Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: No thanks (Score 1) 223

First off, you may want to read the universal declaration of human rights. It mentions the right to marry and for that right to be respected. You can also read Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Saffley if you want US jurisprudence.

The right to marry is a different thing than a duty for others to recognize your marriage.

To exercise your right to marry, find your marriage partner and marry them. No outside parties are involved in this process.

But fundamentally what you are doing is removing people's freedom to form contracts.

Liar. A contract can exist without government recognition and enforcement. Eich did not campaign to interfere with homosexual marriage contracts. He donated to the cause of conserving the traditional legal definition of marriage, which does not prevent homosexual marriage contracts from being formed.

What thought policing is that? That your actions and behaviors have consequences?

You're not going to like it when you eat those words in the future. You will be hounded from society, because your actions and behaviors have consequences.

Just remember that you brought it on yourself when you used those very tactics on people who were perfectly happy to live and let live.

How is what the anti-same sexmarriage advocates want any better?

Point me to the public figure who has been fired for making a donation to a pro-gay marriage organization like Eich. False accusations to create a moral equivalence do not work because they are false.

But since you find it acceptable to fire people because they are personally against gay marriage, I hope you enjoy the future where people are in turn fired for being personally for gay marriage. "Your actions and behaviors have consequences", after all.

Comment Re:No thanks (Score 1) 223

Eich gave money to a fund that was trying to deny basic rights to gay people, doing them harm.

There is no right to have your marriage recognized by the state or by society.

In reaction, people who were upset decided they would no longer be willing to do business with this person. That's fine, his views are not a protected attribute over which he has no control, they are something he decided upon and can freely change at will.

There is no justification for the thought policing you wish to impose on Eich.

But that is the way of Social Justice. Point, Shriek, Persecute.

Comment Re:So-called "social justice" is to blame, too. (Score 1) 325

Wikipedia's core staff is overwhelmingly male (87%) and mostly white. There is no indication that "social justice" played a role in either the creation of the current system nor the difficulty the site has had in attracting greater participation from members of other races and the opposite sex.

Rule #1 of SJWs - SJWs Always Lie.

SJWs are identified by their behavior, not their skin color or sex. It is quite typical for SJWs to be white males.

Bringing up white and male is irrelevant and your "no indication" assertion is falsified by observed wikipedia editor behavior.

Comment Re:Suppression (Score 1) 259

My bad. "Criminal threat" is probably the more appropriate analog.

In the case of hate speech, the perpetrator is sitting comfortably in his armchair at home, not personally threatening anyone, posting Internet comments like "hey everybody, go kill some $group", which might cause some completely different dumbass to actually do it.

Bearing in mind that the crime also needs to have provable harm - "someone else might do something bad after they hear you" is a very broad net.

Put another way - it needs to have a clear way to weed out false positives, or it will be abused.

Comment Re:Islam isn’t the problem; assholes are (Score 4, Informative) 259

1000 years ago, Christians were roaming the world, killing non-believers. How is this a whole lot different?

Which Christians are you talking about?

Looking at the history of Islam and Europe, 1000 years ago ...

  • 1012: Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands.
  • 1012: Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed.
  • 1013: Jews are expelled from the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordova, then ruled by Sulaimann.
  • 1015: Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia.

The first Crusades don't happen until almost 100 years later, in 1096, after yet more Islamic conquest and expansion.

So 1000 years ago, Muslims were conquering nations and killing unbelievers. Why are you downplaying Islamic violence by creating a false equivalence with Christians?

Comment Re:Suppression (Score 1) 259

A sentence like: 'lets gather tomorrow in front of the refugee camp, burn it to the ground, kill every man running out and rape every woman ...' is hardly an opinion. It is hate speach, no need to argue about it.

There's a crime for that already, it's called "assault". (legally defined as credible threat of violence)

Creating new words to describe an existing crime doesn't help to stop it. However, the creation of "hate speech" does set the stage to criminalize badthink.

So go ahead and embrace your actual position - you want thought police.

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

Not sure why you have to ask me, it seems that this is something you should already know.

