Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Different conceptions of harm? (Score 1) 1138

But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.

But unless they can prove to non-religious people that God exists, that is a meaningless argument. It's like me thinking aliens are sending me coded messages about the Apocalypse in the TV supermarket ads.

Comment: Re:Different conceptions of harm? (Score 1) 1138

As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.

Anti-discrimination laws discriminate against discriminators in the same way that anti-rape laws discrimiante against rapists.

It is indeed a moral judgement.

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 1138

In fact, there are federal laws that enforce certain types of discrimination. For example arms trade to restricted countries. The people in those countries did not choose to be citizens there yet they are restricted from access to the best of American arms manufacturing. Shame on the U.S. for discriminating.

Please, please, please say that was a joke.

Comment: Re:a question - Right now (Score 1) 1138

I am required by the government, over penalty of a large fine to do business with corrupt insurance companies. I MUST purchase their product, that provides me nothing that I can't provide on my own. I like how now we equate having insurance with having access to health care. Currently I pay about 10,000 dollars a year for insurance that provides me about 5000 dollars in services a year. What could I do with that additional 5,000 dollars a year for the next 10-15 years that I am running a surplus to create a saving account that I can pay for services when I am older and running a deficit.

To make it more plain. On average the country pays more to insurance companies that they are provided in medical services... otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business.

So, yes currently the government compels me to do business with a company that I don't want to

Yes, and I have to pay car and buildings insurance and get nothing back at all each year! Those evil insurance companies are just pocketing my money and buying themselves yachts.

Comment: Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 1) 1138

Again: You have an old books of fallacies (Marx), we have history. You are wrong.

You can't equate "left wing" with "Marxism" , even assuming there was one such thing as Marxism. Anarchists, socialists, greens and many others are left wing but in no way Marxist.

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1138

When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.

I agree with everything DarkOx said.

I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person.

I wouldn't say that. Rather--I'm glad that neither the government nor anyone else can force them to take the sign down. It's kind of like saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

~Loyal

Similarly, there should be no law against my displaying child porn videos in my bar, right?

You can't have absolute freedom and any sort of civilisation. I don't have the freedom to murder you without repurcussions.

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1138

Ultimately the market prevails, you can the relative economic success of places across the world, and you find with a few exceptions that happen to be sitting on huge oil reserves, the wealthy places are the ones that don't have serious problems with race, or gender discrimination. I suspect that correlation is no accident.

Indeed, the Gulf States are paradises for women, gays and foreign labourers. Oh, wait...

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1138

I have a serious problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, so the state should stay out of it.

Only if you live in some sort of theocracy.

Here in the UK (for instance), you can marry without setting foot in a church or saying the word god. Marriage is a state approved contract giving specific legal rights, which is why gay people also need to be able to marry.

Because this is so obviously the case, non-religious people have a hard time believing that opponents of gay marriage are anything other than backdoor homophobes.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 2) 1138

Personally I can see merit in both sides and I bet if you give each argument and fair chance you would too. And that's why the issue is such a difficult one. It's only through setting up absurd strawman arguments that you can really dismiss the whole debate.

Utter bullshit. Not every question is finely balanced between two equally plausible alternatives.

This comes down to whether you (a) believe religious freedom should be absolute and trump any other consideration, and (b) believe that any government interference whatsoever in your life is wrong. These two extreme views are the only justificaiton for allowing businesses to discriminate against gays.

You are free to believe both of these things, in the same way that you are free to believe in neo-nazism or paedophilia: you should expect a lot of people to vehemently disagree with you.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 356

As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.

Families, communities and companies are all part of society. You can't ringfence one element and say it has nothing to do with the rest.

Well, you can if you're of the Ayn Rand school, of course, but I'm talking about non-psychopathic views of the world.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 356

there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened.

This is the classic right wing false equivalence argument, like saying that you once saw a black guy being offensive to a white guy, so there's just as much anti-white as anti-black racism.

"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw

Working...