bluntly_said

6 ms·

1.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I don't think it does. I think too many people are trying to short circuit real discussion around this issue by either calling people bigots, or taking offense to the term "bully".
2.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more con
3.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
But I think this is still wrong. Giving marriage any rights at all is respecting a religious practice in the government. I think we solve the problem not by forcing those who are religious to accept gays, or by forcing gay people to accept
4.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I'm not going to delete it, it's there for a reason. Maybe you're just so busy arguing with everyone else that you can't remember who said what, or what we were even talking about. But you've intentionally walked i
5.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
Let me stoop to your level for a moment: Yo, FUCKHEAD: You claimed appropriating marriage was a band-aid. BUT... you ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING RIGHTS. You JUST WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS. FUCK YOU. You don't give a SHIT abou
6.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
Again, the "deny them their human rights" argument fails to pass the bullshit test. The had domestic partnerships, they had the full legal rights marriage granted available. Prop 8's entire quibble was over the word marriage
7.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I think the issue is that as long as the state endows rights to religious practice (marriage) there is a problem. If the state only gave rights and taxed civil unions, the churches cannot, by definition, control if other people get married.
8.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
And my response to the separate but equal argument is literally sitting in my comment above, and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. There is ONLY civil unions. There is no separation. You yourself claimed that appr
9.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
No, I think you've decided that when democracy doesn't cater exactly to your personal morals, it must be wrong. Making a donation based on private, personal beliefs is ENTIRELY the point of a democracy. The correct action is to s
10.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
There already was a suitable band-aid, it was called domestic partnerships, and had the full legal rights of marriage in California. Co-opting the word marriage in law, rather than asking for it to be removed was actively choosing to force
11.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
Let me put this another way. If your response to Eich getting promoted was to stop using Firefox, I'd support your actions. If your response was to publicly shame him for an opinion to the point where he loses his job, you're a f
12.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
You understand you're the definition of a schoolyard bully, right? I've read all my posts, several times. I'm internally consistent, and I almost always favor cautious respect over ignorant bashing. I'm not even defendi
13.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
The other side of this coin is that marriage has religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. Both sides fucked it up. The only proper re
14.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you. It might have been family pressure, it might have honestly been that he's religious and doesn't believ
15.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I find the entire Eich scandal disheartening. A man lost his job (one he was undoubtedly qualified for) because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect. We have some seri
16.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I think once the legal implications are removed, churches would lose their control over the word by default. It doesn't have meaning outside of the church at that point, and the government "shall make no law respecting an establi
17.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eich donated to a cause that believes the word "marriage" has religious connotations that make it incompatible with a union between two people of the same sex. That argument in and of itself doesn
18.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
You're absolutely correct. The expletives come from constantly have to reject this attack, and personal frustration. It also comes because many of the people who use the "neo-luddism" grouping are not trying to saliently arg
19.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
I see the Neo-luddism argument thrown out a lot when discussions pop up around basic income. It's bullshit. Basic Income does not in any way support or suggest opposition to technology. In general, technology has made life better for
20.
by bluntly_said 12y ago
The comparison to race still fails to make me think publicly denouncing a company in its whole because of the personal beliefs of one member is in any way justified. People will never be homogeneous in their beliefs, and I think that's
21.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
That $79/year was intended to REPLACE the price of shipping on individual items. If the price of those items increases by the cost of shipping, after you've payed the $79, Prime is now a sunk cost of $79 that has ZERO returns. Thi
22.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
They do that NOW. They did not for a long time. At one point it was bad enough that I could look at an item as a prime user, and see the lowest listed price. Then open the same product page in an incognito browser, and the lowest listed
23.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
I think you're missing the point of the article. Pretty much entirely.
24.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
From a purely letter of the law interpretation, you're not wrong (at the moment). What you're missing (and the reason that you seem to have to respond again and again with this type of comment) is that we're in the middle of
25.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
We use the resources we have available. The sad thing about most of the experiments you list is that we gained a lot of useful knowledge from them. Sure it's easy to now look back and be horrified by them because we have the luxury of
26.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
The open rate info in this page is misleading. the graph titled "New Gmail, images auto-displayed" makes it seem like the user opening the email will cause the open count, but this is incorrect. As soon as gmail receives the email
27.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
I know right? Some scum in India liked her books, but can barely afford the original price, much less the mistaken x2 price. Fuck that guy for enjoying her work and trying to better himself by expanding his knowledge of other cultures and
28.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
Honestly, I think you're the one being unimaginative. At no point in the post above you do I see mention of regulating away new technology, or reverting to menial labor to solve unemployment. The only concrete thing mentioned is that
29.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
This seems very clearly to be a proxy for wealth, from the article "cheap burgers are more popular in high obesity counties". Map wealth to burger diversity and this result becomes far less interesting. What IS interesting is the
30.
by bluntly_said 13y ago
I'm not sure I agree with you here. Tests are still only as clever as the person writing them. This means it's rarely going to catch corner cases that the developer wasn't already aware of. I think the real value of tests i

More ›