But it's an entirely different thing when it comes to FORCING others to accept it as normal.
No one's FORCING you to have a bigoted view on others. You have a problem with it, so be it.
Maybe not but nor you cannot feign the reality of the situation, that the 'gender-bender day' was pushed on the school by a pro-homosexual group.
It must be great to pull up an extreme example as if that solves everything. Hate Socialism? It's the Nazis and those dang Chinese's fault! Hate gays? Nambla. Hate Irish and Scots? The KKK is the scapegoat.
Hate liberals? Obama's a Socialist. Hate conservatives? Make the Tea Party look like victims.
Oh no... It's a great thing to not figure out the nuance of arguments and just pull up extreme examples of everything. Occam's Razor may work in most circumstances, but it sure isn't helping in your narrow view of the world.
That Alexander the Great and others performed such actions had nothing to do with their sexuality, or are you trying to conflate the two?
That's your doing. You make it out as if homosexuality is a sin to be purged when it has been around in nature as well as shown to be present in history. Or do you deny your writing?
? Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children. Need I drudge up the infamous 'cross-dressing day' at a certain school, pushed for by the LGBT community, which resulted in parents pulling their children out of school?
Which is a stupid conflation of all LGBT people into one group as if they all agree to the same BS that you ascribe to.
Rome was by no means exclusive with regards to how it perceived homosexuality (as being deviant), not simply due to Christianity.
Rome and Greece had very tolerant views if you actually read the wikis. They didn't believe in marriage out of practicality, but it's still a pretty ignorant statement that you want to convey the image of "a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass" as if that's going to push the argument in a more positive direction.
That's rich, coming from the same people who promote (or rather, force) such actions. If homosexuality were so normal then why the huge movement in order to *convince* people?
So you're a bigot then.
First of all, I do not care one whit what some does in their bedroom.
But let's give you some historical perspective since you're clearly ignorant:
Rome didn't allow same sex marriage due to the influence of Christianity. As the new religion on the block, Christianity was becoming more dominant and as history shows, most of the popes of the time were actually interested in the lands of the people and acquiring it. So that's why you have differenct sects of feudalism that wanted men to go unwed, unmarried, and give all of their land to the church while upholding the patriarchies and traditions before it.
It wasn't until capitalism came around during the Industrial Era that some of that changed. But if homosexuality were not normal, would it be in other cultures?
Because of the equal distribution of power, it did not upset the power structure for women to identify with what Western European society defined as men's sexual or social roles, nor was it a threat for men to identify with women's social or sexual roles. After being conquered by patriarchal Western European-America, Native American culture exhibited somewhat predictable results. In a male dominated power structure, a woman who adopts a man's social or sexual role may be perceived as demanding the power normally given to a man. On the other hand, a man who adopts a woman's social or sexual role is perceived as voluntarily and foolishly giving up the power associated with the man's role. Any of these four lifestyle choices, which are incongruous with Western European social roles at the time of colonization, were perceived as threatening to the patriarchal power structure of Western European society.
The legendary love between Alexander the Great and his childhood friend Hephaestion is sometimes regarded as being of the same order.
Holy crap, Alexander the Great was gay?! He conquered the frickin world and improved military tactics that were even used in the Iraq War!
Not bad for a gay guy. But we should move to the 21st century... People like George Takei, Margaret Cho and the various number of people that wake up everyday to be treated with respect, dignity, and integrity because of how they've influenced people in far more positive ways than some small minded individual could take away from them.
So has history shown that gay people have left their mark on the world?
The better question is... Why does it matter if they're gay if they want to make a progressive influence on the world?
You're right on that and it's really something to look into. I think they will get the feminists and LGBT community whipped up into a frenzy given how they've had some pretty out there characters (Tinkle and the Magypsies come to mind) that showed how this isn't a big deal in regards to stories.
Also, we should really take a step back and point this out...
Then they must be the only company their size without a PR department.
That's not what their PR department does. A person makes a decision that reflects poorly on the company and the PR department of any business is to play clean up. Make the problems go away. It's what EA did by just not playing the game. It's what the NYPD does by not stating a public opinion about stop-and-frisk until it's almost certain that it's about to be taken away and they have one less toy to beat people over the head with.
