Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Stupid (Score 1) 591

Isn't the very essence of life-without-parole saying: "we give up on you as a human being"? The whole point of no parole is to say "you are not redeemable", surely? In that sense, I can't see it really being materially different from the death penalty, tbh. It is certainly spectacularly effective as a method of damaging mental health compared with even the remotest possibility of parole.

Comment: Re:c'mon (Score 3) 306

by shilly (#49403323) Attached to: Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"

I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?

Comment: Re:c'mon (Score 2) 306

by shilly (#49403299) Attached to: Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"

Why would you use such a stupid example as "an atractive [sic] female and I passed out nudies of myself to any and every short-term fling"?

There are plenty of cases of people having pictures put up by long-term partners with whom they're in a loving relationship. And there are some cases where the pictures have been taking without the victim's knowledge.

1. You're creating a hierarchy of sexual behaviour that reinforces conservative notions of what is morally "worthy", as though we're still in the 50s
2. You're deliberately ignoring that even people who are "blameless" within the rules of such a hierarchy are victims.

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 886

by shilly (#49385225) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

No-one, including me. That's why I used the word "even".

If you are indeed secular, perhaps you'd care to share with the rest of us what secular thought process leads you to conclude homosexual acts are wrong, why you call yourself righteousness, and why you talk about fornication. If it's an attempt at sarcasm, it's really rubbish. If it's serious, and you're seriously not religious, it's really ... odd.

Comment: Re: "principles our nation was founded on" (Score 1) 1168

by shilly (#49371953) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

This is completely mad! The separation of church and state is the *same thing* as not establishing a state religion. If you put up the Ten Commandments on a gigantic plaque outside City Hall, you are, de facto, establishing Christianity as the religion that the state endorses. (Judaism doesn't have the Ten Commandments, it has the Aseret Dibrayot, which means something rather different.)

Comment: Re:$1,000 / visitor (Score 1) 886

by shilly (#49347395) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Funny how the Bible is just as unequivocal on the subject of not eating oysters and not mixing different types of cloth, but no-one seems to give a shiny shit about banning bivalve eaters or non-shatness wearers from their premises. And the Bible also has some strong words about not tolerating unethical behaviour, such as people who give insufficiently to charity, or murder, or do not honour their mother and father, but those aspects of behaviour also never seem to be interrogated by Christian proprietors anxious to ensure their customers are behaving appropriately. No, instead the only thing they care about is where the cock gets lodged. The fixation on what happens in bedrooms is really really tiresome.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James