Of course not. Your analogy is irrelevant, ignorant and moronic. And since other commenters have dealt with the content of it well, I want to ask what the hell your response had to do with my comment.

Wait, no one (as far as I'm aware) has said anything is normal, and I can't really understand why you think that has anything to do with this discussion. I think we can all agree that transgenderism of any form is not normal or else we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. What difference does it make whether it's normal? Are you conflating "normal" and "correct"?

Calling people circus attractions is bigoted and harmful.

Calling bigotry what it is is not the same thing as abuse. Being called a bigot for expressing bigotry (obviously!) doesn't make you agree with, accept, or facilitate anything. This is the same kind of false equivalency that racists and sexists and all manner of other bigots raise when being called out.

And you know what? I want to be absolutely clear on this point: you can go on believing that people are circus attractions because of who they are. I'll go on believing you're a bigot. Neither of us has to change a bit.

Are you a cartoon?

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

Shirley you jest.

I beg your pardon, but nature is not anthropomorphic and doesn't make decisions. It does encourage trends, as traits are often beneficial for more than one individual and in aggregate. One such trend, exhibited by many humans, is the inclination to categorize and reduce conceptual surface area. This benefits another trend shared by many humans, the ability to use abstract thought. But abstraction, as many nerds should know, is leaky.

One such leak is the conflation of gender with sex. The former is at least partly social, while the latter describes biological traits. This abstraction is sufficient for a majority of people, but frays in a lot of ways, and has enormous dependencies on cultural norms. Nature may influence this, but its influence is refracted through countless prisms of tradition and social expectation, complex structures of direct and entrenched human intervention. Even so, the man/woman social designation of gender is certainly not universal.

Another leak in the abstraction is the conception that sex is rigid and well-defined into two designations. Nature, if it can be anthropomorphized, is far more capricious than that. It's fairly common, as far as biological divergence from trends go, for people to be born intersex. What, would you say, has nature decided for them?

The benefits of categorization, here, are not felt by significant portions of the population. That alone is sufficient reason to consider the faults of abstraction and—let me be absolutely clear to you—keep your damn ignorance out of other people's lives.

Did you actually read the passage? One of the slaves was given the opportunity to decline. And did so. And that choice was honored. Obviously the metaphor is, like metaphors, inexact. Obviously the forced laborer will continue to be a forced laborer in the society which permits forced labor, whereas the unpaid intern will continue to be incentivized toward voluntary unpaid labor in a society which permits unpaid labor. There are differences of degree, and even perhaps moral dimensions to one not present in the other. But the reality is that the reasonable expectation is that people perform unpaid labor in both cases.

While a student or graduate could decline unpaid labor, they risk never entering a field related to their studies, and ultimately risk becoming quite literally a slave to their debt in so doing. This is why voluntary slavery is both immoral and illegal, and why it is society's job to dismantle coercive institutions that undermine free choice with the coercive effect of unassailable social structure.

git is shit

lolwat

No, computer platform evangelists are the type of people you're interacting with because that is an area of your interest. Most people who use Windows (or any other major platform) don't take such interest and don't interact much with the evangelist type at all.

Not stating an opinion on race issues isn't the same as combating racism. It's clearly the case that race is still a serious issue in the US, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. That won't go away by deciding not to discuss it.

This is just painfully wrong. I'm a leftist. I oppose Obama. I've never once been called racist for that. Not even a little bit. I've been asked if I think it's meaningful or significant that a black person was elected in the US (which I do). I've been challenged on specific opinions I hold about his administration. I've never been called racist for opposing him. And almost everyone I know voted for him.

The reason that so many right-wing opponents of Obama are called racist is because there's been an incredible surge in racist organization in the time since he was nominated and elected, and there's a tremendous amount of overlap between that and the right-wing opponents. I don't think it's entirely fair that a lot of run-of-the-mill conservatives are guilty by association in this, but to be fair the vast majority of the reaction to this has been the sort of defensiveness that you've presented here rather than any kind of meaningful denunciation of racism or even simple attempt to understand why race is an issue for anyone other than old white men. Let me make that as clear as I can: people of color also experience racism, and their experience of it is different from yours. It behooves you to understand that. Even if you are not, yourself, racist.

Guilt by association really isn't fair. But it's also not fair to provide tacit political cover for bigots and claim ignorance when it's used to advance bigotry. Hate-related crimes are and have been on the rise, and white supremacist organizations are stronger than they've been for decades. This isn't an accident.

Don't want to be mistaken for a racist? Spend as much time challenging the racists in your midst as you spend attacking people who aren't as stupid as you think.

I haven't looked at the others, but target.com seems fine at first glance on Safari 6.

It doesn't ignore it on Windows either. And I'd recommend testing your sites in Windows FF as well, they're not always quite the same.

I haven't encountered SVG issues in IE10, can you explain more about what was broken?

I would hazard a guess that anyone who consciously cares about user interface is a nerd.

let there %= -2;