Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 0) 607

by goose-incarnated (#49536021) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

You pay for schools because everyone in society benefits from having schools. A society of poorly-educated people is not successful and won't last for long. You don't pay for schools in case you need to send your kid there. The world is bigger than you, and you really should brush up on your logic, as the only way your crippled arguments make sense is if they are viewed through the prism of a toddler's reasoning skills.

Ah yes, the old standby of the religious right - insults! In light of your cogent arguments that anyone concerned about forcefully compelled medical procedures, a decision that has never turned out well in the history of mankind, I must indeed concede the point that this time forcefully compelled medical procedures could very well turn out okay because obviously anyone other than a toddler can see it. It's so obvious... we'd just need to break a few laws first, of course.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 607

by goose-incarnated (#49535185) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

That sounds fair as long as you also pay a large excess tax that covers the host of setting up quarantine zones, emergency medical care and lifelong disability benefits

Why should I? Other people aren't billed in advance for engaging in expensive-to-treat behaviour, like starting wars.

(I'm not really an anti-vaxxer, I vaccinate and encourage vaccination and, for my own kid(s), I am prepared to go to court to force the other parent to vaccinate my kid(s). I'm just the devils advocate here)

I guess like many on this site I'm not a huge fan of governments forcing people to do things against their will, but there are cases where it's clearly the best path forward, like obeying speed limits, paying taxes .... and being vaccinated.

There's a big difference between speeding, paying taxes and being compelled against your will to bodily penetration. There's a whole slew of laws that are specifically on the books just for those who want to refuse medical intervention of any sort - 'My body, My right."

Maybe the only solution is to physically separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated AND refuse taxes from those you do not provide services to... i.e. offer a rebate. It's totally unethical to accept payment for something (access to school) and then refuse to provide the something. Much better ethically to simply give them back their money.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 607

by goose-incarnated (#49534419) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.

Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

The problem, as I see it, is that the "my body, my right" ideology is clashing with the "your rights end where my nose begins" ideology which is turning into a real problem for those people who have enshrined both ideologies in their heads as gospel. One right trumps the other and different people have different ideas about which right trumps the other one.

For example (using my question above), many people would respond that taxes are not opt-out and if you choose not to use a school it's YOUR choice and you do not deserve a rebate. Other people would respond that you should not have to pay twice to educate one child - once to a public school that your child does not attend and again to a private school that they do attend.

TLDR - the sides are not anti-vaxxer vs vaxxer, it's "get tax rebate for not using school" vs "pay twice for schooling".

Comment: Re:Wonderful. (Score 1) 254

by goose-incarnated (#49529725) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

The IRC logs are verifiable. They are plain text and were captured and published by two independent sources on opposite sides of the argument

So, two blokes on the internet who agree is "verified", while one bloke is not? I'm afraid I don't really see a difference in the verification of the two claims - they're both as unverified as you can get.

They match perfectly, neither side is disputing their authenticity.

And ZQ is not disputing being a rapist and domestic abuser. Doesn't mean she is, just like it doesn't mean those things are any more or less "verified" than screendumps. After all, from what I can tell, the subject of those screendumps aren't disputing the authenticity either.

Comment: Re:What a bizarre statement (Score 1) 254

by goose-incarnated (#49527009) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view.

To my knowledge, Zoe Quinn only shuts down charities. Her own patreon still gets money from dewey-eyed naivetes. Her "game" still holds the record for lowest score ever received for a game on metacritic.

Comment: Re:Wonderful. (Score 1) 254

by goose-incarnated (#49526925) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

This is what I mean. You have a bunch of shitty images that are totally unverifiable. On the other hand we have the IRC logs that GamerGate themselves released

Wait, what? What makes your binary files more verifiable than his binary files? Do you have a LEO-enforced and court-verified trail of evidence that he does not? Your evidence does not automatically trump his.

Comment: Re:Wonderful. (Score 1) 254

by goose-incarnated (#49526891) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

Oh yes, you seem to be one of the crowd that accuse Zoe Quinn of everything that was actually done to her to presumably destract from everything that WAS done to her.

What on earth do you have against her? And did you base that on things 4channers posted to the internet? Are your standards for evidence always so low?

Things might be going easier for gamers-are-stoopid movement had they chosen someone other than a non-technical sociopath, lying domestic abuser as a rally point.

IOW, I'm not surprised that she turned out to be a poor champion for the feminist cause. Surely there must be *some* gifted female game dev who would have made a better champion for the cause - the ZQ scandal backfired horribly; it has caused more real change in gaming journalism in six months than we saw in the last decade and a half AND caused a much more critical eye to be turned on females in the gaming industry.

Honestly, feminism needs a less insane public face.

Comment: Re:Genius! (Score 1) 335

by goose-incarnated (#49525903) Attached to: Update: No Personhood for Chimps Yet

If millions of people die because of inadequate testing then that's the fault of the people who tested the drug. There are plenty of humans who would volunteer for tests with full knowledge and understanding of the risks.

That's a slippery slope indeed - you've repeatedly made the claim that a full 50%+ of the population is indoctrinated by society to view themselves as inferior in some respect. Why do you now think that a certain segment of the population *can't* be indoctrinated into self-sacrifice?

Comment: Re:Idiotic (Score 2) 590

There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.

Except that one of them is irreversible.

You think imprisonment is reversible?
Anyway, regardless of one's stance, everyone should really read this before forming their opinion on death sentences...

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 3, Insightful) 599

Sexism isn't just excluding or discriminating,

Yes, it is, in addition to prejudice and stereotyping.

there is one other vital component: harm.

There is no dictionary that agrees with you on this point. I'm going to side with merriam-webster and oxford on this one, as would most people. There is no dictionary in the world that defines harm as a component of sexism.

It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.

It's not discrimination, and there is no dictionary that agrees with your use of this word either. Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.

Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.

Only if one uses your definition of "sexist". The rest of us use the the dictionary definitions. Redefining words to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken.

I cannot stress this enough: Redefining the word sexism to a meaning not found in any dictionary just to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken!

It would be easier, at this point, for you to change your argument than to ask every dictionary in the world to change the meaning of the word sexism.

Comment: Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score 1) 517

Culture systematically shapes our perception of damned near everything - hell, you probably find the though of shitting in the street or eating human flesh disgusting - you think there's anything *natural* about either of those taboos? Hardly. The onus of evidence lies on you to show that it does not.

Ah. The creationist argument - prove a negative. Well Done!

Comment: Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score 1) 517

Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it.

Extraordinary claim. Citation needed.

It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do.

Another extraordinary claim. Another citation needed.

If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.

You do realise that you are talking about a generation that has been brought up with the mentality of "You can do whatever you want to"? The young women who are choosing not to go into $FIELD have been told their entire lives that they can do whatever they want to. Society has been pushing the gurl powah shlock since the 80's.

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...