Precisely my point. Now if only you’d realize that marriage is no different in that regard as it relates to its usage in law…
I wouldn’t be against the change of term there either. But I’m only able to die on one sword at a time. 😉
Use of the term “marriage” in secular law doesn’t perpetuate those things,
This went from debate to argument when it was thrown out to class me as anti-lgbt for being against the term in law.
In reality my goal is quite the opposite than that idea.
But to raise all domestic unions above the religious aspect with a lay term in law.
So you could, potentially, understand my premise without the need to throw me into some other group. Eh? Even if we disagree.
Well, the security tapes are quite clear on what happened. May want to watch them yourself.
Three things: the overwhelming majority of the Jan 6 protest was peaceful.
The people who went beyond the lobby, that they were allowed into, are the sole group to be looking at.
People say things they don’t intend to act on in public in the heat of passion. Madonna said we should blow up the White House. Nobody calling for her head!
Don’t expect the world to take you seriously when you downplay an attempt to undermine the presidential election as a “peaceful protest”.
Less than 2 dozen people broke the law that day. Every one of them should be prosecuted for their acts.
But the fiction of some great insurrection is now completely dead. Video proves it.
Tell me, do you think the New Confederates will accept you [if] the next civil war breaks out?
No! Do you think a few thousand racist god’s army fucks stand any chance against 300+ million.
Are you so misinformed as to believe there’s any chance of some sort of civil war over this?
😔
Seriously? Both parties need to stop pretending there’s no criminal element. Deal with criminals quickly and publicly.
Stop hiding them. ALL of them.
Left/right/whatever!
The reality is the same be it Minnesota or DC.
A small group of people committed crimes. Deal with them in court.
“ In politics, rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, deontology, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion”
~Wikipedia.
My use of the term in opposition to religion is far from a minor viewpoint.
It’s one of the most common uses. At least in this country.
Mind you those Europeans you consider used their faith in their book to reach those conclusions in Africa.
There are more important issues than private moderation/censorship/sponsorship/wtf!
Here’s the reuse of the liberal line; “want better” internet? Make your own.
For all the trillions of spendings, infrastructure, where’s the national internet roll out?
All these tech investigations and calls for breakup and who said what and “Russia Russia Russia” is flat out waste of time bullshite.
How about getting the rest of the Americans out of Afghanistan? Or stopping the massive illegal South American exodus across our southern border.
How about fixing our FUBAR healthcare system.
How about doing something beyond finding ways to line your pockets when you get voted out of office???!!!
AT$T funding a partisan station? So what. OAN is just as bonkers as MSNBC in the nonsense crap it dumps out. Just from the other end of the spectrum.
You want news watch CSPAN. Nothing else in the US is non-partisan.
And all this investigate tech crap does nothing for the betterment of the country.
I think the capital security camera footage shows why half of congress is not concerned with the “whole” of Jan 6.
Outside of one little tiny group nothing happened. It was a generally peaceful protest.
After months of focus on the very thing the Dems waive off in regards to BLM protests? The tiny few that cause the violence? Yes, the group of people who broke the law on the 6th should be prosecuted. The few dozen or so.
But don’t expect the world to move when you spend years ignoring the “handful” of those who break the law in liberal protest.
Ohkay I know nothing about this group beyond what I read here.
But
“with putting American citizens into concentration camps”
This is somehow “ “fresh-off-the-crack-pipe”?
The country has done this multiple times.
I clicked the link:
1* the majority of the country, across parties and beliefs support the right to keep arms
2* i thought techdirt was against Warrantless searches
3* looks good to me. American citizens have rights under the constitution
4* is qualified with “without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.” But I’m a State’s rights libertarian.
5* ohkay. This is problematic. But this is still debated in less public places. Including the government. Are we a republic of independent states (EU/USSR style) or a country of dependent districts (China style)?
I am not of a set opinion either way.
6* as with 5… problematic. And no personal opinion.
