsically bound to us as our race?
If at any point it's in any way a choice, then that's not discrimination. That's a difference of opinion. You're entitled to that choice, but that choice is not a RIGHT.
No matter how much we do or don't like it, or how socially acceptable it has become.
I don't think the issue of government acknowledgement and support of something as important between any two people such as marriage is really related to whether homosexuality is or is not a choice. Even if it is a choice, I think that, if two people love each other enough to consent to and accept the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, at least as far as the government is concerned, then the government (and everyone else) should get the hell out from between them.
How is it his fault that he's a homophobe any more than homosexuals are at fault for being homosexuals?
While the question of whether homophobia is something one is born with is an intriguing one, there is unfortunately no evidence to back it up.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has a significant amount of such evidence.
While it may be possible that his psychological makeup precludes eradicating an erroneous and/or irrational stance, the difference lies in the fact that homophobia, acted upon, affects other people, whereas homosexuality, acted upon, affects only themselves.
Marriage isn't a fundamental human right, it's a religious right (and therefore gays have the right to form their own church). The mainstream debate on this topic is myopic. Marriage should entail no advantage from the government, especially tax incentives.
I would have to strongly disagree with this. The ability to choose a person (or person(s)) to be lifemates, and to enjoy whatever life benefits society offers to those who partake in that choice, outside of the intrinsic benefits, is a fundamental human right. Legally, marriage is a secular artifice, but can be dressed up with any (or no) religious trappings the participants prefer. That secular artifice, including all the associated benefits and responsibilities, should be available to any and all who are able and willing to legally consent to it, regardless of any discriminatory differences between the participants.
That marriage should entail no advantage from the government I think is a bit myopic itself. There are some considerations that are part and parcel of marriage which I think deserve advantages from society and, by extension, government. Child-rearing, for one. This still applies to homosexual couples as well, since there is no reason that they cannot rear a child, despite being biologically incapable of bearing one of their own making.
Don't ask me, I am just the Usher.
Our "practices" were meant to stop proliferation of Communism — the most murderous (and, incidentally, homophobic) school of thought known to man...
Yes, I can see where the CIA-assisted overthrow of a sitting democratically-elected president at the behest of a large multinational corporation (said president who helped overthrow a fascist dictator who openly admired both Hitler and Mussolini and compared himself to them) would be considered "proliferation of Communism".
What a bunch of ignorant horseshit.
Chile, where we succeeded, is Latin America's top economy today. Cuba, where we failed, remains a shithole.
..for any arbitrary definition of "top economy" you like, anyway. Chile doesn't even make it into the Top 5 for GDP, and what does that say about them, especially including Venezuela, where I don't think you can claim it as an "American Success Story".
Speaking of Chile, what, exactly, did we do there? Oh, yeah, installed what was more or less another fascist dictator in the form of Pinochet, driving more revolutionaries into the ranks of anti-American interests, let alone making excuses for things like the "Caravan of Death".
Everywhere we get involved and use our imperialistic muscle, we screw things up worse for the people there and, ultimately, for ourselves, too.
There was nothing "righteous" about his outrage and "not the best" hardly describes him.
There was plenty "righteous" about his outrage. He witnessed first-hand the suffering of the Guatemalan people from the effects of our interference.
But that's all off-topic. My point was, people wearing Che Guevara T-shirts (as well as those with hummer-and-sickle and other Communist symbols) should be boycotted — but aren't. Because true Liberals are nowhere as vicious in pursuing their opponents, as the Illiberals are.
Well, get to it and boycott them. Personally, I couldn't care less, since I understand the reasons behind why people wear them, and it has nothing to do with a desire for a fascist dictatorship, or a desire for a poorly-constructed Communist government.
Sure, sure, no one who disagrees with you should be allowed to be a CEO, got it.
I think he'd make a great CEO for quite a few anti-gay-marriage businesses. Chick-Fil-A comes to mind.
Do you think he should be allowed to work for any company, or would you prefer some sort of re-education camp for those who dare to disagree with you?
Lest you think I'm trolling, I've seen calls for prison for those who continue to publically question AGW, and not that long ago there were calls for prison for those who "lied about Obamacare, e..g, suggesting is had death panels". Funny you don't hear so many people calling for prison over Obamacare lies these days, but that aside: seriously, how much of an "unperson" do you need to make someone who disagrees with you before you're happy?
Right, because seeking out the worst possible examples of opposition to your viewpoint and painting everyone who expresses any degree of opposition to your viewpoint with a wide brush dipped into that bucket of paint you've mixed up represents such a reasonable rebuttal?
This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views. I don't care what you do but trying to use your social clout to strong arm a group is something we've seen in the past. It's a dangerous road to go down and I know you'd agree if it was some powerful homophobic group putting pressure on a company for having a homosexual employee. Remember when the American government (your government I assume?) had to step in and put an end to voluntary racial segregation? Now that power roles are reversed you think that it is okay.
