prev <-> next
[2012-08-10 13:44:02] - aaron: Can I click the link to the comic without spoiling the movie? I still haven't seen Dark Knight Rises. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-10 13:43:40] - Paul: That case's 1st Amendment issues might run into more trouble than normal given Virginia's "Right to Work" laws. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-10 13:14:46] - http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/tech/social-media/deputy-fired-facebook-like/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5 Virginia deputy fights his firing over a Facebook 'like' -Paul
[2012-08-10 13:11:12] - a: If the ticket was for failing to obey a police officer, then I would agree that she wasn't writing tickets for jaywalking, but I would still say she was enforcing jaywalking. -Paul
[2012-08-10 13:10:31] - a: Sure. She was sent there specifically to stop people from jaywalking, right? Just because the ticket might say something else, it doesn't mean she wasn't enforcing jaywalking (enforcing jaywalking laws?). -Paul
[2012-08-10 12:44:15] - http://www.angryflower.com/thepit.html anybody else see batman 3: batman with a vengeance? - aaron
[2012-08-10 12:30:53] - under normal circumstances i don't think she would have enforced jaywalking. ~a
[2012-08-10 12:27:00] - ok . . . if she had given a ticket for disturbing the peace or failing to obey a police officer, would you still say she was enforcing jaywalking? ~a
[2012-08-10 12:04:48] - a: Sounds like enforcing jaywalking to me. -Paul
[2012-08-10 12:00:54] - effectively dee was saying: don't cross the street there or i will ticket you. (i say "effectively" because dee definitely didn't say those words). sure, she was literally enforcing jaywalking, but she was really basically enforcing failing to obey a police officer or contempt of cop or something like that. ~a
[2012-08-10 11:41:15] - a: Giving out tickets for it isn't enforcing? -Daniel
[2012-08-10 11:19:24] - dee doesn't enforce jaywalking. if you listen to her whole story and say "dee enforces jaywalking", you're stretching words. ~a
[2012-08-10 10:31:37] - It's semi-enforced in DC from my own observations, but usually it just invovles a cop yelling at you. - mig
[2012-08-10 10:23:41] - daniel: like I said, it's not strictly enforced. If there was no accident, probably no ticket. - mig
[2012-08-10 10:17:23] - mig: Dee enforces jaywalking! I remember her telling a story about it where people were crossing some big 6 lane road to get to a bus stop or something and they started to give tickets because some accidents had happened. -Daniel
[2012-08-10 10:10:21] - mig: "Utopia is no place", and the grass is always greener, etc. (The grass really IS greener in England) so I'm quite content preferring the U.S. overall, but those specific examples amused me. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-10 10:03:34] - Also with regard to jaywalking, I don't know of many places where it's even enforced. Maybe in some areas of really big cities but even then, not strictly. - mig
[2012-08-10 09:59:44] - xpovos: well i appreciate the jabs, but the UK is not without it's ludicrous laws as well. They progressed in police state survelliance in ways the US pols would like to but can't politically. Brits also don't care for free speech much. - mig
[2012-08-10 09:54:03] - I'm at Obama: 55%. But I meant more the other jabs of the article: that we can't place those bets if we wanted to, as well as some of the other examples of lack of license. I'm content with our jaywalking laws, though. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-10 09:49:21] - I would still bet on Obama, but it would be a cautious. I'm astonished how my outlook on it has changed over the course of a year. - mig
[2012-08-10 09:46:26] - Xpovos: If I had to bet, I would put my money on Obama right now. Wouldn't be at all surprised if Romney wins, but I think it's an uphill battle. -Paul
[2012-08-10 09:44:14] - Comments? http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/strategies/romney-vs-obama-the-oddsmakers-weigh-in-1344372024237/ -- Xpovos
[2012-08-09 16:54:40] - meeting your criteria, can i come up with a hypothetical in which i'd feel responsible? that's harder, but still yes. ~a
[2012-08-09 16:47:55] - a: I think feeling bad is pretty different from feeling responsible. I felt bad for the Tsunami victims in Japan. That doesn't mean I felt like any of it was my fault. -Paul
[2012-08-09 16:35:08] - meeting your criteria, can i come up with a hypothetical in which i'd feel bad? yes. ~a
[2012-08-09 16:34:13] - that depends. ~a
[2012-08-09 16:25:33] - a: Hmmm, so if your company laid off an employee a couple of years after you left it, and that employee's wife died of cancer 5 years later, do you think you deserve some of the blame? -Paul
[2012-08-09 15:36:23] - you said it yourself, there is no direct blame. ~a
[2012-08-09 15:08:02] - It's cerainly a tragic and unfortunate thing what happened to that woman, but trying to blame Romney (even indirectly) for what happened feels a bit grotesque to me. - mig
[2012-08-09 15:05:34] - 1) that's fine, but I'd need something a little more direct than just Romney = Bain ergo his fault the plant closed to make a convicing link. . 2+3) You're right cancer is a slow thing, but there's a multitude of reasons why it can go undetected for so long. Even unfettered access to the best care imaginable is not fullproof safeguard (see Steve Jobs). - mig
[2012-08-09 14:25:00] - one of my relatives had 2 months to live for over 5 years. ~a
[2012-08-09 14:24:16] - 1) so? just because he left bain before it happened doesn't mean he's innocent. 2) false. she had insurance during "some points" 3) cancer works at a snail's pace. ~a
[2012-08-09 14:01:11] - tying it to Romney himself. - mig
[2012-08-09 14:01:04] - What makes it even worse is the omission of several facts. 1) Romney was not involved with Bain Capital when the plant filed for bankruptcy. 2) The wife of the steelworker still had her health insurance through her employer 3) She died 5 years after the plant closing. Honestly even tying Bain Capital itself to the woman's death is quite a stretch, let alone ...
[2012-08-09 13:56:43] - a: The implication that Romney somehow is at fault for the wife of some laid off steelworker dying of cancer is bad enough on its own. Now, I haven't followed political ads all that closely, but that might be the worst thing I've ever seen against any candidate in recent memory. - mig
[2012-08-09 13:48:01] - mig: it's not a hypothetical. what's unseemly about it? ~a
[2012-08-09 13:10:16] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/priorities-ad-ties-mitt-romney-to-cancer-death/2012/08/07/d723d8c0-e084-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html is anyone else bothered by this ad? I'm used to seeing nasty political attacks but even this one seems particularly unseemly to me, and not just because it plays loose with the facts. - mig
[2012-08-09 12:45:32] - a: you're right, I should! - vinnie
[2012-08-09 12:04:12] - vinnie: you should watch the wire. ~a
[2012-08-09 11:54:34] - vinnie: I'll put it under consideration. - mig
[2012-08-09 11:45:31] - mig: hey, you should watch The Wire - vinnie
[2012-08-09 10:20:11] - vinnie: as long as you aren't posting daily about how great the show is on facebook (like someone I know is doing about The Newsroom) it's probably not considered annoying to most people. - mig
[2012-08-09 09:54:57] - agreed! -Daniel
[2012-08-09 09:31:05] - daniel: I remember that episode. The Wire is so good. I'm one of those annoying people who tells everyone they need to watch the Wire. hey everybody, watch The Wire! The Wire. - vinnie
[2012-08-08 15:54:59] - mig: Your case is pretty much what happened In The Wire - the police confisticate like 30k from a guy even when they cant prove anything but tell him if he can figure out a way to claim it legally he can have it back. He can't so he loses out. -Daniel
[2012-08-08 15:54:12] - mig: I'm not sure I followed the end of that? Did someone give him his money back? I think that definitely you can get it taken, just that afterwards if you are able to prove how you got it legally then they would give it back. -Daniel
[2012-08-08 15:06:17] - daniel: http://forfeiturereform.com/2012/08/08/asset-seizure-and-forfeiture-the-states-often-wrong-rationale-for-seizing-currency-during-a-traffic-stop/ - mig
[2012-08-08 14:17:41] - title:
~a[2012-08-08 13:46:59] - Humanities* ~g
[2012-08-08 13:45:58] - a: i think the key is out of the office he currently is in not out of the office all together
~g[2012-08-08 13:44:45] - a: we had better ones for cmu departments... SCS = School of Computer Science = Still Can't Score; HSS = Humantities and Social Sciences = Holy Sh*t I'm Stupid and so forth... ~g
[2012-08-08 13:43:28] - hahaha, are you confusing salary with muscles? ~a
[2012-08-08 13:43:01] - paul: thanks hun! But that would require me to edit my resume which is slightly outdated. I havent looked for a job in over 6 years! ~g
[2012-08-08 13:42:27] - a: im also not qualified to be cfo... But it would be amusing to apply! ~g
[2012-08-08 13:42:07] - g: I can submit your resume if you want me to.