Public relations is the science of getting the public to see things in a more positive light, same with marketing, where they are sold on the idea that what a company did is in their best interests.
Now I'm not against PR, but Nintendo has effectively changed their stance on this by deciding to be on the wrong side of history. I think they might release a statement soon enough if the heat goes on and that's the best they can do if it strikes a chord with the public in how they are perceived.
Nintendo doesn't care about the homosexual aspect. That probably didn't even come to mind.
Another way to think about it is that it's a mere bug that may ruin the game for others. I doubt highly, given how Nintendo has been in the past, that this was malicious. It was just a bug to them that needed to be fixed before it "ruins" the game.
People still think that Nintendo listens to fans. They aren't Valve or Bungie. They're the gaming version of Google with a very bad reputation for doing things that aren't in their best long term interests.
Socialism - Democratic control of the means of production by the working class for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit.
Better yet...
Socialism - : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Now does any of the bureacracy of the IRS sound like collective ownership to you?
No? Then your only target is to misguide people about a different economic system that you want to beat people over the head with as being bad.
Hell, the US was created based on the genocide of Native Americans. It utilized cheap labor from workers because of the color of their skin.
And the US wanted Chinese and black people to fight during the railroads so they fought over jobs and wages while people like the Rockefellers exploited everyone.
You, do not even understand your own history and you think that bringing up this false notion of Socialism is going to protect your belief from scrutiny?
Sad. Please go look up a history book. It's disappointing when people make false assumptions about economics with nothing to back it up.
it's a legitimate interest of the IRS to determine if groups are strategically misusing their newly-gotten tax-exempt status, and actively promoting complete and obvious misrepresentations of US law?
While there's outrage on this, the actions of a lot of Tea Party groups have been questionable since 2007 for quite some time.
elected governments can be expected to prosecute groups who openly advocate overthrowing them and/or widespread violations of law!
Heh, if the government represented the p
Citizens must be free to break and twist every law and principle on which a country depends without threat of arrest, prosecution, trial, or punishment. Otherwise, we have no freedom.
Wrong. Citizens decide on laws and who represents them in government. If you want a democratic republic, you have to fight for it. Best option is to go out and form up with others to explain the need for a better government through better representation and more political parties.
Is it so much to ask for a government that actually respects the Constitution?
When we've lost our government, that was supposed to represent the needs of the people, supported by the people, and working for the people, it's almost gut wrenching when people recognize that all people on the political spectrum are the target based on a fear of the public mobilizing against the government.
I think the chips are adding up to something similar to the turn of the last century though...
The people might get fed up with the two major parties, and push for their government to go in a more progressive direction, without the lobbying, the backroom dealings, and without so much power given to the government over the needs of the people.
Maybe then we can make changes so that our government is more of a democratic republic instead of the aristocracy that has been protected for the past 40 years.
For me, I watched that video and I was disappointed in the misinformation being thrown around.
I'm glad you fought back, Mike, on certain points. But how is the media mogul going to tell me that NYT isn't a paywall that you can easily avoid?
I hate paywalls and when I go on Youtube, I've seen the previews of some of the channels, and I can say, I hate it. If the content is released first on one channel, then the next, that may be okay. But to lock up content and believe that people will pay for it is the same as Isaac Newton locking up his physics notes and hoping innovation won't happen. It doesn't work. Either people will enjoy and pay for it if they have money for support, or they enjoy your work for the eyeballs.
Then to turn on your audience by wanting more than time is really a harsh investment to make. I noticed that most everyone treated the public as if they're stupid (particularly our "content creator") by saying "well, since they're kids, they won't understand this stuff."
Newsflash: Those kids are the next generation of content creators, aggregators, and consumers of content and they have a lot more intelligence than you give them credit for. Yet the true "kids" are the ones looking for more money out of people while giving them more of the same content.
I can't help but feel a LOT of people are going to be shown how bad their position is in regards to setting up channels as paywalls.
For the life of me, I can't see a single logical argument for why people are upset about this, other than (a) they don't like Braff or (b) they're jealous of him.
That's the beauty of Kickstarter. And to deny that to certain people for arbitrary reasons is simply asinine.