You're conflating two tangential issues; freedom of speech with the morality of the substance of said speech. As distasteful as it may be, I support someone's (or some group's) right to boycott a company (using such "strong arm" tactics, if you will) even if it is in support of an immoral (or just plain wrong) ideal. I reserve MY right to call them out on it and to ignore their boycott, too.
Social pressure has always been used as a tool for change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but it, in and of itself, is a good thing.
You should ease up on the strawman tactics at the end there. What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Looks like he was spot on with his addressing of EXACTLY what you said that he quoted. It ain't a strawman if it came out of your own mouth (or from your own hand, anyway).
I am disgusted with the Illiberals' persecution of the supporters of the Prop 8, but I don't deny their right to do it... I do wish, the actual Liberals were as effective, though... Why, for example, is one getting into all sorts of trouble for opposing — not gay sex — gay marriage, but, for example, glamorizing Che Guevara is deemed perfectly acceptable?
I am not sure where you are going with this, but I think, much like Al Qaeda, Che was a monster of our own making. I wouldn't glamorize Che for what he did, but I would for the origins of why he did it. The standard and expected (perhaps in hindsight, anyway) effects of American imperialistic practices in Latin America radicalized him, and he acted. Maybe he didn't choose the best expression of his righteous outrage, but there is little doubt that his outrage was appropriately righteous.
Yes, it also applies to rowdy teenagers who just want to stay up all night on a school night and their fascist parents ordering them to bed.
No, it only really matters at the government level, when the threat of violence, imprisonment, and death can be brought to bear. Social pressures do not come anywhere NEAR that level of severity and seriousness.
If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.
That's all the Freedom of Speech covers in the Constitution -- against the government denying it (and only in America and a handful of other countries with similar protections to boot). It doesn't apply to all other (private) situations, legally.
No one had to enter his mind to patrol his thoughts -- he expressed them and acted on them publicly for all to see.
I love it when people try to spin things like this as "attacks" on "religious freedom". No one said he couldn't hold his opinion or his personal beliefs. However, he didn't just hold the belief, he acted on it. Also, there is nothing saying that having any particular personal belief (or lack of) entitles you to employment, let alone in a leadership role.
Holding demonstrably wrong beliefs should be at least challenged, if not penalized; otherwise, what's anyone's incentive to change them?
its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
It isn't bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry, or, if it is, then there is a good kind of bigotry. Your choice.
Far worse? Perspective check, please. He supported Prop 8 monetarily. The calls for his resignation or that he address his bigotry were words.
As for the rest, you're treading dangerously close to standard professional victimhood claims.
I don't know..
Would you feel the same if he was a supporter of white supremacy and gave money to the KKK? Or if he was a holocaust denier and gave money to anti-semitic groups? If it was just a freedom of speech issue, would even these extreme positions make a difference?
If he felt strongly about his position, I think he should have defended it with vigor. The problem is that his position is both logically and morally indefensible, so even if he did defend it with vigor, it would have only made things worse.
It isn't about being a standout/maverick in a position of authority, it is about being wrong in a position of authority.
I find it more reprehensible that more people authority don't understand this concept.
1. AFAIK, a grand total of zero of the IPCC-favored climate models work in retrospect. I.e., one should be able to plug in data up to (say) 1990 and get an accurate "forecast" of the climate from 1990 to today. If they can't do that, why should I believe they will be accurate about the climate 50 years from now?
As far as you know? Have you bothered to look?
First off, you need to realize that there are a lot of different climate models, modeling different parts of the climate system. No one model is representative of the entire climate system, as it is too big and complex for a single statistical model -- so far. That said, there are a number of models which do very well, both in terms of hindcasting and forecasting for the specific area they were created to model. Quite a few of them are overly conservative, meaning that they under-projected the deviations due to climate change.
If you want to really understand how to interpret how the models work and what their output means, I would suggest starting here.
2. This article sums up my other objection. The TL;DR version: the IPCC-favored models are based on more than a simple (and rather inarguable) "more CO2 = hotter" greenhouse effect. They all assume various kinds of positive feedback to amplify that effect. Yet, the historical record seems to show the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system, not dominated by strong positive feedback effects.
This is woefully inaccurate. I don't know of any models which assume only positive feedbacks (well, I guess there are a few very old models pre-1990 which might, but I don't think anyone uses or references them any longer).
Yes, the Earth's climate is a fairly stable system, HOWEVER there have been periods of rapid change which cannot be accounted for by simply considering "more CO2 = hotter". The science behind both positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system is still a bit nascent, at least in terms of determining where the "tipping points" are, but the physics behind the feedback processes is pretty well-established at this point.
I don't consider myself a "warmist"; I simply follow the science with a skeptical eye. I have yet to see anything that I would consider discounts AGW/CC wholesale, but I am always looking. In the meantime, I am going to go on the premise that it is largely correct and change my lifestyle to address it, and urge others to follow suit.
After all, if climate science turns out to be completely wrong, I won't have any remorse for creating a better world as a result.
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.