7* see opening
8* makes sense
9* as per 7 see opening. The country has done this multiple times
10* zero debate from me.
I see only two constitutional concerns in this. And those are concerns that the 16th president exceeded his authority on.
Remember the federal government invaded state property at the start of the civil war.
That the southern states marched north of their land is equally indefensible!
The right of state within the union has not been fully tested in court.
That aside, there’s nothing directly negative in that charter.
As I started off with, I don’t know who this group is or what they stand for. But the linked source page doesn’t come across as anything to be afraid of.
Be it back end like AWS or payment like MasterCard or any other issue. Booting content tends to lead to more booting of content!
Wikileaks, parler, Xweb, onlyfans.
That’s the problem with censorship in general.
Wait around long enough they eventually come for you!
Because many of their members do have an opinion. Even if the organisation didn’t commit one way or the other.
First off, this has been bothering me
Reverting dictation or autocorrect errors as I go are not a top concern for my life.
Some people-you obviously- are bothered by such minor issues. Others: not.
This isn’t general-publication-quality material. It’s a commentary on a low distribution internet article.
That AI is inconsistent at best, is well documented on this very site.
I’m not hung up on minor rules if the text is readable. And I won’t go through any great pains to fully edit such postings.
… linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism. The only difference being just how offended you are about any use in the law that goes against what you prescribe
Bingo. Btw, “rational” has long been the term used by/for non-religious and irreligious thought.
Some of the largest such related publications use it in their titles. The Daily Rationalist, the Rational Times, The Rationalist; or the chain-essay Rational Thoughts on Historical Existence.
Rational thought simply refers to the scientific method as opposed to blind faith.
Also, you’re sounding like a radical purist, and that is something I find even more distasteful than prescriptivism. Seriously, you’re beginning to sound fanatical about this. It’s getting to be ridiculous.
I stop short of that.
I have no interest in barring private belief. When you pass into that level your no difference than witch hunters.
I stop short of speech. It’s a fine line, sure; religious buildings should not be granted zoning exceptions. To don’t say it. Don’t think it.
But I’m free-speech enough to keep my hatred of religious institutions from crossing that line.
I can separate the fear and doubt that kindles religious beliefs, and the benefits of such beliefs, from the institutions of persecution that run so much of religious belief.
And until we have the right to civil bonding with the same protection of the practice currently termed with a word of religious history, we are not equal.
The difference is you are arguing a fight for the word. We are arguing a fight for the law.
I disagree with your view, as you do mine. But we are, actually looking for the same solution. The wording is different.
That removes a lot of terms from legal recognition
I’d give you judge in that list. It was first used as a religious term for. Religious position.
Come to think of it, “law” has religious use, too
Though I/we are not after religious use. Just religious source.
Judges were of religious appointments where mediators were of legal/civil positions.
And in reality today’s reality judges, especially the lower levels, are actually mediators. They interpret the law. The jury decides the case within the law and the “judge” mediates the ruling against the law.
No one else shares that opinion
Ffrf.org
I’m the minority in the minority, but definitely not alone.
What fantasy?
Gods and goddesses. Flat earth. Young earth. Creation.
Things without definite evidence.
When was the last time god sat in a whiteness chair in a court hearing?
The notion that people like to form long-term relationships as the start of a new nuclear family?
No, the man/woman issue.
When we use “gay”, are we tethered to its historical meaning? Or what about “awful”? It originally meant “tending to inspire great awe”
Well, with gay, many of them are happy. But that word of itself is not of a religious origin. The transformation of the word is partly the claim that that was exactly the end result, happinesses.
as for awful: actually we’re not far from that base. Awe isn’t necessarily a positive word.
offensive to a class of people
Well it is. 2 classes actually.
First is the religious claim. One that’s not without merit. As this very long chain shows.
The other is the group of people who fight against the chains religion holds over our country!
We are not majority but we are many. The same people who want “good” off our currency. That want the pre-cold-war pledge restored. That want all religious terms and displays
Removed
From public owned locations.