I think you're both answering a similar question here so I'll post my response:
First, I doubt highly that there is a single logical reason to get angry at Braff. Everything here is emotional. The morality point here is that "Braff got his, let someone else have a chance!"
And that's a bad viewpoint to take. When you are highly connected, you have more options than the smaller kickstarters who might not make it with the same idea. But like you say, this isn't a logical reason to attack Braff for trying something different. The opinion that we should let the smaller actors have a say in a digitally diverse field seems rather... Off. But I can't put my finger on why.
We celebrated with Palmer. Tim Schafer of Double Fine had a LOT of support. What it seems like is that the industries of movies or music are getting a lot of backlash if you're already developed without recognizing the issues that may hamper directors and producers that were tied to the old systems of making money.
I think that's part of it. Remember, Rick Perry is holding firm that people in Texas don't need healthcare and selling the idea that Obamacare is the devil. So when you go to the hospital, pull yourself by the bootstraps and heal the wound yourself.
Forcing the rich to pay for their mistakes and bad investments would help.
I unfortunately missed an italics after "Roosevelt declared."
Currently, they're holding onto $2- $5 trillion dollars which the government gave them in taxpayer dollars. And they're not loaning that out without high interest.
It was a systemic crash. The bankers did what they did and people, with very money or hope borrowed money to finance their needs and those of a future for their children.
While that's happening, we have a capacity utilization rate, or how much technology is being utilized, of 80%. In other words, we aren't doing anything efficiently.
And no, Obama has not spent money and it's just amazing how people don't realize that the government has to spend money to get its way out of debt. You spend more on investments such as roads, bridges, and public services. If you cut those away, the nation suffers.
On the post: EFF Teaches You How To Bake Mean-Spirited Censorship Pie
Re: I remember when
No, EFF should be shamed for pointing out why a company is locking up language.
Great set of priorities you got there...
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
Re: Re: Re:
The US is and there are better ways to allocate resources, but that's a different argument for another day.
Your warring diatribe only shows that you hate capitalism.
BWAAAHAHAHA! So I'm supposed to cheerlead when people in positions of power abuse rights all over the world all in the name of capitalism?
Good job on a bad argument.
You can administrate through legislation and executive orders.
That has nothing to do with Socialism. Try again.
Distribution is one of Obama's strong points. Divisiveness is another.
Again, non sequitar. Focus on something that actually follows a coherent point.
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one's FORCING you to have a bigoted view on others. You have a problem with it, so be it.
Maybe not but nor you cannot feign the reality of the situation, that the 'gender-bender day' was pushed on the school by a pro-homosexual group.
It must be great to pull up an extreme example as if that solves everything. Hate Socialism? It's the Nazis and those dang Chinese's fault! Hate gays? Nambla. Hate Irish and Scots? The KKK is the scapegoat.
Hate liberals? Obama's a Socialist. Hate conservatives? Make the Tea Party look like victims.
Oh no... It's a great thing to not figure out the nuance of arguments and just pull up extreme examples of everything. Occam's Razor may work in most circumstances, but it sure isn't helping in your narrow view of the world.
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's your doing. You make it out as if homosexuality is a sin to be purged when it has been around in nature as well as shown to be present in history. Or do you deny your writing?
? Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children. Need I drudge up the infamous 'cross-dressing day' at a certain school, pushed for by the LGBT community, which resulted in parents pulling their children out of school?
Which is a stupid conflation of all LGBT people into one group as if they all agree to the same BS that you ascribe to.
Rome was by no means exclusive with regards to how it perceived homosexuality (as being deviant), not simply due to Christianity.
Rome and Greece had very tolerant views if you actually read the wikis. They didn't believe in marriage out of practicality, but it's still a pretty ignorant statement that you want to convey the image of "a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass" as if that's going to push the argument in a more positive direction.
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
By all means, don't mention how the target was broader than Tea Partiers or how dark money stays in politics.
Let's just believe this is all about the right wing and not their own past behavior...
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're a bigot then.
First of all, I do not care one whit what some does in their bedroom.
But let's give you some historical perspective since you're clearly ignorant:
Rome didn't allow same sex marriage due to the influence of Christianity. As the new religion on the block, Christianity was becoming more dominant and as history shows, most of the popes of the time were actually interested in the lands of the people and acquiring it. So that's why you have differenct sects of feudalism that wanted men to go unwed, unmarried, and give all of their land to the church while upholding the patriarchies and traditions before it.
It wasn't until capitalism came around during the Industrial Era that some of that changed. But if homosexuality were not normal, would it be in other cultures?
Native Americans had it:
Because of the equal distribution of power, it did not upset the power structure for women to identify with what Western European society defined as men's sexual or social roles, nor was it a threat for men to identify with women's social or sexual roles. After being conquered by patriarchal Western European-America, Native American culture exhibited somewhat predictable results. In a male dominated power structure, a woman who adopts a man's social or sexual role may be perceived as demanding the power normally given to a man. On the other hand, a man who adopts a woman's social or sexual role is perceived as voluntarily and foolishly giving up the power associated with the man's role. Any of these four lifestyle choices, which are incongruous with Western European social roles at the time of colonization, were perceived as threatening to the patriarchal power structure of Western European society.
Or how about Greece?
The legendary love between Alexander the Great and his childhood friend Hephaestion is sometimes regarded as being of the same order.
Holy crap, Alexander the Great was gay?! He conquered the frickin world and improved military tactics that were even used in the Iraq War!
Not bad for a gay guy. But we should move to the 21st century... People like George Takei, Margaret Cho and the various number of people that wake up everyday to be treated with respect, dignity, and integrity because of how they've influenced people in far more positive ways than some small minded individual could take away from them.
So has history shown that gay people have left their mark on the world?
The better question is... Why does it matter if they're gay if they want to make a progressive influence on the world?
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, we should really take a step back and point this out...
Then they must be the only company their size without a PR department.
That's not what their PR department does. A person makes a decision that reflects poorly on the company and the PR department of any business is to play clean up. Make the problems go away. It's what EA did by just not playing the game. It's what the NYPD does by not stating a public opinion about stop-and-frisk until it's almost certain that it's about to be taken away and they have one less toy to beat people over the head with.
Public relations is the science of getting the public to see things in a more positive light, same with marketing, where they are sold on the idea that what a company did is in their best interests.
Now I'm not against PR, but Nintendo has effectively changed their stance on this by deciding to be on the wrong side of history. I think they might release a statement soon enough if the heat goes on and that's the best they can do if it strikes a chord with the public in how they are perceived.
On the post: 'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It
Re: Re:
Another way to think about it is that it's a mere bug that may ruin the game for others. I doubt highly, given how Nintendo has been in the past, that this was malicious. It was just a bug to them that needed to be fixed before it "ruins" the game.
People still think that Nintendo listens to fans. They aren't Valve or Bungie. They're the gaming version of Google with a very bad reputation for doing things that aren't in their best long term interests.
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
Re:
Socialism - Democratic control of the means of production by the working class for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit.
Better yet...
Socialism - : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Now does any of the bureacracy of the IRS sound like collective ownership to you?
No? Then your only target is to misguide people about a different economic system that you want to beat people over the head with as being bad.
So let's do a quick history lesson...
The US has had war for over 200 years of existence
In other words, the US as a country has never seen a decade without war.
We're either fighting someone or planning to fight as a warrior nation.
Hell, the US was created based on the genocide of Native Americans. It utilized cheap labor from workers because of the color of their skin.
And the US wanted Chinese and black people to fight during the railroads so they fought over jobs and wages while people like the Rockefellers exploited everyone.
You, do not even understand your own history and you think that bringing up this false notion of Socialism is going to protect your belief from scrutiny?
Sad. Please go look up a history book. It's disappointing when people make false assumptions about economics with nothing to back it up.
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
Re: Re: It seems
While there's outrage on this, the actions of a lot of Tea Party groups have been questionable since 2007 for quite some time.
elected governments can be expected to prosecute groups who openly advocate overthrowing them and/or widespread violations of law!
Heh, if the government represented the p
Citizens must be free to break and twist every law and principle on which a country depends without threat of arrest, prosecution, trial, or punishment. Otherwise, we have no freedom.
Wrong. Citizens decide on laws and who represents them in government. If you want a democratic republic, you have to fight for it. Best option is to go out and form up with others to explain the need for a better government through better representation and more political parties.
