My argument is based on the concept of responsibility, so you say that me and those who hold similar opinions should take responsibility for all the world's unwanted children. Let's put your side of the argument through a similar challenge:

Hypothetical situation: a man impregnates a woman. He wants to have the baby, but she doesn't, so she gets an abortion regardless of his opinion. Now let's reverse the genders: She wants the baby, but he doesn't. She decides not to get the abortion, so she takes him to court and he has to either help raise the child or pay child support payments.

How come being pro-choice only works one way?

Because I don't want to control womens' bodies, I want to protect an innocent life. I'm willing to make exceptions for cases of rape and cases where childbirth poses a risk to the mother's life, but for every other aborted fetus out there, there are two people who should be forced to take responsibility for what they created. I don't feel that abortion should be allowed to be used as a backup for when birth control fails or is forgotten.

I don't have an orphan for the same reason that I don't have any offspring of my own: I don't want to become a parent at this moment of my life. If I made a woman pregnant, though, I would take responsibility for raising the child. I might make the best parent, but I would do my best and I'm pretty sure the child would be happier than if it was dead.

As for Africa, I'm really not very educated on their current social problems. I give some of my money to charities, but they're usually domestic because I'd rather take care of the downtrodden in my own country than those on another continent.

Getting rid of the no-fly lists is totally acceptable and I could get behind that. I'm just worried that making this public would turn it into something akin to the sex-offender lists sans due process.

If it went public but it doesn't get removed, this list could go from being a major pain in the ass to being something that could totally ruin your life.

If they had published the list, there would've been the problem that everybody has access to it. I imagine that if anybody could read the no-fly list, alot of employers might deny jobs to people on it.

Which is almost identical to Java on the JVM.

Marvel's been saying that Ultimate Peter Parker is going to die and be replaced by a new hero for months now, and there was very little complaint outside of a few people who didn't want to see Peter die and a few people that didn't think anybody else should be called Spider-Man. Now that we know he's not white, there's articles all over the mainstream media and even slashdot complaining that he's "Politically Correct"?

I can respect people who don't want to see Peter die and people that don't think anybody expect Peter should be Spidey, but if you think that the new Spider-Man is "politically correct", then you're the racist here, not Marvel Comics.

How can you say that when his only appearance has been a seven page fight with the Kangaroo in a comic that was released less than 24 hours ago? We still know very little about the new Spidey. Have you even read Ultimate Fallout #4?

You make it sound like they created a whole new universe just for Miles Morales. The Ultimate universe has had several ongoing series for 11 years now. There have been 160 issues of Ultimate Spider-Man, which has outsold Amazing Spider-Man on several occasions. It's a pretty well-established part of Marvel's catalog.

What if the new Spidey was white but still not an established friend/ally/confidant? Would you still be on /. arguing that Marvel "pulled him out of the ether" for the sake of being "politically correct"?

That's why there are separate governments at the state and county/city levels.

The upshot of this would just be that developers would make apps that refuse to run unless you give them all the permissions they want. I'm imagining something along the lines of (pseudo-code incoming):

try{

obtainfeature();

} catch (FeatureNotGrantedException) {

showErrorDialog();

endProgream();

}

This has to be real. Anonymous has long prided themselves on their lack of structure which allows anybody to declare themselves members of Anonymous and start doing stuff in the group's name. The upshot of this is that anybody who wants to can start their own business and capitalize on anonymous. Hell, I could open up my own fast food joint and call it Anonyburger if I wanted to.

Have I ever bought a new car from my mechanic because he told me my current model is totaled?