Clearly many are more interested in modifying laws to bring equality than removing laws with religious connotations.
And it’s obvious you aren’t worried about the concerns of atheists, let alone their agnostic supporters like my self.
There’s no flailing here.
I despise the legal recognition of any terminology that has religious use. More so for terms that have a source in religious practice.
Concept and terminology are separate.
And as long as people foolishly allow such terms to be a part of our law the country remains under the influence of fantasy.
You may be ohkay with the use of the term. I am not. That has nothing to do with what my social opinions are. It’s just another way the cloud worshippers dig their claws into civil society.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Lol.
In the mechanical days an operator literally switched plugs and stuck them in different “tubes”.
But I’m sure your right, the SMB vision is probably their line. Ohh, warp tube!
Not freaking and phreaking and 26h and all.
A lot of people put the use of the term on Gore but I’ve seen video bell-breakup era where some senator used the term. Wrongly there too!
You can’t regulate what you won’t try to understand.
I’m the first to admit I’m the last to be doing free speech regulations. I’m too “no restrictions” for that.
If only politicians had the same self awareness.
Again, with the conclusion regardless of statement.
Because it isn’t “imagined” origin. It’s historical fact. That similar secular practice existed before the terminology, that the term has lost it’s historical meaning, is not a reason to hide your head in the sand.
It is the term itself that is offensive. A lowering of one’s self to the hatred and bigotry of religious practice.
It has nothing to do with sexuality for me. The word has no place in a secular society. Fall for the illusion of success if you must.
But you have in actuality lowered yourself to their level. You acquiesced acceptance of a doctrinal notion.
You can change meaning, but the source, the history, remains.
It’s quite simple. And your conclusion is laughably inaccurate.
You see the use of the term as an elevation of status to equality.
I see any recognition of the term in law as a lessening of the self.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn’t be against the change of term there either. But I’m only able to die on one sword at a time. 😉
This went from debate to argument when it was thrown out to class me as anti-lgbt for being against the term in law.
In reality my goal is quite the opposite than that idea.
But to raise all domestic unions above the religious aspect with a lay term in law.
So you could, potentially, understand my premise without the need to throw me into some other group. Eh? Even if we disagree.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Re: Re:
I was directly referring to the idea of “go make your own” in chat/web.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Re:
Well, the security tapes are quite clear on what happened. May want to watch them yourself.
Three things: the overwhelming majority of the Jan 6 protest was peaceful.
The people who went beyond the lobby, that they were allowed into, are the sole group to be looking at.
People say things they don’t intend to act on in public in the heat of passion. Madonna said we should blow up the White House. Nobody calling for her head!
Less than 2 dozen people broke the law that day. Every one of them should be prosecuted for their acts.
But the fiction of some great insurrection is now completely dead. Video proves it.
No! Do you think a few thousand racist god’s army fucks stand any chance against 300+ million.
Are you so misinformed as to believe there’s any chance of some sort of civil war over this?
😔
Seriously? Both parties need to stop pretending there’s no criminal element. Deal with criminals quickly and publicly.
Stop hiding them. ALL of them.
Left/right/whatever!
The reality is the same be it Minnesota or DC.
A small group of people committed crimes. Deal with them in court.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
“ In politics, rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered upon rational choice, deontology, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion”
~Wikipedia.
My use of the term in opposition to religion is far from a minor viewpoint.
It’s one of the most common uses. At least in this country.
Mind you those Europeans you consider used their faith in their book to reach those conclusions in Africa.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
Nor did I. I stated multiple times we’re the minority.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Face book, twitter, google, now AT$T?
There are more important issues than private moderation/censorship/sponsorship/wtf!
Here’s the reuse of the liberal line; “want better” internet? Make your own.
For all the trillions of spendings, infrastructure, where’s the national internet roll out?