-Paul[2012-08-08 13:40:28] - g: cfo stands for can't find office. ~a
[2012-08-08 13:36:58] - a: I'm guessing not. but I also don't think the Liberty Dollar much resembled United States coins other than being roughly the same size and shape (which would seem to define a coin more than a US coin). -Paul
[2012-08-08 13:36:42] - aaron: Thank you, but I'll probably not apply there. .NET/Java are things I'd have to learn, which doesn't bode well. I'm much more comfortable with SQL, even there I know I'd be behind the curve, but it's something I could pick up faster. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-08 13:35:04] - g: A change of field might be nice. I think my skillset is adaptable, but of course I have to be able to demonstrate that to a future employer, which is definitely harder to do. Basically, right now I want anything that will compensate me better and get me out of this office. The environment has become problematic for my long term mental health. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-08 13:30:15] - paul: I would be willing to apply as CFO
~g[2012-08-08 13:29:23] - aaron: hmm maybe you can recruit paul so there are even more people at pragmatics
although the database jobs seem to be in DC ~g[2012-08-08 13:28:01] - Xpovos: http://ejob.bz/ATS/CompanyPortal.do?refresh=true&companyGK=18399&portalGK=1305 Not sure if you're interested in commuting to Reston or if any of the jobs interest you, but I would be happy to submit your resume for any of these. -Paul
[2012-08-08 13:18:15] - xpovos: http://www.pragmatics.com/careers/current-openings i've been interviewing a lot of people for .NET/Java developer positions lately, but afaik it would involve a commute to alexandria or reston. you might still check pragmatics' website for openings though - aaron
[2012-08-08 13:18:14] - xpovos: my company is hiring, but its nothing at all related or even remotely similar to what you do now. ~g
[2012-08-08 13:17:29] - xpovos: what sort of job are you looking for? I am impressed with the salary related to public servants - at least fireman
~g[2012-08-08 13:00:52] - "resemblance and similitude of United States coins" doesn't apply to bitcoin, right? ~a
[2012-08-08 12:58:57] - a: If they didn't declare them illegal, then why did they arrest the guy that was making them? -Paul
[2012-08-08 12:41:46] - ugh, initially they sent there meaning you used to not be able to book through them. Now you can... I still use them though. Not sure what issues you have had but I havent had real issues with any of my travel sites. Oh except cheapoair which we used to book ireland tickets. ~g
[2012-08-08 12:40:53] - xpovos: the best though was when I was a student and could use student universe - cause the flights were cheap! 450 bucks for a round trip to singapore! Awesome! ~g
[2012-08-08 12:40:21] - xpovos: I always start with Kayak but at least initially they would send you to other sites for final purchases. I have also used both Orbitz and Expedia and been happy with all three. ~g
[2012-08-08 12:39:50] - paul: i don't think they declared liberty dollars were illegal. they just spread doubt about the legality. ~a
[2012-08-08 12:39:00] - oh right. silverlight. that's why they won't support webgl. ~a
[2012-08-08 12:35:46] - a: Interesting. So it sounds like alternative currencies are perfectly legal until the government decides it's not?