You were making some bizarre accusations, so I'm just checking to see if you finally connected the dots or not.

But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work

Your choice is incorrect.

Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.

What is it with you and your bizarre accusations?

Let me remind you that this was my request:

List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".

Do you dispute that the Paris shootings were terrorist shootings?

The Paris shootings don't belong if we only want to look at the effect of US gun law ... see, you can make distinctions when it suits you.

How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?

That's not the harm that we were talking about. And you're going to whine about me bringing up Paris as an example of terrorist caused death?

If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015.

Don't move the goalposts. Compare terrorist caused shooting deaths to the number of innocent bystanders harmed by individuals shooting in self defense.


You don't have the integrity to make deals. When are you going to start retracting the bizarre accusations you made against me?

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

Not so interested in talking about greenhouse warming now, eh? So now you know - the train is fine.

I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?

Your actions are louder than your words.

I don't need to convince you, I'm just pointing out how dishonest and incredible you are to everyone else. No one cares what a dishonest word-twisting illiterate moron like you thinks.

No. I'm not here to chase down information for you. If it is of interest to you, you should look it up yourself.

Dishonest liar. You said the harm was the same. I just pointed out that the harm is not the same.

See how he creates a new fantasy where I never brought up the Paris and San Bernardino shootings.

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

If the second comment was truly about greenhouses (and not the greenhouse warming outlined by Arrhenius et al.) can you explain why you suddenly changed the subject between those 2 remarks?

Did I change the subject between 2 consecutive questions, or did you fail reading comprehension?

How do greenhouses work? What mechanics drive greenhouse warming?

The gullible ideologues in question aren't on the same side as the general public that their fire is injuring. They are just acting out their internal fantasies.

So you create your own fantasy where the people trying to stop mass shooters are not on anyone's side, and then use that to say "friendly fire" cannot possibly be used here.

No one cares about your internal fantasies.

List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".

Do it yourself.

Afraid to find out, are you?

Between Paris and San Bernardino, 129 + 14 = 143 innocents killed by terrorists, not to mention the wounded.

In that same time period, "gullible ideologues" in mass shootings racked up a count of 0.

Are those numbers the same?

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?

What is factually incorrect about that statement?

I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire.


Define "friendly fire" and how the usage is incorrect.

Strawman. The harm is the same - doesn't matter if you are shot by a terrorist or a gullible ideologue who thinks he's equipped to handle dangerous situations because he has a weapon. The harm is the same, the people are different.

List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

Desperate for attention, eh?

Utter comprehension failure on your part. Again. How long ago was it that you mistook thermodynamic for exothermic? A month? Did you manage to go a month without another monumental fail?

Lie all you want, putting words in my mouth won't make them mine.

And do you think "friendly fire" means friendly fire, or perchance, did I quote that phrase for a reason?

I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire. You used "friendly fire" for an event that wasn't.

Please point out where exactly in that sentence I used the words law abiding.

Doesn't matter. You treat the criminals who use guns to harm others as the same category as citizens using guns in self defense.

You are dishonest with your words. Liar.

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

Every single example even admits that it is inconclusive but you are too stupid to read.

A prevented mass shooting is never going to be "conclusive", you mouth breathing idiot.

That's why no one cares about your goalpost shift asking for "conclusive" evidence.

Tamir Rice, Micheal Brown, Laquan McDonald

Those aren't examples of innocent bystanders shot by citizen shooters defending against mass shooters. You're too stupid to follow the topic of discussion.

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

If you can point out some whole country where people get shot but mostly don't bleed and die, I would accept that distinction.

Gunshot -> bleeding -> death == gunshot -> death

Gun-free zone -> attracts predators with guns -> not safe == gun-free zone -> not safe.

Gun free zones are objectively more dangerous than non gun free zones, because "gun-free" doesn't prevent bad people from doing bad things.

I pointed out Canada where schools don't have this recurrent problem in spite of being gun free.

Neither did France, until it did. Bad people cause bad things to happen. You're blessed if Canada does not have that sort of bad people. Be careful about who you bring in.

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.