or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Fair enough, but I think that the problem is that the current laws are still a bit patchy in this area - hence initiatives such as the subject of this thread to clarify and strengthen them.
Well you summarized the issue, but avoided drawing the obvious conclusion. On a personal level the right to discriminate is essential - you want to choose your personal friends and associates. On a business level that right does not exist in the Constitution, at least as generally interpreted even though Churches get to be exempted there for some reason, and so most businesses do not get to discriminate against individuals. Oh and quit with the silly democracy = mob nonsense.
Unfortunately that assumes rational behavior will prevail, which it demonstrably doesn't. It also assumes that individual instances of such discrimination will tend to be isolated, and thus hurt the discriminator more that the discriminated, which history also shows not to be the case. Minorities tend to get picked on, whether out of fear, religious intolerance or any other tribe-type mindset. 
I'd summarize that article as a blatant attempt at obfuscation that, as usual, disingenuously confuses freedom to practice religion as enshrined in the Constitution with freedom to discriminate against others in non-personal (i.e. business etc.) contexts. He adds the additional slant of pontificating on just vs. unjust discrimination, apparently purely to attempt to lessen the negative connotations of the word in all uses, rather than if that were in any way an aspect of...
 Please stop trying to derail this thread with fact-based arguments. It's highly offensive to some of the older residents.
 Why do these "freedom of speech" rants always degenerate into such stupid, untenable arguments as you make here? So you equate others who break no laws, but simply don't share your values or are somehow different, with criminals, such as child molesters, and imply that there should be equivalency in their treatment? I can only conclude that the dividing line that the law provides between legal and illegal is irrelevant or invisible to you.
I would try to boot from an external source - CD or USB drive - then work on repairing the SSD.
Now I'm actually intrigued. Your posts are such a bizarre mix of factual content (though mostly off-topic) and strange misconceptions. I won't bother to argue with your assessment of the labs, except to point out that it does not support (because it is unrelated to) your premise (that closed research sucks), or counter my point (that the DoD labs are not generally well-funded or particularly well-paid), or address in any way the issue of closed versus open research. I am...
I have to agree with your assessment that his case entirely lacks specifics and hinges on an appeal to authority - his own. He sounds closer to the real thing than many "fake" scientists who post, but then spoils it with the ad homs, unscientific argument and apparent ignorance of the realities of research. If he really is in science then he's a weird one.
 I get the sense that you are just rambling now. Previously it was "science will never give you the truth", now it is "science is always a poor approximation based on an incomplete understanding". These are meaningless slogans, not intelligent observations, and the confusion seems to be all yours. What are you trying to argue - that Newtonian mechanics was not real science, but just an engineering approximation? Frankly, after reading your posts, I do not find your claimed...
New Posts  All Forums: