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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

How is my decision to eat less Chik-Fil-A different from your decision to eat more?

Have you ever said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."?

If you have said it, you lied.

If you have not said this or anything similar to it, then my comment didn't apply to you. You are honest about not supporting people who have opinions different than your own and do your best to silence all who disagree with you so that America may one day be of one mind. All who oppose you, including their families, must be punished into submission and silenced until they think the same way you do. You are one who is proud to be against differing ideas and cultures and feel that everyone in the world should... no.... MUST think correct thoughts.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

The Constitution doesn't grant us rights. We already had them. The Constitution limits the power of the government. That's all it does.

Um, that's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the government. The rest of The Constitution actually gives the federal government lots of power. For example, see Article 1, Section 8 for the powers given to Congress. There's a bit too much to quote, so I'll just quote the last one:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This is also known as the "necessary and proper clause.
...all other Powers vested by this Constitution...

Why would the Constitution say this if it did not give any powers to the government?

Maybe try learning what it is so you don't sound like a jackass.

May I suggest taking your own advice?

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

And the only HONEST reason why we'd need a "civil union" that's 100% equal to marriage but not marriage is to enshrine the religious bigotry of these Christians into law, which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.

Um, the First Amendment actually "enshrines the religious bigotry of these Christians into law" and forbids government from getting involved in religious concepts. If the federal government is not allowed to recognize the Ten Commandments, how can mandate licenses and set rules for marriage?

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1, Interesting) 1448

Let me ask you this: how does 2 guys or 2 women getting "married" affect you in any way?

It offends me.

How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way? How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way? How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point. So don't give me that "how does it affect you" bullshit until you can answer these:

How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?

The only difference I can see is that a civil union does not make me offended. But that's your whole point isn't it? You want to offend me and all Christians because you hate all Christians. Never mind that Muslims hang gays on the streets, they deserve to be heard and have their religious freedom, we must offend all Christians. And that's exactly why it will be held in a church. Democrats have already blocked a law protecting Chaplains in the US military from refusing to perform same sex marriages. How long do you think it will be before that same-sex couple sues the Catholic Church demanding "equal rights" to have a chapel wedding?

This isn't about equal rights. This is about getting even for perceived wrongs done to you. Tell me again how I am the bigot?

I don't believe that you have any gay friends

My mother owns a beauty salon that I worked in from before I was old enough to see over the counter. I know it's cliche to assume that gay me do hair, but it's a cliche for a reason. You have no idea how many gay friends I have. I have kinda grown up around them. I know what they are like, how they feel and what they are all about. And I feel they deserve equal rights under the law. But they do NOT have equal rights under religion. You don't have to like it. You don't have to be in a religion. But since freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution, government has to respect it. By the way, can you tell me marriage is guaranteed in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.

I don't believe you have any religious friends. If you did, you wouldn't think they are all bigots.

And marriage is not just a Christian concept. It certainly predates Christianity. It appears to predate the earliest mentions of the Jews as far as the Bible goes. I would even say that the Bible agrees that civilization itself predates marriage as there is no mention in the Bible of Adam and Eve ever getting married. That doesn't mean shit as on July4, 1776, marriage was strictly a religious rite and carried no weight whatsoever in American law. It was, however being regulated by Jewish law in God knows what BC. So it was a religious rite for thousands of years before it was ever recognized by the United States Government. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 1448

I quoted a couple of your points here, but realized that I was pretty much quoting the entire thing.

Bingo!!! Marriage is a religious rite. Government has no business regulating or even recognizing a religious rite. However, there is a purpose to the government recognition of marriage, specifically taxes, shared property ownership, power of attorney, inheritance rights and so on, and I completely support gay couples gaining the same rights as straight couples. Those necessary results of government recognition of marriage could just as easily and equally be obtained if government recognized "civil unions" "legalized finger banging" or "neibersplat evernijula" or "hebeeshleebee itzu cowpoo". Does a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

Like you said, I just don't like government redefining what has been a religious concept a thousand years before western culture, much less America or American law.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

Bingo. Picking on Card GUARANTEES a repeat of the "Chik-Fil-A" effect. For most Chik-Fil-A restaurants, they achieved record sales during the boycott, and elevated sales afterwards. . .

I plan on seeing the movie. During the Chick-Fil-A boycott, I ate more chicken sandwiches than at any point in my life!

It's not that I'm anti-gay. I think gay people are awesome. It's because I'm pro-Constitution. The Constitution says you have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you have the right to marry, straight, gay or otherwise.

I always used to hear liberals say "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it." It's amazing how fast that goes out the window when someone says something they view as "intolerant". I figure, if they're willing to claim to fight to the death for opposing views, the least I can do is enjoy a chicken sandwich with some waffle fries and see a movie I was interested in already.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 4, Insightful) 1448

the LGBT were angry about not being allowed to sign a contract covering what everybody else had covered (such as inheritance, common properties, pensions etc.), not about the provisions for polygamy or polyandry, and not about legal provisions for whom they can choose as sex partners, that was fixed a few years ago.

If that were true, they would have accepted a civil unions law that gave civil unions 100% equality with marriage. I have yet to meet a gay couple that would have accepted a civil union, even if it was legally equal to marriage in every way. Most would claim some bullshit about the "separate but equal" issues in the civil rights era, where a water fountain for blacks was dirty and unmaintained while the "white's only" water fountain was new and shiny. I call it bullshit because if a law says two things are equal, they are equal, period. It's not like inheritance laws for gays can get dirty or leak. These are not physical objects.

When I would explain that "separate but equal" only applies to physical objects, they would say that they wanted to be "married", not unionized. So I ask them was stopping them from putting on white dresses, saying vows, exchanging rings, smearing cake on each other's faces, throwing a party and telling everyone they know that they are married? What difference does it make what the government called it?

If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.

This is not about equal rights. If it were, they could have had it years ago with little resistance. This is about revenge and punishing those they hate; religious people.

Don't mod this down because you don't like it. Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.

Comment Re:Except that theory probably isn't relevant (Score 1) 423

The 777 trainee was the one landing the plane. Presumably, with a couple thousand fewer flight hours than the other captain, he would be younger and/or lower on the corporate totem pole. We have not been told anything to the contrary.

Not necessarily. The "trainee" had nearly 10,000 hours as a pilot, just not in 777s. For other than small planes, you get type rated (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rating) by someone who's more experienced in that type of aircraft. That person could easily be younger than this pilot, who was simply trying to add another type of certification.

Comment Re:but, back to root cause (Score 2) 423

For someone attempting to become certified on a "type" of aircraft, they wouldn't be using it. Also, on a bright, clear, basically perfect day, there's not a reason to do so. Flying low and slow on a visual approach is inexcusable. Unless VASI (visual approach slope indicator...basically lights from the runway that show you above, below, or on the proper glideslope) was also down, they should have easily seen that they were at an improper angle. And with around ten thousand hours of experience, the visual cues would have been obvious. This is something you learn as a student pilot before you solo with 10-20 hours. I'd love to hear the voice recorders, as I'm wondering if they were even awake (crews do sleep on long trips) in time for the landing.

Comment Learning to Fly in Korea (Score 3, Interesting) 423

Back in the late 80s, I worked in Korea, and obtained my private pilots license at the Osan air base aero club. I flew off and on for several years between '87 and 94, with an instructor who had left the club to work for KAL, and returned a year later. He raised this exact issue as one of the reasons for his departure. Respect for elders is deeply engrained in Korean cultural. So much so, that younger pilots were unwilling to point out errors to older ones. While I wish we had a bit more respect for ours in the U.S., this has no place in a cockpit.

Disclaimer: This is in no way meant as an offense to Koreans (I was married, and have a kid with one).

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you work when the system's so crowded?

Working...