Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , evildictait​or wrote

    We shouldn't be in this ridiculous situation where in order to protect the equality and freedom of speech to same-sex couples we have to deny equality and freedom of speech to Catholics and Mormons.

    What you describe is epidemic of a larger issue though, some unilaterally decree that the debate is over and that the other side must be written off as racists, homophobes, deniers, etc and then actively prevented the ability to speak.

    Back in my college days, I went the talks of a number of speakers, including a number (deliberately) whose views I strongly disagreed with so I could learn more and engage.

    Today though, it is seemingly acceptable to shout down people who you disagree with who are invited to speak as guests.

    The Eich case is simply another form of this, the shouting down of someone who dared to speak, and the implicit warning that others are vulnerable to the same hostility.

    While South Park is not exactly a go to place for moral lessons, the Death Camp of Tolerance episode was ahead of it's time in this area, reminding us that tolerance not only is a two way street, but does not require the other side to endorse something, but to simply put up with.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    You're using the same type of arguments that segregationists used.

    How many times have I cited specific things, highlighting your hypocrisy, bigotry and inability to understand basic concepts (as I will below)... and yet you continue to make such false accusations? Again... liberals...

    You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

    You may need to connect the dots for me... because when reading something like the Row vs Wade decision... I can at least see how they got from A to Q... even though a good chunk of it was made up along the way and self-serving. Instead, you might as well accuse me of conspiring with extra-terrestrials to conquer Canada... as there's probably more evidence of the latter... I mean, I don't live too far from Canada, it'd be an easy place to strike from.

    Should I start making up wild and fanciful accusations which I don't offer supporting evidence for as well?

    Riiight. I'm advocating "the removal or diminishing the rights of ANY individual"

    I think you forgot to follow that up with: "we've always been at war with Eastasia."

    Seriously, you need to get help as you are starting to sound sufficiently unhinged that you may be a threat to yourself or others.

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    As far as I know, that's when all "full humans", including bigots, got their freedom of speech, which is a different from "protection from discrimination".

    So wait... "full humans" only got their  "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment was ratified?

    This is one of those fine examples where we see how you like to pick & choose which parts of the Constitution you care about... because if you knew much about it's creation, you'd know that, even going back to the Declaration of Independence (a couple decades earlier ) the founders wrote of "unalienable rights"... you should read up on them.

    Again, this is the difference between a liberal and a conservative & constutionalist...

    Liberals believe that rights are government granted, while conservatives & constutionalist believe in unalienable rights that pre-existed this (or any) government, which governments are (in part) created to protect and cannot easily be taken away.

    Why must I remind you that YOU are the one advocating for reduction of rights of some, not the rest of us here.

    Edit: To add an example of your desire to remove rights from some groups (from this thread):

    , cbae wrote

    The right to vote should be based on mental maturity, but it's not. It's based on an arbitrary age--i.e. a technicality.

    Spin all you like, but you advocated from the removal of the right to vote from those over the age of majority but who you do not deem to have sufficient mental maturity.

    Notice how I keep citing things? You could learn a thing or two...

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    @brian.shapiro:No argument, only here is a shorter way to describe it... Terrorism Works.

    , cbae wrote

    That's a great argument for "separate but equal". Good job! Where were you 60 years ago? You would have kicked Thurgood Marshall's *!

    Nice job inventing emanations of penumbras there in order to get to the end result you've been trying to reach all along... after all so far you've failed to successfully label me as some sort of homophobe... and now try to label me as a racist or segregationist instead/as well.

    Funny thing, have I mentioned my personal views on SSM? Do you know my views on it? (The answer to both questions, is a resounding "NO!", and if you think you can discern my views from my statements here, you are once again seeing creations of your own mind).

    Unlike you who is so hell bent on achieving certain end results come hell or high water and with a complete disregard of the consequences or methods involved... I care about the process and getting to somewhere in the right way... but again, this is what separates a liberty & constitutional loving individual such as myself from a hypocritical Mussolini-style fascist such as you.

    Just remember... as far as I can tell, in this thread YOU are the only one advocating for the removal or diminishing rights of ANY individuals or groups, YOU.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    Cool. Up until a minute ago, you were a bigot trying to restrict my rights though. Keep that in mind if I'm ever on a board of directors and you're considered for appointment as CEO.

    Why wait until you are on a board considering him for the CEO gig? Clearly if he is ever given a CEO job, based on his bigotry demonstrated in this and other threads he is not worthy of the post... unless it is CEO of some anti-gun & anti-leprechaun organization... in which he'd be a good fit.

    Do we not then have the right to demand him to step down? Oh right... I'm not the sort that does...

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    Perhaps you don't understand the difference between constitutional laws and statutory laws.

    You mean like how one trumps the other... yet quite often statutes are written which violate the higher law?

    I find it easy responding to your arguments.

    My son also finds it easy to use crayons to draw... the quality of both responses are quite equal.

    More spin. Just like a broken record.

    Says the person who keeps repeating the same non-answer.

    Your right to purchase firearms leaves off where my right not to get shot by your gun begins.

    Care to cite the bit of the Constitution which covers that? Though I guess I'd accept some case law... because the words "shall not be infringed" have historically permitted ownership so long as they are not used in unlawful ways (like shooting at other people).

