Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

Please don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

Why don't you tell many of your fellow Americans not to vote for Huckabee or Jindahl or Cruz or Rubio "just because he is a Christian".

Maybe because this topic is about Bat-Shit-Crazy Hillary Clinton, who is a woman.

Your assumption is pretty ignorant.

You think no one voted for "the first black president" just because he was black? Your ignorance is incredible.

That of course, being a woman, the only reason someone would vote for Hillary Clinton is because of her gender. Gee, I wonder how women ever got the idea that men in technology are misogynist?

Are you saying you have proof that no person would vote for her, simply because they want a woman as President? Please post the proof.

    (full disclosure: I do not plan on voting for Secretary Clinton.)

Does that mean you will not vote for her, or that in the end you will simply hold your nose and choose her over "that evil Republican", which ever one is chosen?

Full disclosure: I voted for Obama in 2008, and stand by my decision, even though he is the worst Executive Officer this country has seen, in so many different ways it defies counting.

Full disclosure: I voted for the Green Party, led by Dr Jill Stein, in 2012, because she seemed the only candidate with intelligence and good character. I don't support 90%+ of the Green Party planks, but my wishes aren't what's important in a national leader.

Full disclosure: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, nor will I vote for the Republican candidate, in 2016. I can't stand her personally, or the Republican party in general. I won't waste my vote on either. It will go towards the candidate who I feel best deserves it.

That is how you do a full disclosure of your vote, if you think it is so important for us to know. Not this insipid crap of "I do not plan on...".

Comment Re:in the fine print ... (Score 1) 63

Yes, it can cause ionization by bumping electrons around

No. Any electrons that can be "bumped" around by EM radiation with wavelengths longer than UV are already in the conduction band. In other words, the ionization already happened and any induced current occurs in "loose" electrons... or, more likely, existing ions in solution.

It's called non-ionizing radiation for a reason.

Wait a sec. I thought that was non-unionizing radiation.

I'm gonna havta rethink my support of that now.

Comment Re:Clearly, she is a (Score 1) 538

Thank you for replying. I couldn't stand McCain either. He was against all the conservative issues (a real maverick) two years before running for the presidency, but became Mr. Conservative for the campaign. Oh, and all we were told was that he was a war hero and a POW (did I mention he was a Vietnam POW war hero?), rather than any meaningful details or personal stances.

  I disagree on Obama's performance, and its causes/obstacles, but everyone has their own view.

Also good to see more third-party voters, for any reason. I voted Green party last time, really liked their candidate.

Comment Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

So you are falling back to your first fallacy, thinking the state has the power or authority to make me serve someone. The state also thinks it has this power, and the authority to enforce its belief.

And, again, you are talking about the power and authority to force me to provide services to people I already provide services to. My willingness to serve someone just isn't good enough for you; I must knuckle under and admit the state can force me to do something that I would otherwise do from common decency. If my actions are done from my own choice, you can't accept it.

As an aside, I do find it humorous that you and others keep insisting that to prove my point, I have to change my policy and deny service to a protected group, so that the state can crack down on me. By your logic, the proper way to prove I don't kill random strangers by my own choice, as opposed to by state law, is to go out and kill a stranger. Then I 'll see how much power the state has over my choice to not kill people. It is a ridiculous example, but it logically follows your argument.

This argument from you isn't whether the state has a certain law, which of course the laws you are referring to exist. You keep mentioning them, and I keep dismissing them, since they have no bearing on my actions. You need me to acknowledge that the state has this power over my personal choice, even though it would not change my personal choice. I don't acknowledge that power, because it does not exist, because the law does not make me change my actions or choices.

Where your argument really falls apart is if I were to live in a country that does not have this plethora of anti-discrimination laws. My choices of who I would offer my services to would not change one bit. Therefor, my choice now to offer my services to everyone is not forced or constrained by any law that establishes protected groups.

So, in a nutshell, you are so upset you are arguing with a stranger on the internet because, while he is perfectly willing to provide services to anybody, he has the gall to insist that the choice to provide service to everybody is not made by the government.

Comment Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

Wow. Now you're throwing the ADA at me. You are getting desperate to prove a point. Go on, sue me for ADA violations. When I park my car in the handicapped spot, and push my wife into court in her wheelchair, maybe while mentioning my military disability (which I have already proven in court to avoid other legal action), I don't think the judge is going to give you much leeway.

Just for you, I will modify my policy of not discriminating against any particular group, and incorporate this into my company policies:

I am not biased against any particular group of people, and so do not discriminate against anyone who wants to pay me for my services. However, recently I am being forced to add one exception.

From this point forward, no matter what group you may want me to classify you with, if you have the political belief that the state has the authority to force me to perform work for you against my will, and you wish to force that belief on me as a citizen who runs a business, I do not want you as a customer. You are not invited into my work area, and are not authorized to call me about business. If you do intrude into my business, I am giving notice that that will be construed as trespassing. I reserve the right to take legal action against people who trespass in this manner.

If you have the political belief mentioned, but choose to never force your belief on me personally or as a business owner, I still welcome you as a valued customer, since none of my customers have all the same political beliefs as I do, and as such it would make no sense to discriminate solely on the basis of differing beliefs.

Thank you and have a nice day.

There, now I have to discriminate against people like you. Not because of what you are (white, black, disabled, gay, democrat, communist, christian, muslim, illegal alien, or any other defined group people are placed in), but because of what you think. It's not simply that you think the state does have the power to force me to do business with a particular group of people, it is that you believe the state should have the authority to force me to perform professional work for any particular group.

I don't like to discriminate against people, which is one reason I don't do so. But if I am being threatened with legal action despite my non-discrimination, I find it sensible to avoid business dealings with people who are insisting on that threat even though I don't discriminate.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...