Comment Re:It's California (Score -1, Flamebait) 723
Such Compassion from a liberal. Color me shocked.
Such Compassion from a liberal. Color me shocked.
"desperate, poor, and ignorant"
There is no excuse in modern educated society to being "ignorant". None. Even if you are ignorant, getting a computer connected to the internet should eliminate ignorance. Again, there is no excuse. If you have an email address, and a smart phone (as suggested by the Submission), you have no excuse to being ignorant.
I don't count ignorance as an excuse for anything any more. People choose to be ignorant because they spend too much time on silly things (pop culture) and not enough time paying attention to the world around them. Ignorance is bliss, it is easy, it is lazy.
It is very easy to take advantage of people who don't care.
Yes, they are. Unrestrained legalism isn't the virtue that you think it is. It is the means of tyranny uses to creep into our world. But you're okay with tyranny, as long as it is your kind of tyranny, and that is a pity.
Dictionary.com says it best
Usage note
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.
and
irregardless an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s
My first Grammar Nazi post
irregardless
IS not a word. Stop using it. Thank you.
Coming soon!
In other words some completely off topic response that points out the original person asking the question is either bad at grammar or can't spell.
See the post underneath this one QED
illicit
"Elicit". Unless you're asking how to break the law.
The problem isn't that it cost billions, the problem is that "average" people cannot accrue the benefit of that profit, directly. And this seems unfair to the "fairness police".
The issue is, that this liquidity has already saved billions of dollars because it is liquid. Nobody is complaining about the increased efficiency of the market (liquidity is efficiency). If you want to play this game, buy the equipment to play it. There are more fundamental issues with Stock Trading IMHO, that HFT is not one of them.
"I'm atheist, and 90% the people I know" Anecdotal evidence at best. Not reasonable assumption. It may be true, but it is still not a fact. Please be reasonable.
"I know nothing about that organization
This is a "campaign" by this organization. They raised money, and stuck these signs all over the place. I find it completely hilarious that people would waste money on things that they protest does not exist. It is like saying "I'm raising money to prove Bigfoot doesn't exists."
And if you don't see the humor
"Most Atheists" - Citation needed. While it may be true, that "most Atheists" are as you say, enough of them DO care about other people's beliefs to annoy the heck out people. And until they start protesting Islam, Buddhists, Jewish
http://unitedcor.org/images/bi...
Proselytizing Atheists! It is one of the funniest things I have ever seen!
Let me know when the same group put up signs denouncing Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster (or do they believe in those things? I don't know!)
It is a movement, even if you deny it. It is a religious, same as if a Church put up a billboard saying "Believe in Jesus" is religious. Like most Atheists, they don't reason very well, even though they claim to; "United Coalition of Reason" uh huh right
Theey are not based on reason or facts, they are based on careful interpretation of a religious text to fit your chosen point of view.
Even though the Buddhist texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, the Buddhist laity is advised to limit themselves to one wife.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/wha...
By getting married you are not just getting a wife, you are getting your whole world.
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/...
In traditional Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
A custom among the Northern Californian Native Americans*, which was unique to them, is that of half-marriage and full-marriage.In a full marriage, two kinsmen represented the future bridegroom. After agreeing on a price, in accordance with the family’s wealth and social standing, the bridegroom – usually with his father’s help – would pay the bride’s family.
http://www.weddingdetails.com/...
It appears, that your own bigotry is showing. Most societies marriage was between man and woman. In many of the others plural marriage was also allowed, but it was almost exclusively Heterosexual.
I put "gay" in quotes, because the original meaning "happy" no longer applies. And having seen my brother's friends (he was homosexual) "gay" meaning happy was laughable. Most of them were miserable sorts.
Do you not understand that there are very sound and well established, science based medical reasons why a union between close family members should be banned?
Is marriage about sex, or status in society or benefits granted by governments. The moment you decide on one, let me know. Because you don't need "marriage" for any or all of those.
But if a court says it is okay, then it must be okay. After all, men in black robes are smarter than the rest of us!
Atheists don't hate any more or less than Christians or any other human group does. There are, however, plenty of Atheist haters.
I define myself by what I am, not what I am not. I am not a lot of things. Atheists define themselves by what they are not, and thus, it is a religious belief system.
Prop Eight defined marriage (legal) as between a man and a woman. This has been the historic case for thousands of years for all but a few examples. And most of the exceptions were Polygamists (and occasional Polyandrous). From a Historical perspective, gay "marriage" is something that didn't exists until very recently. Saying society is bigoted because of this long standing tradition (one man, one woman) is simply nothing more than projection.
1) The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny. Gay people cannot procreate (adoption, artificial and out of wedlock sexual relations not withstanding)
2) Benefits that were granted by government was to allow for Families (biologically impossible with gays) to have societal support for raising children and wealth (asset) transfers to the children.
Neither of those two things are "bigoted".
As a Libertarian, I realize that "gay" people are pushing the historical boundries for marriage apart. But I rather doubt they realize the full extent these changes will eventually take. Do they support Polygamy or other plural marriages? If not, does that make them bigoted? How about letting me "marry" my daughter to gain the government benefits granted to gay people for the transfer of wealth and other assets (retirement benefits) to her generation? If not, is that bigoted?
The best thing we can do is get Government out of the "marriage" business (a left over of religion in the first place) and just deal with people as individuals. The smallest minority is that of the individual. IF government doesn't grant the same rights and privileges to the individual as it does to the most discriminated group, then we have already lost our liberties to Group Politics.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