-Paul[2012-08-08 12:35:35] - http://caniuse.com/#feat=webm . . . not as mainstream, because apple also refuses to support it. ~a
[2012-08-08 12:33:38] - mig: webgl is mainstream: http://caniuse.com/#feat=webgl ~a
[2012-08-08 12:22:17] - I did some digging on 2 diablo clone browser based games that I recently read about and to my dissappointment, they are actually not using webgl, but this thing. So I guess there's still some hesitation by developers to adopt webgl still. - mig
[2012-08-08 12:04:18] - There was also some security concerns in general about the way webgl is able to access the GPU directly though if that's been allieviated since I last read about it a year ago. - mig
[2012-08-08 11:47:58] - MS declared webgl "unsafe" a while back. So don't expect support unless it really hits the mainstream. - mig
[2012-08-08 11:44:27] - ie10 won't support webm and won't support webgl? lame. ~a
[2012-08-08 11:43:24] - I'm once again looking for alternate work options, if anyone is hiring or if their companies are hiring. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-08 11:28:12] - g: strange they have no policy regarding male students who father children. I know charter schools are given flexibility in their policies but certainly this goes quite overboard. - mig
[2012-08-08 10:58:48] - http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48554183#.UCJ-DaOfijc wowzers, a hs that forces girls to take pregnancy tests if they suspect they are pregnant! (and then kicks them out of school if they are) ~g
[2012-08-08 10:56:55] - xpovos: Yes. - mig
[2012-08-08 10:50:23] - mig: But we agree this is a problem with laws and enforcement, not cash. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-08 10:44:37] - daniel: well, yes, you can technically. Asset Foreiture laws and procedures don't make it an easy though. - mig
[2012-08-08 10:39:40] - mig: At least thats what The Wire taught me. -Daniel
[2012-08-08 10:39:27] - mig: I think that might be true but if you can prove to the authorities how you got the cash you can get it back. -Daniel
[2012-08-08 10:13:23] - a: well, already the police can confiscate cash you have on you if you're deemed to have "too much of it" on your person because of drug war nonsense. The more the currency gets associated with drugs I can see situations happening where searched laptops might get confiscated if they're found to have bitcoins. - mig
[2012-08-08 09:15:48] - xpovos: i've used expedia to plan all of my trips to california/pittsburgh and it's always easy to compare/purchase flights. i've never used their customer service but their fee structure/website seemed fine to me - aaron
[2012-08-08 09:09:47] - so, looking at the liberty dollar page, these are the two codes that liked to be used on this topic, and i'm pretty sure they don't apply: 18 USC § 486 & 18 USC § 514 ~a
[2012-08-08 09:06:19] - paul: back to our conversation at your house: bitcoins are illegal because they're not legal tender. also liberty dollar and their governmental woes. ~a
[2012-08-08 08:54:07] - well ok, but if bitcoin is used primarily for illegal behavior, the govies will crack down on it. same thing go for guns and bullets, i'm guessing. ~a
[2012-08-08 08:38:18] - a: It reflects 'badly' on bitcoin? I think you'd be better off saying it reflected badly on Silk Road, or TOR. Blaming bitcoin here isn't even blaming guns for gun deaths, but bullets. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-07 17:38:39] - yeah, i'm not surprised. i think this reflects badly on bitcoin, but i honestly don't think it's a problem with bitcoin itself. ~a
[2012-08-07 16:19:57] - a: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/study-estimates-2-million-a-month-in-bitcoin-drug-sales/ -Paul
[2012-08-07 13:57:26] - Kayak was on my radar, I'll probably try them next. Expedia is a good option too. But I'd like a wider range of experience than two trips, ideally. This trip is plane tickets only. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-07 13:56:17] - mig: Poor customer service, in particular poor decisions by corporate to require certain aspects of customer service that are just really bad, unclear arrangements, terrible fee structure and a non-standards-compliant website. It's not the kind of thing that would cause me to absolutely boycott them, but I see no reason to go back when there are lots of other options
[2012-08-07 13:29:31] - also what kind of atrocities are we talking about? cancelled flights? double booking? or just difficulties getting the arragnements set up? - mig
[2012-08-07 13:28:33] - Xpovos: For plane tickets? hotels? both? Kayak.com and Hipmunk.com are both sites I use when looking for tickets. -Daniel
[2012-08-07 13:27:16] - xpovos: my 2 lone trips necessitating travel planning in recent memory were all booked with expedia. Though the first trip was set up for me by someone else. But the 2nd trip was relatively painless for me. - mig
[2012-08-07 13:23:47] - People who travel lots: I'm done with Travelocity... this last issue was an atrocity. Ok, not that bad, but it rhymed so it was fun. But it was bad enough that I never want to use them again. Who do you use? Is there someone else I should look to in the industry? -- Xpovos
[2012-08-06 14:39:15] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/devin-thomas-retires-age-25-155745925--nfl.html potential problem down the road for the NFL? I realize that Devin Thomas isn't exactly a notable player, but he's not the first to retire early due to fears of the consequences of an NFL career. - mig
[2012-08-06 13:39:22] - In this case just a minor spat with a colleague, but it sets the tone to negative and impacts everything going forward for an unreasonable period of time. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-06 13:37:22] - what thing? ~a
[2012-08-06 13:15:24] - It's amazing how one small thing can ruin a mood and wreck and entire day.
