I'm sure those on the other side of the debate would argue that it's just as political and arbitrary to claim that it *is* a planet, beyond pure inertia (i.e. because it had always been called a "planet" until then).

Precisely.

Now I think you're trying too hard to rationalise the "haters" label. As I said, you don't have to agree with their opinion, nor the way they went about getting the result they wanted.

But that doesn't change the fact that dismissing their opinions and actions purely as "haters" was quite silly.

If the argument had started to become too personal, then this sort of concerted attempt to justify that way of thinking simply makes it worse. As you said, two wrongs don't make a right.

intolerance itself

intolerance of intolerance

not the same thing

pointing a gun at a man

pointing a gun back

not the same thing

if you really can't tell the difference between who initiates a transgression and who defends against it, you're not worth the time. you lack fundamental social and moral sense

He's not talking about the ACTUAL dress, he's talking about the photographic portrayal of a dress is the crappily exposed and presented JPG that everyone is looking at. The dress, as recorded in the JPG, is a barely-blue-tinted light grey, and the black elements have a demonstrably uneven RGB that makes them look gold (because that data represents a color low on blue ... which is to say, it's a golden hue).

Yeah, that's right. They were "Pluto-haters". Not just people who happened to hold a different opinion he doesn't agree with.

That's not to say that you have to agree with their position, nor the way they went about having Pluto stripped of its status. But to ascribe their actions to the fact they personally "hated" Pluto- rather than simply believing that it couldn't justify its status as a planet- is somewhat childish.

I don't know if he meant "haters" in present-day sense (i.e. with its "haters gonna hate" connotations et al), but I've always had contempt for that usage. It's a cheap and easy way to counter anyone you don't agree with, to depersonalise and dismiss them in as people who hate purely because they're "haters". To make it a personal beef and a partisan issue rather than one of simple disagreement on a particular matter- one which would require legitimately addressing what they're actually saying instead of trying to puff yourself up in the cod-macho bullshit "them versus us/me" manner of an adolescent who's either immature enough to see things in that light, or has nothing to say beyond the convenient "haters gonna hate".

Seriously, step away from the gangsta rap and stop acting like a f*****g fourteen-year-old.

when you're working, can you do it in the middle of a concert hall? the middle of an interstate highway? in between a screaming fighting couple?

or do you benefit from having a private room/ cubicle?

same principle

the wide world is full of nasty chemical interactions and potent free radicals ready to destroy anything they touch. rooms help immensely

not only do they protect, they isolate. a self-replicating process can sputter out if not restricted to it's own products

go pour a little soap/oil in some water and shake it

congratulations, you've "made" micelles

micelles are self organizing. you don't "make" sea foam, it's a simple product of natural wind and wave with sufficient chained carbon compounds

micelles occurred naturally in the early earth out of non organic processes that produced simple hydrocarbons

then the rudmientary self-replicating processes also occuring naturally in that time period, and sputtering out, uncontained, joined up with micelles and sustained. because now they have a safe container to continue in

thus the first cell, from which all the rest has sprung

i've laid out my reasoning intelligently and convincingly. all you've done is bounce one empty unsupported insult reflexively. you haven't reasoned with me at all, you've made no argument. because you have no argument. when someone is left with nothing more than sputtering insults, they've lost the argument

if you're not the same AC (anonymous COWARD), as the other one i'm responding to, then here is genuine reasoning for your education:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

good luck on opening your mind and understanding your problem

"[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." - Freeman Dyson

hilarious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

"no, you!" is not a valid argument

me arguing against bigotry is not the same as bigotry

if i define bigotry, and say it is wrong, going "so you're the bigot!" is only a reflexive, thoughtless defense on the order of 5 year olds

it's like you point a gun at me, so i point one back in defense, and you go "see! you're a murderer!" the defense taken against a transgressive action is not the same as the actual transgressive action. defining and condemning bigotry is not the same as bigotry. do you understand?

then this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]

intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself

example: charlie hebdo: if you have a society that respects free speech, and one group says "we will kill you until we get to restrict your free speech!" does that group get to claim bigotry and intolerance when their bigotry and inteolerance is opposed? no

is society violating it's principles by restricting speech... that advocates violent restriction of speech? see the self-contradiction? incitement to violence and murder to end free speech, is not protected by the principle of free speech, because it threatens the very concept of free speech itself

another example: nazi imagery in germany. is germany violating free speech by restricting nazi imagery? no, because nazi imagery in germany is not some abstract notion, it is the symbol of the ideology that violently destroyed free german society. there's no contradiction

you cannot attack a principle, and depend upon that principle, at the same time

you cannot claim bigotry, when being singled out for your bigotry

understand?

try again and good luck

making a micelle was the very first step in creating life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

the next step was the chemicals concentrated in the micelle being able to control it

More evidence for Dunning-Kruger.

Ever see a rabbit /mouse plague?

so the choice is be

1. in a wonderful understanding marriage, or

2. "sorry, to hell with you"

your message seems to be: if you aren't married, or in a bad marriage, or in any way deviate from the 1950s leave it to beaver perfect cookie cutter utopia of domestic life, well then go fuck yourself (figuratively, not literally). that seems to be the conservative message

do you ever stop to consider people and their conditions in life that aren't in the same glorious spot as you?

is this the wonderful mythical "compassionate conservatism" i hear about always that says "you get to have sex if your life is a fairy tale, otherwise, you get to suffer, period, end of story"

why don't you instead open your mind slightly, consider people that might not have it as good as you, and allow them what they need to keep going in life?

instead of, in intolerance as you currently do, defining your oh-so-perfect life, and then declaring anyone outside it to be unclean and unworthy. that's religious conservatism in action

that would be nice but first we have to get conservative religious countries to agree to the UN universal declaration of human rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents...

what happens if you go to a conservative, religious country and say you don't believe in god or are from another religion?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

so conservative religious belief supports moral behavior like not hacking someone to death just for believing different that you, right?

i made a valid coherent argument that can be substantiated with facts

you reply with empty insults

if that's the best you can do, then it seems i've made a valid point here and the best you can do is sputter in response. so you're welcome for the education today

btw, progress is real and the hallmark of human civilization. the screen and the keyboard you use to read and respond to me are marks of progress. those who use the word as an insult, that's very telling about their intellect and character