Dr. Who's phone booth.
Dr. Who has no phone booth. Everyone knows the TARDIS is a police box.
Dr. Who's phone booth.
Dr. Who has no phone booth. Everyone knows the TARDIS is a police box.
The term "Christian" means so many different things to so many different people that it doesn't have much meaning at all any more.
There, that is your arrogance, right there. It has TREMENDOUS meaning for those who identify themselves as Christians. This is true even if it does not serve your purposes of taxonomy. The taxonomist is the most onerous of oppressors, along with the statistician.
Sure, the term means a lot to those who use it; I'll concede that to your argument. However being as there is so much variance about what it means to be a "Christian", I stand by my statement that the self-applied label here means little to nothing. Of course, that is not unique to Christianity or even to the faiths of Abraham; I have met people who self-apply the term "Buddhist" in ways that seem peculiar and many, many, people who use the term "Atheist" in ways that are not compatible with (amongst other things) the dictionary.
However I reject your notion of "oppressor". I do not seek to prevent people from using such labels if they feel so inclined, particularly towards themselves. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the idea that they are labeling themselves accurately, however.
But, the ratings are up. It made the front page and has the whole internet aflutter. Mission accomplished. All is well in the garden.
If you would read my comments you would have noticed that I already suggested that possibility...
And you and d_r remain stuck in the sand trap of the superfluous that keeps the power structure afloat.
The creation of ASP to disrupt PHP.
You do know ASP was introduced in 1996, before PHP became popular? That was during the PHP/FI 1.0 days, which were followed by PHP/FI 2.0 before it became PHP 3 and started resembling the PHP we know today.
No, ASP was introduced to unseat Perl, which was the defacto language for CGI scripts at the time.
And I am afraid I cannot agree that A&E is a fully private entity.
if we were talking about an over-the-air broadcast network I would say there is good reason to say that. However being as A&E is a cable network, they are under far less regulation on what they do.
Unfortunately we live in a world where my pocket is constantly being picked in order to broadcast 'public service announcements' to preach stuff at me that I disagree with and find offensive. A world where television broadcasters are certainly regulated, directly and indirectly, by the government.
Granted, I don't watch much cable myself, and when I do it's usually on DVR so I'm skipping the commercials and PSAs anyways. However on the occasions when I do watch live TV I can't recall a time I have ever seen a PSA on cable, unless you count Red Cross fundraisers (specifically for Katrina or 9/11) as PSA.
It's by no means obvious whether or not A&E would have taken the same step, were it a fully private entity acting in a free market.
I think the more difficult argument to make here is that external forces from the government - and not from private associations such as GLAAD - were the influential players behind this action. Of course we can't study these actions in a vacuum, and I have yet to hear any statements from A&E board members (as I understand they are partly owned by Disney and someone else) so we can't really say what brought about their actions.
It's a completely counterproductive way to deal with it, it weakens and divides civil society.
As I've said before, I see A&E as a private enterprise. If I were to walk into Wal-Mart and start shouting out racist epithets or other inflammatory language, I can expect them to throw me out of their store. They have that right as the owners of private property, just as I could throw someone out of my own home if they said such a thing or otherwise offended me. One could make an argument that the notion of
You dont know who to educate, or just who to avoid.
Will just bring people to suspect gulags, re-education camps, and the like. Besides, hateful language is just language. He did not advocate for killing homosexuals, he just said that he thought they were bad people. He is free to hold negative thoughts based on whatever basis he likes. However his first amendment rights do not extend to the point where others have to listen to what he says; people can turn him off in the same way they can turn off their TV when the POTUS gives the State of the Union address.
The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less.
The action from A&E does not prevent him from speaking elsewhere. He can write to the newspaper, he can take out a billboard, he can start a blog, he can do whatever he wants to spread his message. He could even get a show on a different TV network or buy airtime through some other network (so long as those are not prohibited by the contract that he willingly signed for his show). They haven't stifled his ability to speak, they just said they won't carry what he wants to say.