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
Republic
When we've lost our government, that was supposed to represent the needs of the people, supported by the people, and working for the people, it's almost gut wrenching when people recognize that all people on the political spectrum are the target based on a fear of the public mobilizing against the government.
I think the chips are adding up to something similar to the turn of the last century though...
The people might get fed up with the two major parties, and push for their government to go in a more progressive direction, without the lobbying, the backroom dealings, and without so much power given to the government over the needs of the people.
Maybe then we can make changes so that our government is more of a democratic republic instead of the aristocracy that has been protected for the past 40 years.
On the post: Police Follow Up Beating A 'Possibly Intoxicated' Man To Death By Seizing Witnesses' Cell Phones
Re: Re: Re: FBI
It's just amazing how they've failed in their mission...
On the post: Police Follow Up Beating A 'Possibly Intoxicated' Man To Death By Seizing Witnesses' Cell Phones
Re: FBI
On the post: China's State-Run TV Uses Daily Show Clip To Demonize US, Viewers Point Out The Irony
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is King!
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
How disappointing
I'm glad you fought back, Mike, on certain points. But how is the media mogul going to tell me that NYT isn't a paywall that you can easily avoid?
I hate paywalls and when I go on Youtube, I've seen the previews of some of the channels, and I can say, I hate it. If the content is released first on one channel, then the next, that may be okay. But to lock up content and believe that people will pay for it is the same as Isaac Newton locking up his physics notes and hoping innovation won't happen. It doesn't work. Either people will enjoy and pay for it if they have money for support, or they enjoy your work for the eyeballs.
Then to turn on your audience by wanting more than time is really a harsh investment to make. I noticed that most everyone treated the public as if they're stupid (particularly our "content creator") by saying "well, since they're kids, they won't understand this stuff."
Newsflash: Those kids are the next generation of content creators, aggregators, and consumers of content and they have a lot more intelligence than you give them credit for. Yet the true "kids" are the ones looking for more money out of people while giving them more of the same content.
I can't help but feel a LOT of people are going to be shown how bad their position is in regards to setting up channels as paywalls.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Can't put my finger on it...
That's the beauty of Kickstarter. And to deny that to certain people for arbitrary reasons is simply asinine.
I think you're both answering a similar question here so I'll post my response:
First, I doubt highly that there is a single logical reason to get angry at Braff. Everything here is emotional. The morality point here is that "Braff got his, let someone else have a chance!"
And that's a bad viewpoint to take. When you are highly connected, you have more options than the smaller kickstarters who might not make it with the same idea. But like you say, this isn't a logical reason to attack Braff for trying something different. The opinion that we should let the smaller actors have a say in a digitally diverse field seems rather... Off. But I can't put my finger on why.
We celebrated with Palmer. Tim Schafer of Double Fine had a LOT of support. What it seems like is that the industries of movies or music are getting a lot of backlash if you're already developed without recognizing the issues that may hamper directors and producers that were tied to the old systems of making money.
On the post: PSA To Parents: Step 1 After Your Child Is Shot Is Not Checking WebMD
Re: Re:
Look at Lipitor prices in America compared to France and Spain. Most people in the EU pay $15-$20.
We have to pay $150 on average.
So most of our money goes to an industry that wouldn't survive without the profit motive and gives us subquality care at monopoly prices.
On the post: PSA To Parents: Step 1 After Your Child Is Shot Is Not Checking WebMD
Re: Health Care
God will help you. Oh, and science is the devil.
On the post: Who Would You Rather Trust: Bankers Or Regulators?
Re: Re: Economics
I unfortunately missed an italics after "Roosevelt declared."
Currently, they're holding onto $2- $5 trillion dollars which the government gave them in taxpayer dollars. And they're not loaning that out without high interest.
On the post: Who Would You Rather Trust: Bankers Or Regulators?
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, we've had a crash under every president since FDR where their policies don't address the needs of the nation.
While that's happening, we have a capacity utilization rate, or how much technology is being utilized, of 80%. In other words, we aren't doing anything efficiently.
And no, Obama has not spent money and it's just amazing how people don't realize that the government has to spend money to get its way out of debt. You spend more on investments such as roads, bridges, and public services. If you cut those away, the nation suffers.
Next >>