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    Oh my Bing searches this evening are quite unusual

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    I think they're discriminatory, if we're going down this road already and same-sex marriage is allowed. I don't really see the problem with it.

    If I wanted to, I should be able to get my employer to pay health care benefits to my brother. If I wanted to, I should be able to become a citizen of another country, and get citizenship for my brother.

    Inheritance is another aspect... while handing property down parent to child usually gets hit with some taxes, from spouse to spouse is not, thus actually incentivizing an elderly parent to marry a single & younger child so as to avoid the death-tax.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    Yes. exactly.

    Anyway; in weddings I've been to, the ceremonies have been held at the event of the parties. And you can commit to each other and contract with each other without government approval.

    Alas his intolerance is quite solid and assumes that a wedding can only happen in a certain way and regardless of any other realities.

    My father got re-married a number of years back in a ceremony involving less than a dozen people... I wasn't even invited as I was at college 6 hours away, they had a reception 3 months later when more could come.

    A college friend got married in the back yard of a judge who performed the ceremony (even commenting that it was not only the first wedding he ever presided over in his back yard... but also in his shorts), their witnesses were two gals they grabbed from the dorm on the way to the judge... they had a celebration a full 6 months later (in dead of winter no less).

    A couple of cousins got married the day AFTER their reception (not everyone can attend a Mormon weddings, so sometimes the celebration is the bigger event).

    I actually attended a wedding once where the paperwork was left at home... rather than get it when needed it was simply signed and back dated the next day.

    Different folks marry in different ways... and cbae's seeming inability to recognize that those getting married pre Prop-8 were doing so in a rather risky way... is quite sad... as in all weddings (other than perhaps drunken Vegas ones) tend to involve some degree of pre-planning not just of the event, but based on other facts (budget, schedules, laws (how long the waiting period is between receiving license & being able to use it)).

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    No, I don't feel the need to explicitly state what people's rights are unless there's a need based on discrimination. The Ninth Amendment guarantees that rights that aren't enumerated are given to the states or the people. There's no need to fill up our statutes with explicit rights in the event that some group in the future will feel discriminated against. Nice try spinning my position into something it's not.

    You keep making claims like that when you are on the record wishing to disseminate against other groups.

    More so, it is true that the 9th amendment does in part what you say... but again, why your silence on the so many things that I am banned from doing despite my inherent right under the 9th amendment? It's illegal to manufacturer certain kinds of toilets or light bulbs in this country, ditto to sell certain kinds of health care plans... again, to hell with rights you don't support!

    LOL! Spin, spin, spin!

    It's quite clear you have a hard time responding to some arguments made against you... you'd be better off just ignoring them (as you have many others) rather than highlighting that inability.

    You just answered your argument about why this provision is explicitly delineated. Again, if a certain class of people feel discriminated against by this law because they want to marry their siblings, I'll support their cause. I don't know this class of people exists. Please provide evidence of this existence of this people? While we're at it, let's see of leprechauns exist and maybe we can give them the right to vote?

    Seriously? So rights have to be claimed at city hall... or in in sufficient # in the media?

    Yes, I have a firm and fast rule of EXISTENCE before I decide I whose rights I support.

    Another wonderful example of how tolerant you are for other people who you now claim don't even exist.

    You spin me right 'round, baby
    Right 'round like a record, baby
    Right 'round, 'round, 'round

    You can keep deflecting, it doesn't change the fact you seek to limit the rights of those who which to purchase firearms... which in my book makes you just as bad as those who supported Prop 8... as in both cases (by your definition) you have people seeking to deny rights to others.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    @dahat: Should we pretend that Jim Crow laws like poll tax and literacy requirements weren't directly aimed at blacks to prevent them from voting?

    Again we see your inability to stay on SQUIRREL!

    As for these "other kinds of marriages", if the zeitgeist changes to the point of acceptability of these kinds of marriages and there's a class of people who are vocal in demanding those rights and can show that they, as a class, are being discriminated against because of who they are, then I'll gladly vote in their favor.

    So here we get to the crux... to you, marriage 'rights', or perhaps 'rights' in general are only for those who are sufficiently vocal.

    It's a good thing people like you were in the minority back in the days of the civil war, as while the slaves may not have liked being so, it wasn't them who were fighting for abolition.

    Why should I care of somebody wants to marry his sister?

    The people of Washington voted against that in 2012. Washington State prohibits marriages between close kin... even of same sex couples.

    While an argument might be able to be made against marriage of fertile opposite sex kin from marrying out of a fear of the genetic issues of the offspring (similar to laws prohibiting sexual relations between two such people)... it is far harder to make such a case against same-sex couples.

    But again... you are for only for protecting of certain peoples rights... this we already knew as you desire to hinder those of others.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    f you don't like having bombs thrown at you, you should stop getting so personal with your posts. Every time you participate in these threads, your posts degenerate into calling me or others "fascists" or "liberal" (as if "liberal" is some sort of insult LOL).

    Funny... in the process of pointing out your growing history of blatant hypocrisy in this thread (let alone others), I also highlight (not complain about, highlight) your baseless bomb throwing as another example of the double standard you act here with... and then proceed to cry about others doing the same.

    Again, hypocrisy .

    If you wish to challenge my definitions of any terms, you are free to do so, unlike you who is so quick to make up your own.