I dont know, most here seem to be for the constitution and individual liberties
That would be fine and dandy if they were concerned about the entire constitution and all liberties. The truth though is that on slashdot the libertarians are concerned only about certain parts of the constitution (not even all 10 amendments of the bill of rights, for example) and certainly not all liberties. For that matter the policies they support more often grant more corporate liberties and count on people to be able to fund their own protection for their individual liberties.
I get the tax aspect is the one harped on the most
And also the one most contradictory for most of them. They support reducing taxes to the point where nearly every aspect of being alive becomes dramatically more expensive for the 99%.
however i dont fully agree that most libertarians here are really conservatives hiding behind the libertarian name.
We are all entitled to our beliefs. That said an argument could be made that the slashdot libertarians don't actually want people to have their own beliefs, either...
Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.
Right in those lines he shows that he is preaching discrimination based on lack of understanding. Homosexuality does not lead to those things. Indeed the best known polygamous societies in particular have also preached homophobia.
Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate? And would Jesus support you writing a JE that attacks me in its very subject line? You could have attacked the statement in your subject but instead you lowered yourself to attacking me directly, that does not seem very moral.
And as far as your suggestion of
"Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist:
You are painting the wrong person as being aligned with Stalin. He was a homophobe himself. Indeed he took it even further than what most conservatives currently are willing to say in public, he was willing to send the homosexuals straight to the gulags (or worse). Even more so though
this is the level of punitive [political correctness]
The punitive action is being taken by a private entity. The government is not involved in any way, shape or form. If you walk into wal-mart and start shouting racist epithets they would be within their rights to throw you out. A&E heard this guy sharing his hateful viewpoint and said they didn't want to associate with him for a while.
However, being as there is "Duck Dynasty" merchandise being sold everywhere now, and plenty of like-minded people who support his homophobic stance, there is a fair chance that this will produce more, not less, revenue for the family.
There are a hell of a lot more Christians in the US than there are gays which is why A&E are fucking morons.
The term "Christian" means so many different things to so many different people that it doesn't have much meaning at all any more. That said you do have a good point that there is potentially a lot more revenue available from people who call themselves "Christians" than from those who call themselves LGBTQ or are sympathetic to the same. Some have suggested this might be a publicity stunt on the part of A&E, although it is hard to imagine these guys getting more market saturation than they already have; hell Best Buy is selling a Christmas CD with the family singing carols.
There was a story this week on a "parody news" website about a schoolkid who was suspended because he wished his atheist teacher merry christmas. Of course, it wasn't true, but that didn't stop the Top Conservatives on Twitter from howling in outrage and death threats from pouring into the fictional teacher.
Are death threats against a fictional person a crime? If you sent a death threat to an actual person you would have cops at your door.
And by the way, I am so proud that I have no idea what a "Duck Dynasty" is.
Yeah, you're not missing out on that much. I know some people who are really excited about it but it doesn't do much for me. A lot of guys with long beards and attractive wives. They sure have found a way to turn it in to quite a marketing machine, though; I think Duck Dynasty might be this year's "Angry Birds", considering how many worthless trinkets I've seen in every store (from drug stores to auto stores to target to macy's, you name it...) with some sort of tie-in on it.
He gave shares, not money. There is a difference.
Technically, i moved on from apple iOS and went android instead of a iphone 4, but the phone is still used for things such as voip, streaming radio, music and video. I would like for it to continue to do this.
I got tired of the walled garden environment that was so difficult to break out of. When they killed my fully functioning 3rd party video cable due to a software update, that was the last straw.
Not that Google is perfect, but its far less restrictive.
If they cared even remotely enough to do that, then they would have already hardwired the indicator light to the same power source as the camera so that one couldn't be run without the other regardless of the firmware.
This is essentially what apple did, according to the report. They connected the LED to the standby signal, which normally has to be disabled to read data from the camera chip. So far, so good.
But the camera chip also has a configuration register - and one of the register options are to disable listening to the standby signal, and go ahead without caring about this signal. So it looks like the designers overlooked that option, or didn't think about it as a serious scenario.
So my impression is that apple has gone further than I've imagined to make a good design, but sadly not a bugfree design. Remember that all designs, hardware or software, may have bugs.
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky