If you do not work you do not fuciking eat. Now that would be a wonderful world.
Think of the massive increase in crime that would occur

FTFY - Yeah, a real paradise.

In fact, that is not even uncommon among certain types of people sharing certain types of life philosophies even today, and never really wen't away, though sadly it still is and has been for too long quite a marginal group of people :)

It is a fact that the worlds poorest are now wealthier than they've ever been. That doesn't mean that they have more
money, but things like world hunger have largely ended (still exists in a few pockets of areas, but that is mainly due to
politics rather than economics in those cases) and quote-unquote "nice things" are much easier to afford.

World's or your countries? Because worlds poorest people, which is NOT just a "few pockets" (neither as in areas or as in literal pockets of people). Wealthier than they've ever been? When you have nothing, you can't be wealthier than before.

Now even the poor have much better TVs than the ones rich had in the
80's, cell phones that aren't tied to a car and have unlimited talk time for a flat rate, and blu-ray players, and I've
seen more than one homeless person walking around with a working laptop.

Most homeless people, even in 1st world countries don't have laptops - even in Finland, with out awesome social security system some don't even have cell phones, but most have - it's kinda neccesity nowdays. I've been homeless, lived in a shelter with just my HD saved from my computer. Could have had my computer there, but it was getting old and it wasn't the safest place for it.

Used to be the homeless were lucky if they eat
more than one meal in a day; now they're often overweight.

This is bullcrap, even though true.

Thank god for Finnish social security system, our poor can afford food that can keep them healthy. I saw a document, the only name that comes to mind is "Food Inc.", an excellent one but I don't think it's that, I think it was focused entirely on poor people and bad nutrition.

The thing is, in USA it's not that you can afford to get fat and eat unhealthy if your among the poorest - it's that you can't eat healthy and not get fat, because you can feed your family with unhealthy garbage from market, but check the prices of vegetables, and you see that you could feed one with them or the family with garbage - of course I think it's immoral to not steal to save your children, but by legal ways, the poorest of the poor in USA have no choice to eat food that won't make them fat, give them adult diabetes before teenage, etc.

Today's poor make the rich of the 30's look like paupers, and the middle class of the 80's look like welfare recipients.
I'm tired of this rhetoric of the occupy types who make a stink about being poor just because the goalpost for "poor"
keeps moving higher and higher on some spreadsheet, meanwhile they ask for "fixes" that will just end up making things
worse.

Your tired of it because either you lack information (not crime, not even reason to offend you or anyone) or that you are a shill for something (unethical, and *IF* the case, then I wish you have future among the poorest. Don't take offence if the second one is not what you are.

One word: unions

I find it laughable when people are trying to change the society for better, like in improving rights of mistreated minorities, someone always points out that the current situation is "accepted by the majority" (often incorrectly, but if we're talking about the whole world I think it's probable that majority still finds it OK to discriminate against gay people - that is a big reason to push your efforts even stronger to fight for your rights, NOT one to just "suck it up", and accept the status quo). The world will never be perfect, thus people should always keep struggling to make it better.
Of course pro-slavery lobbyers, racist bigots, etc. would have loved if people had just accepted what is "accepted by majority of world" just as much as anti-gay bigots would love.

Your objection against right to organize a boycott against something/someone because "free speech" has been noted - I can't take that one seriously, but humor on the internet is a hard art to master.

You don't really understand the purpose, logic behind and working of boycotts, do you?

...I'm sure that any corporation would love nothing more about boycotts than if they were targetted at something that doesn't really affect
their endline, is harder to organize people to join in and, if possible, causes harm (loss, discomfort, anything will do) for the people
behind it rather than to them.

Case 1. I don't like the author of Ion window manager, in fact I think his an ass. The product however was "free" (as in beer) and "open
enough" (you could get the source, patch it - as there were features others liked enough to add them and publish the patches). Now I would
not organize a boycott against him or company hiring him, as the issue was not that big, but I would not have supported him financially.
However I saw no moral oblications to use the product myself. If what I had against him had been a bigger issue, I would think that choosing
not to use products of for-profit entity that had hired him would have been more reasonable and actually could have the slightest chance to
actually affect his life. As it was, using his free as in beer software on my personal computer did not "support his ideals".

Case 2. Imagine a professor X, a genius of physics and an extremist nationalist and citizen of Facistville, Totalitaristania. Now X invents
a way to provide free, clean and renewable energy without any cons of nuclear, coal or any other technology but pros of 10 times of any
others. X works for one of the few companies not limited by autarkist policies of Totalitaristania, company that manufactures really nice
chairs and makes 50% of the nations wealth but has naught to do with the technology, except that like all corporations in the country, they
use energy from stations utilizing his technology.

Would you rather boycott the technology, provided that the implementation of it would not have to be licensed but was freely available and
used by all countries, including AnarCapstania, where you lived, or the chair company that export their products worldwide to profit and
support his countrys military expansion? Would you call corporations selling living rooms, that would suggest to their customers to not buy
chairs from the company because of what they do, hypocrites without principles for using X's energy?

To make it more applicable, what if the corporation was in AnarCapstania but hired X as CEO and while the corporation itselft would publish
pro-anarcapstanian rethorics, X himself would support Totalitaristanian ideals with his own money?

Or would you agree that not using the energy technology would be downright idiotic and such idea would propably be the works of
Totalitaristanian propaganda machine?

P.S. Not that it's relevant but they don't block desktop firefox either, they just show a notice about the issue and suggest users to join a
boycott by choosing another browser - you can ignore it if you want - and I don't know why on earth would you think that mobile firefox is
excluded on purpose rather than because they just didn't think about it (and coded rather badly, as it's trivial to recognize any browser in
firefox family).

