You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.
Society needs revenge for certain crimes, for the sake of all our mental health. When we see evil people going unpunished, or even rewarded, it depresses us. Can you provide any rationale for why we should care so much about the comfort of a serial killer? Try to do so without appealing to some mystical, absolutist morality. Good luck.
Note: we're talking about serious crimes here. Non-violent offenders shouldn't be facing prison time at all, let alone solitary.
Wait, what? I'm the one arguing in favor of arbitrary lines here. That we should say "You can refuse service at your discretion, except in cases X, Y, and Z". I concede that that does open the door to more lawsuits. You'll doubtless have cases of someone denying service because the customer is gay, but claiming it's for some other reason. But I think we should be willing to pay that price, rather than compel people to take ANY customer, or else close up shop.
And I agree Congress won't do anything, which is why I suggested letting the courts handle it. A year ago, I would have been very pessimistic on that front, but after the DOMA ruling it seems that they're ready to recognize gay people as a protected class.
That sets a frightening precedent, and your support for it seems to rest on a line drawing fallacy.
Society is good at drawing semi-arbitrary lines and sticking to them. We have cut-off ages for "adult" vs. "minor". We have cut-off dollar amounts for "petty theft" vs "grand theft". We even have "protected classes" for exactly this sort of problem.
It seems like adding sexual orientation (and, while we're at it, gender identity) to the list of protected classes would be a better solution. SCOTUS already kind of made sexual orientation a protected class in the DOMA ruling last year. Just let the courts strike Arizona's law down under the same logic.
Problem solved, no need for scary new precedents wherein people can be compelled to fight against causes they care about.
Well, I think this sort of law is particularly dangerous in small towns. What if there are only three restaurants in the town, and all of them refuse service to gay people? What if you literally can't rent an apartment in town because every landlord turns you away the moment they see your husband?
You might not want a homophobe making your wedding cake, but you might prefer it to not being able to get a cake at all.
So let's say the KKK comes to your cake shop, and asks for a cake decorated with a panorama of a lynching. You presumably don't feel comfortable spending hours of your life hand-crafting such a disgusting scene. Should you be imprisoned for telling them to go elsewhere?
Doesn't freedom in speech include the right to not participate in speech you don't like? Can you really be compelled to say something you disagree with, just because someone offered to pay you?
I am 100% against the Arizona law, by the way, but I do think the question is more complex than people are acknowledging.
Look pal, if you just want to launch off into random political screeds, do it in the shower. No one has said we should abolish the military, and you know it.
The problem is that the sequester is 50% defense, 50% everything else, but the defense budget is a minority of the Federal budget. That pushes the cuts disproportionately on the defense side.
Totally irrational. The fact that the defense budget is a minority of the overall budget does not mean that it is a minority of the waste. The defense sector is filled with bloat, and is essentially just functioning as a make-work program in the districts of influential representatives. It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services.
I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking about negotiations here. Increased military spending and decreased social spending are both things Republicans want.
I was pointing out that the Republicans don't have anything they're willing to trade in order to stem the sequester cuts to military spending. The only way they could stave off the cuts would be by accepting increased taxes, and they're not willing to do that.
I get the feeling you took my comment as a slight against Republicans, and posted some knee-jerk response. I'm only pointing out the reality of the negotiations.
If these changes go through, it will actually reduce spending. We spent $670B on "defense" in 2013. This change would get us down to around $500B for the 2015 budget.
This was already passed as a part of the sequester -- this story is really just discussing how the Pentagon plans to get under the limit set by the law. The budget that got passed in December rolled back a few of the sequester cuts, and I'm sure Republicans will push to roll back more. However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
It looks like this is actually going to happen, and it's about damn time.
You honestly believe religious people are hive minds. That billions of people are all just mindless drones, without rich inner lives and thoughts and dreams and ambitions. That Muslims living in NYC can stop terrorism if only they willed it hard enough. Amazing.
You are so full of hate, nothing I could ever say would get through to you. With a mindset like that, you'd be a jihadi had you not been lucky enough to be born in better circumstances.
How can you have absolute power when people follow religious leaders, not you? And that claim to answer to a higher authority than you? Dictators suppress and eradicate religion because it's a threat to their power, it's in the nature of a dictator not an atheist.
Bullshit. You have no understanding of history. These atheists targeted religion even when it was no threat to them, because they hated it, just as you hate it.
For example, how do you explain Plutarco Calles, A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT, who banned even such harmless things as vows of chastity?
You can't just handwave this shit away. I get that you HATE to think that assholes have done horrible things to further your beliefs. In your mind, your beliefs are perfect, and its only all the other beliefs that cause problems. But history doesn't bear that out, and things will never get better if we don't acknowledge historic fact.
So when these atheist dictators banned religion and went around killing those who practiced it, that was just ONE BIG COINCIDENCE and had nothing to do with their atheism?
Riiiiight. Just grow up, and realize that religion, atheism, whatever... none of those things kill. Assholes who think their way is the only way... they kill. Assholes with your mindset, only with more power and less morals.
Also Atheism is not an organized institution like religions are, so there's no one that can speak "for" atheists, that's like someone who would speak "for" people who love sunsets.
You realize Catholicism isn't the only religion, right? Most religions don't have a central authority. Any Islamic scholar can issue a fatwa. But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists. Because, again, religions aren't hive minds. Members don't really have much influence over each other, and they have even less influence over people who have already proven themselves willing to kill.
You realize Muslim people aren't a hivemind, right? The people blowing themselves up aren't the ones issuing this fatwa. I presume you're an atheist... are you a "fucking hypocrite" for opposing mass murder, given the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?