All these tech investigations and calls for breakup and who said what and “Russia Russia Russia” is flat out waste of time bullshite.
How about getting the rest of the Americans out of Afghanistan? Or stopping the massive illegal South American exodus across our southern border.
How about fixing our FUBAR healthcare system.
How about doing something beyond finding ways to line your pockets when you get voted out of office???!!!
AT$T funding a partisan station? So what. OAN is just as bonkers as MSNBC in the nonsense crap it dumps out. Just from the other end of the spectrum.
You want news watch CSPAN. Nothing else in the US is non-partisan.
And all this investigate tech crap does nothing for the betterment of the country.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Re: Here's the difference though:
I think the capital security camera footage shows why half of congress is not concerned with the “whole” of Jan 6.
Outside of one little tiny group nothing happened. It was a generally peaceful protest.
After months of focus on the very thing the Dems waive off in regards to BLM protests? The tiny few that cause the violence? Yes, the group of people who broke the law on the 6th should be prosecuted. The few dozen or so.
But don’t expect the world to move when you spend years ignoring the “handful” of those who break the law in liberal protest.
It’s that simple.
On the post: Hacked Data Exposes Law Enforcement Officers Who Joined Far-Right Oath Keepers Group
Questions
Ohkay I know nothing about this group beyond what I read here.
But
This is somehow “ “fresh-off-the-crack-pipe”?
The country has done this multiple times.
I clicked the link:
1* the majority of the country, across parties and beliefs support the right to keep arms
2* i thought techdirt was against Warrantless searches
3* looks good to me. American citizens have rights under the constitution
4* is qualified with “without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.” But I’m a State’s rights libertarian.
5* ohkay. This is problematic. But this is still debated in less public places. Including the government. Are we a republic of independent states (EU/USSR style) or a country of dependent districts (China style)?
I am not of a set opinion either way.
6* as with 5… problematic. And no personal opinion.
7* see opening
8* makes sense
9* as per 7 see opening. The country has done this multiple times
10* zero debate from me.
I see only two constitutional concerns in this. And those are concerns that the 16th president exceeded his authority on.
Remember the federal government invaded state property at the start of the civil war.
That the southern states marched north of their land is equally indefensible!
The right of state within the union has not been fully tested in court.
That aside, there’s nothing directly negative in that charter.
As I started off with, I don’t know who this group is or what they stand for. But the linked source page doesn’t come across as anything to be afraid of.
On the post: OnlyFans Isn't The First Site To Face Moderation Pressure From Financial Intermediaries, And It Won't Be The Last
When they can for …
I did not complain…but then they came for me.
Be it back end like AWS or payment like MasterCard or any other issue. Booting content tends to lead to more booting of content!
Wikileaks, parler, Xweb, onlyfans.
That’s the problem with censorship in general.
Wait around long enough they eventually come for you!
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
No on both counts. I do not.
Though neither do you. This discussion is proof of that.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
You can get married if you want. I’ll shake my head and admit I can’t understand using such a term willingly.
But at the moment those of us who want a bonding that is purely and completely secular are out of luck.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because many of their members do have an opinion. Even if the organisation didn’t commit one way or the other.
Reverting dictation or autocorrect errors as I go are not a top concern for my life.
Some people-you obviously- are bothered by such minor issues. Others: not.
This isn’t general-publication-quality material. It’s a commentary on a low distribution internet article.
That AI is inconsistent at best, is well documented on this very site.
I’m not hung up on minor rules if the text is readable. And I won’t go through any great pains to fully edit such postings.
Bingo. Btw, “rational” has long been the term used by/for non-religious and irreligious thought.
Some of the largest such related publications use it in their titles. The Daily Rationalist, the Rational Times, The Rationalist; or the chain-essay Rational Thoughts on Historical Existence.
Rational thought simply refers to the scientific method as opposed to blind faith.
I stop short of that.
I have no interest in barring private belief. When you pass into that level your no difference than witch hunters.
