Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:New technology, old mindsets (Score 1) 559

Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/?q=salvation+army+turns+away+gays None of what you wrote changes the fact that you named an organization as working for the betterment of all that actively discriminates against a substantial portion of society. For examples of their "work" toward refusing to assist gays, look at any of the results in the above search. The rest of what you wrote is bullshit justification and ignoring the argument. You don't work at Hooters because the goals of a Hooters employee include being eye-candy for patrons. You can't claim that the Salvation Army is primarily a service organization if they maintain an active policy to discriminate against employing gays and lesbians. Why would it be a problem for them to have a gay or lesbian individual on staff unless they were pushing dogma? Supposedly the goals of the organization are to provide service for the less fortunate. Is a homosexual somehow less capable of performing this duty? Why or why not? Does this sound like the Christianity you've portrayed? It's exactly this kind of closed-minded bigotry and the willingness to accept it from people like you that makes the rest of the civilized world look at Christians as hypocrites or worse.

Comment Re:New technology, old mindsets (Score 1) 559

Predictably, you fail to perceive the disparity in your words.

What justification do you have for hating the behavior of another person when that behavior has no effect on you, your family, or society? Before you say it, "perpetuating the behavior" or "making it seem acceptable" are not valid, since they're corollaries to the original argument. That is, you must specify why it's bad to perpetuate or accept the behavior before you can claim so.

For instance, I can say that murder is bad because it takes away from another his ability to live. I have actively affected the life of someone else.

So what does that leave? Because some god said so? Because you think you're entitled to not be grossed out by someone else's actions? And how do you justify enforcing either of those things in the context of a society that emphasizes freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Comment Re:New technology, old mindsets (Score 3, Interesting) 559

It's entirely possible to "give [one's life] to serve others" without perpetuating a dangerous culture. The problem with even the type of Christians you cite is that after adhering to their worldview, they can't be happy with simply having it as their own meaning in life. They actively use it as a weapon against anyone they deem as "different". It's the single most convenient way to justify conflict or discrimination ever invented by man.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this charge as "not what the overall organization is about", but before you do so, I encourage you to consider that a movement is no more than the sum of its parts, regardless of its stated objectives. There's a larger percentage than you're apparently comfortable with acknowledging who would gladly trade someone else's freedom for preservation of their own moral comfort and/or superiority.

This is nothing more than self-righteous fanaticism. Anyone working to perpetuate the organization without understanding that this is what it enables and produces is dangerously naive. That includes you.

Comment Re:You know... there is life without cable. (Score 1) 447

The problem, then, is that the average American is easily duped into overpaying for limited utility. Going without and not giving the company money sends a much clearer message than letting them soak you and begging for a discount. In case you've not paid attention for the last, I dunno, 50 years, there is no such thing as "loyalty" any more.

Comment Re:Please take some good photos of Apollo remains. (Score 2) 92

Oh come on. You know better than that. Then it'd be "But NASA *paid* you to claim that these were your photos.

Hell, even if they went themselves, they'd claim that it was mirrors dropped by previous unmanned trips. Or swamp gas. Or they never left Earth at all and were in some kind of simulator. Though I suppose there's an easy way to fix that last one: offer to open the airlock.

Comment Re:Underpowered, maybe not, but deathtrap nonethel (Score 1) 585

There was a study a while ago that concluded that drivers of big vehicles tend to drive less safely because of a false perception of greater safety provided by the larger vehicle. Less attentiveness and visibility, not to mention the drawbacks when driving on icy roads. IMHO, if you buy a car because it makes you feel safe and not because you're confident while driving it, then you're probably worse off than a guy in a small car who knows exactly how to get it out of a bad situation. Driving isn't a game. If you can't handle it, might I suggest public transit or carpooling?

Comment Re:The last 25% (Score 2, Interesting) 368

...pay compensation for the inconvenience to establish a new store...

I agree with the assertion that you should never whine about "leaving where you've been all your life" because it's rooted in an unreasonable aversion to change. Yes, there's a lot involved, but it's not something that's never been done before.

However, going back to the oil problem, in some cases there is no fitting compensation other than uprooting your fishing business and moving to somewhere completely different - on an ocean instead of the gulf. Is BP going to pay for that expense? Or will they get out of it on the grounds that asking them to move you and your family and your entire business to a different, possibly more expensive area is "unreasonable"?

And how do we properly account for what might amount to irreparable damage to that particular source of food in the near- to mid-future?

Comment Re:The last 25% (Score 5, Insightful) 368

If my company has a tanker full of gas, and that tanker explodes outside your store due to my company's negligence, cratering the street and making your store unreachable for months. By your logic, my company shouldn't be liable for monetary damage to your store. How would you feel about this? You can say "adapt! change!" all you want, but the bottom line is, there should be no legal justification for this kind of negligence.

Slashdot Top Deals

PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5