Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1168

You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is.

I use the word the way 99% of the English speakers use it. You can't understand "I understand and I disagree" and repeat that I don't understand.

I get that you have a mental disease that makes you a closed-minded zealot. But I thought that you understood English. Apparently your mental disease refuses to let you understand that someone can understand you 100%, yet still disagree.

It's your opinion, not fact.

Comment Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1168

It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.

Not many hold your views, and if that's your morality, I'm happy to be immoral.

The right of property [owners] doesn't override the rights of the people. It's the other way around.

Comment Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1168

A right is everything that you can do without government abusing you.

So the Civil Rights movement was not related to any "rights"?

I read the blog in your sig, and it seems that the issue is that you use words outside their established definitions, not that others misunderstand. You do. Deliberately.

Comment Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 1) 1168

Yup. No true "whatever". You were the one that brought up "right" and "left". The ACLU is considered left. Radical left, often by those who are pro-gun. When you use words with unique definitions, you are no longer speaking English, and there's no point to discuss anything with you.

Comment Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1168

So a person has no rights. A "right" is only a restriction on the government, and not tied to a person. You can't have the right to travel, or the right to bear arms, as every "person" you deal with can take those "rights" from you. Up to the limits of criminal law.

That's the opposite of what the Founders of the USA said when crafting the Constitution, and I've never seen anyone agree with such an odd view of rights.

Comment Re:Yes, it's free. Also, the patent system sucks (Score 1) 198

Explicit language might modify what would otherwise be there only by an implicit doctrine.

In general, a licensor can modify their own terms. So, if you are using the GPL on software to which you hold the copyright, and you add some sort of exception, it applies. You can't do it to other people's software.

Comment Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1168

An affirmative defense is a defense that, if accepted, wins. Like the "insane" plea. If determined and accepted as insane at the time, then you "win". Period. Same with the statute of limitations, and all other affirmative defenses. It's just trivial to prove the date of the crime and the date of being charged, so it's treated more absolutely than the others.

Comment Re:Nah, go TRULY flat (Score 1) 349

Benefits for the poor are mainly for the poor. But someone with $100k of net debt, and no job would lose little if China invaded and nationalized all the industry and land. But would Bill Gates lose anything? So yes, the rich receive about 100% of the benefit of a standing military. The poor only benefit if they enlist to fight the rich-man's wars.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Working...