Would be fine with me. But you are missing an important concept here. It
is perfectly normal that laws are made for the average case. It can
usually be accepted that a few persons get an unfair advantage or
disadvantage from a law that they do not really deserve, what matters is
if most people addressed by the law will be treated fairly.

That's just crazy, IMHO, and I don't think it's "usually accepted" by others than people who, and whose friends, don't belong to any mistreated minority in question. Because everyone belongs to some minority, that view only persists as long as their's is not being (in their view) discriminated.

For law to cause any group of people, no matter the size, any unjustified advantage/disadvantage, there needs to be justified and accepted price of causing some other group (the size really doesn't matter) larger unjustified disadvantage for the law even to be considered acceptable - and acceptable is the most it can be, never just, but as things are never black and white, even the law sometimes has to accept unjust things to exist.

What you are arguing is that it's justified for majority to discriminate minorities just because they are, well, minor. I know there are people with views that support such unsocial incivil bullshit, so I know these are just my opiniones, but they are strong ones, and while opinions are being discussed I hold one that says "bullies are assholes and should be treated as such".

If you say marriage is only for couple who will procreate

*snip*

But clearly marriage is not only for couples who will procreate and thus the "procreation argument" is mote.

Except there's a bit of a religious thing that wants the word marriage to
remain a heterosexual thing ("for the children" type stuff). That's where
it gets more interesting, gay couples have the same rights as everyone
else.

It doesn't "get interesting" there, there's a reason why you have quotes around the word "marriage", and the rights are not same nor limited to children related issues (which, btw, the homophobics are the greatest threat against, by spreading anti-gay nonsense they are making the lives of children whose parents are gay miserable - and then they have the balls to use the fact that prejudice against gay parents is causing issues with their children as another anti gay-parents rethoric). "Because homophobics the kids of gay couples suffer, thus we should let gays raise children, adopted or their own" - fuck that shit.

Anyway, enough people in California voted against it, yet its only Eich
that's being attacked for it for some reason.

Reminds me of the good old "What are you criticizing MS for, Apple does the same and even worse!?" - fuck that, who said I was an Apple user anyway? Or that I don't have any criticism about them? If X does something bad, it's not right to criticize them in discussion of what they did unless you include criticism of Y in the same discussion too, right?

No. The first question is: Is it a discrimination of a citizen or of a couple? Even with gay marriage banned, all citizen still keep the same right to marry a opposite sex spouse.

And even with mixed-race marriages banned, all citizens would still keep the same right to marry a same race spouse - not sure who would take this seriously though.

Most opponents of gay marriage argue that differences in procreation are the rational reason why same-sex relationships can be treated differently than opposite-sex relationships. And it is certainly true that the likelyhood of procreation differs a lot between these two groups.

That's not a "rational reason for the discrimination", especially when not even social norms dictate that pre-marital procreation demands the couple (or A couple, as in the past it wasn't exactly important that the girl married the biological father, just that she married someone who could be claimed to be one) to get married, nor that after getting married procreation should be the expected result.

This reasoning begs the conclusion that any inability, such as being sterile, should be considered a disability and an objection to legality of marriage - however it seems that even the most crazed christian extremists would object to this as "discrimination".

The procreation argument is a flamebait.

When a person can't do something because of the shape of their genitals or the pretense or absence of a Y chromosome, ipso facto that's not equal treatment.

Or just biology. I'm pretty sure I can never get pregnant. I think it might be related to the shape of my genitals. I should sue the state.

...this last bit... trying to argue against your views is clearly futile, except to prevent them gaining acceptance and spreading.

I've seen numerous times (though the separate cases have been spread through couple years and it's more ocassional than constant) criticism of so called "net neutrality" by US citizens, and it had made me wonder if this is again a case of US doing something great totally wrong as what we call "net neutrality" in europe (or at least here in Finland) is the reason why ISP's can't oversell 50mbps contracts and provide only half of that bandwidth most of the time.

Also in these modern times I'm baffled at concepts like bandwidth cap - here it's unlimited internet for monthly fee or nothing, and that goes for "mobile broadband" too (that lately has been forced to obey the same rules as DSL's, ie. not giving a lousy ~256kbps when it's marketted at 5mbps ;p ).

But I'd really like to be informed about the US "net neutrality" thingie...

Don't know what they are. I've never seen unskippable anything in my days of using libdvdcss* + my-preferred-video-playing-software (usually xine or mplayer).

Ignorance is a bliss.

LOL, I actually remember a manga comic with a perverted teacher who had these glasses with very similar filter, though I think it only showed girls without skirts and panties, not totally naked. I think it was in one number of GTO (Great Teacher Onizuka).

Oh and you can bet your ass that eventually when these kind of glasses have the required processing power, an application like that will be developed...

If you wan't to speak without others hearing you probably couldn't choose a worse environment than one where people have to shout if they wan't the person next to them hear... Now considering the technology back in (especially early) 90's, if you had to call or answer the thing then you probably wen't outside anyway - if anything, it was probably the need to shout (in noisy places even louder) to be heard if there was even slight background noise that people hated, and back then the idea that a phone could be used as listening device when not being used for calling probably wasn't something a person would fear without having been on a meth binge for at least some days (not coke though, as it was the drug of choice for the yuppies actually carrying those logs).

Nah, I'd say it was definately the "yuppie hate" factor. I don't remember hearing anyone in the 90's criticizing cell phones for reasons like invasion of privacy.

Also, didn't bars in your country have pay phones in the pre-cell phone age? I know they were quite the norm in Finland anyway... Nowdays we don't have pay phones anywhere as people stopped using them anyway.