I think that's the point of calling you sociopathic. You shouldn't need a reason, because the empathy present in most humans would be enough.

I can't give you a personal reason, but I can give you one that applies to people as a collective: I live the full live I have now because of the sacrifices made by the generations that came before. People who put off their own happiness to improve the world in some way. It's a form of paying it forward, and I have a huge debt. I'll never be able compensate those countless generations who got the world to where it is now, but I can do my part to improve upon their work.

Tell that to the people who have been asking for MRU tab-switching for ages

Chrome doesn't even allow plugins to enable MRU for ctrl+tab.

This is a different author. As far as I can tell, K5 was the only host for this story on the entire internet.

(and yeah, I'm signed up for localroger.com's newsletter. Prime Intellect and Passages in the Void are incredible stories)

And I just found it on Google cache. Glad I could grab it before it disappears forever:

http://webcache.googleusercont...

True. Some of the best fiction I've read was first published on that site.

There was another one about the corpse of an angel, found floating in space, hooked up to play a perfect allegorical game of Go to solve political and economic puzzles for its masters.

Very few things stick with me for this long, but K5's fiction did.

Can you point me to some examples? Religious schools tend to be private institutions, so aren't beholden to non-discrimination clauses. Same goes for churches. No one has ever been forced to lend the weight of their religion to a marriage. Can you point to a case where a private institute has been forced to go against their religious beliefs?

People who own public companies like bakeries do not have the right to discriminate when selling wedding cakes. People who work for the public government do not have the right to discriminate when deciding who gets a marriage license. For those people, their religion prevents them from providing protected classes the same rights granted to everyone else. As I mentioned earlier, their religion has started affecting others, and that's where their rights stop.

And no, no one can be punished for believing in God, or lacking a "belief in the lack of a god". But again, once their beliefs lead to actions that affect others, all bets are off.

How, exactly?

From what I can see, the intolerance towards "beliefs" only starts when those beliefs start affecting other people. People have every right to believe gay people are sinful and going to hell. But they shouldn't have a right to fire someone just because they're gay.

Note the difference between tolerating a belief and tolerating an action. Yes, a lot of actions are informed by religious beliefs and are no longer being tolerated. But that's exactly as it should be. Religion should not have an adverse effect on anyone not of that religion.

Can I just say I appreciate you responding rationally and calmly to this line of questioning. It's refreshing to see a well-thought-out answer in the face of the obtuse disingenuous questions being thrown your way.

You seriously can't tell the difference between "intolerance towards X" and "intolerance towards intolerance"?

Are you also against financial penalties for thieves, because that would be theft?

If you had been born with different genitals, but were 100% the same in every other aspect, do you think you'd identify with the gender that matches your sex? I wouldn't.

I believe (and there is growing supporting evidence) that there are innate psychological differences between men and women. Some people are born with a psychology that does not "match" their sex. They're literally a man born in a woman's body. You suggest psychiatric care to fix their psychology, but why not cosmetic surgery to fix their genitals? Both suck, but the latter seems less invasive (and empirically gets better results)

<sigh> That'll teach me not to preview

I mean, Linux must suck if this half-assed Windows integration is any threat at all. It's not like tons of dev shops already force its devs to use Windows for some reason, yet still manage to deploy to Linux.

And let's not forget that Microsoft makes the best servers too. Sysadmins have been lamenting for years "If only this web server ran a Windows UI, I would be complete!" The second this integration is complete, every Linux server in the world will be migrated to Winbuntu, because it's obviously better.

Or maybe you need to chill the fuck down and recognize that Linux is still around for legitimate reasons, and a little thing like being more accessible than ever isn't a threat. I have no doubt that Microsoft would love to eat into Linux's market share with this move, but I can't see it happening, and someone who has to use Windows, I can't see this as anything but the best thing ever.

Bottom line, Microsoft has tried to crush Linux in the past, and this isn't going to succeed any better today than the past 2 decades. Today, Linux is running on more devices than Windows could ever dream of.

Not to mention the statutes of Egality and Fraternity.

Oh, right....pre-coffee I can be pretty dumb.

Should I be extradited if I send anti-Chinese-gov't documents to someone in China? This isn't a precedent we want to set.

That said, I do think it's a special case and not the beginning of a slippery slope. I just don't like the logic being applied.