I stop short of speech. It’s a fine line, sure; religious buildings should not be granted zoning exceptions. To don’t say it. Don’t think it.
But I’m free-speech enough to keep my hatred of religious institutions from crossing that line.
I can separate the fear and doubt that kindles religious beliefs, and the benefits of such beliefs, from the institutions of persecution that run so much of religious belief.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
And fyi: I’m a bi/pan agnostic, and I am not.
And until we have the right to civil bonding with the same protection of the practice currently termed with a word of religious history, we are not equal.
The difference is you are arguing a fight for the word. We are arguing a fight for the law.
I disagree with your view, as you do mine. But we are, actually looking for the same solution. The wording is different.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’d give you judge in that list. It was first used as a religious term for. Religious position.
Though I/we are not after religious use. Just religious source.
Judges were of religious appointments where mediators were of legal/civil positions.
And in reality today’s reality judges, especially the lower levels, are actually mediators. They interpret the law. The jury decides the case within the law and the “judge” mediates the ruling against the law.
Ffrf.org
I’m the minority in the minority, but definitely not alone.
Gods and goddesses. Flat earth. Young earth. Creation.
Things without definite evidence.
When was the last time god sat in a whiteness chair in a court hearing?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the man/woman issue.
Well, with gay, many of them are happy. But that word of itself is not of a religious origin. The transformation of the word is partly the claim that that was exactly the end result, happinesses.
as for awful: actually we’re not far from that base. Awe isn’t necessarily a positive word.
Well it is. 2 classes actually.
First is the religious claim. One that’s not without merit. As this very long chain shows.
The other is the group of people who fight against the chains religion holds over our country!
We are not majority but we are many. The same people who want “good” off our currency. That want the pre-cold-war pledge restored. That want all religious terms and displays
Removed
From public owned locations.
Clearly many are more interested in modifying laws to bring equality than removing laws with religious connotations.
And it’s obvious you aren’t worried about the concerns of atheists, let alone their agnostic supporters like my self.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s no flailing here.
I despise the legal recognition of any terminology that has religious use. More so for terms that have a source in religious practice.
Concept and terminology are separate.
And as long as people foolishly allow such terms to be a part of our law the country remains under the influence of fantasy.
You may be ohkay with the use of the term. I am not. That has nothing to do with what my social opinions are. It’s just another way the cloud worshippers dig their claws into civil society.
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol.
In the mechanical days an operator literally switched plugs and stuck them in different “tubes”.
But I’m sure your right, the SMB vision is probably their line. Ohh, warp tube!
Not freaking and phreaking and 26h and all.
A lot of people put the use of the term on Gore but I’ve seen video bell-breakup era where some senator used the term. Wrongly there too!
You can’t regulate what you won’t try to understand.
I’m the first to admit I’m the last to be doing free speech regulations. I’m too “no restrictions” for that.
If only politicians had the same self awareness.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, with the conclusion regardless of statement.
Because it isn’t “imagined” origin. It’s historical fact. That similar secular practice existed before the terminology, that the term has lost it’s historical meaning, is not a reason to hide your head in the sand.
It is the term itself that is offensive. A lowering of one’s self to the hatred and bigotry of religious practice.
It has nothing to do with sexuality for me. The word has no place in a secular society. Fall for the illusion of success if you must.
But you have in actuality lowered yourself to their level. You acquiesced acceptance of a doctrinal notion.
You can change meaning, but the source, the history, remains.
It’s quite simple. And your conclusion is laughably inaccurate.
You see the use of the term as an elevation of status to equality.
I see any recognition of the term in law as a lessening of the self.
On the post: Tesla 'Self-Driving' NDA Hopes To Hide The Reality Of An Unfinished Product
Re: Re: Oh, wait…what?
I think were agreeing?
When you chose to beta test something it’s not finished. It isn’t expected that it work correctly.
It’s prerelease.
The responsibility falls on the tester to maintain a safe operating environment.
Next >>