-- Xpovos[2012-08-05 17:35:18] - a: Huh. This one? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/chicken_lips_are_scarce_YjYD7gxNbcBd4WhzBWcJgN -- Xpovos
[2012-08-05 09:20:02] - xpovos: 404 not found: The requested resource could not be found but may be available again in the future. Subsequent requests by the client are permissible. ~a
[2012-08-04 15:08:02] - “I was here to realize every male fantasy — watching lesbians kiss,” he said. “Now I get to buy a spicy chicken sandwich and waffle fries." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/chicken_lips_are_scarce -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 16:34:11] - npr hasn't been talking about libya much. ~a
[2012-08-03 15:58:26] - paul: i don't know, 107.3 has been playing better music lately so i stopped listening to NPR ergo i don't know anything about libya at all - aaron
[2012-08-03 15:29:47] - mig: I feel like there was a lot of support on the message board for intervening in Libya, so I'm wondering if those same people think we should intervene in Syria. -Paul
[2012-08-03 15:28:10] - mig: "congress probably won't give him the permission he needs to get militarily invovled" I know you basically covered it in the second half of your sentence, but that really didn't seem to slow him down at all when it came to Libya.
-Paul[2012-08-03 15:20:35] - paul: the reasons are almost certainly election year politics. I would wager congress probably won't give him the permission he needs to get militarily invovled, and he probably doesn't want to risk another divisive bitchfest over the WPA so close to november. - mig
[2012-08-03 14:51:48] - I was wondering about that, but doesn't the US dislike voting out presidents during wartime? -Paul
[2012-08-03 14:47:39] - oops i used the wrong signature!! my ruse! - aaron
[2012-08-03 14:47:14] - paul: wait isn't heart of the swarm coming out early 2013? hmm maybe 2014 - aaron
[2012-08-03 14:46:54] - paul: defense spending is bad for approval ratings! maybe in 2013
[2012-08-03 14:36:38] - Can anybody explain to me why we haven't intervened in Syria yet like we did in Libya? I know they are different situations, but on the surface, they seem pretty similar. -Paul
[2012-08-03 13:01:18] - http://www.foddy.net/CLOP.html the guy who made "qwop" made a horse game called "clop" - aaron
[2012-08-03 12:52:11] - xpovos: i feel like homosexuals should be a protected class for government jobs, and that gay couples should be recognized in the same way straight couples are for government benefits like health care/next of kin/etc... beyond that i'm not 100% sure - aaron
[2012-08-03 12:49:03] - xpovos: yeah, discriminate has negative connotations, but i didn't mean to imply that you meant it in a negative way. just that you know, the government doesn't care what race you are, but they care what age you are. the government doesn't care if you're heterosexual, but they do care if you're involved in a heterosexual marriage - aaron
[2012-08-03 12:44:41] - aaron: I'd say discriminate is probably a loaded word, but the interpretation is probably reasonably accurate. I don't want to treat homosexuals as second class citizens, but they necessarily can't partake in certain things that they might like to, and which heterosexuals can. That's discriminatory. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 12:36:11] - aaron: I think you mostly got me right. Get government out of marriage. If it's going to be involved, though, then they shouldn't be discriminating against gays, but also not against polygamists or other kinds of consensual marriage. -Paul
[2012-08-03 12:27:52] - a: i'm putting words in a lot of people's mouths right now and i'm still not clear on xpovos' position so probably misrepresenting, but that's my best guess/recollection - aaron
[2012-08-03 12:27:10] - a: pretty sure paul/mig are still in the "the government shouldn't care marriage or sexual orientation" camp, while xpovos is in the "the gov't shouldn't care about marriage -- but it should remain legal for organizations/businesses to discriminate against gay couples in certain circumstances" - aaron
[2012-08-03 12:24:16] - a: paul wasn't arguing that marriage should be one man one woman, i didn't get that subtext from any of his statements at all. i think he was just saying that there might be confusion between the gov't legalizing gay marriage, and the gov't forcing gay churches to conduct gay ceremonies (or something like that) - aaron
[2012-08-03 12:20:19] - a: That's aaron's meanness argument. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 11:42:53] - there we go. ~a
[2012-08-03 11:42:41] - a: I think the more damning evidence is that I have decided not to boycott Chick-Fil-A (even if I didn't go to the appreciation day). -Paul
[2012-08-03 11:36:07] - paul: "If gay marriage ever becomes widely legal in the US, though, I think you'll see that change in a hurry, because any church that doesn't recognize gay marriages would be discriminating." subtext: marriage should be between one man and one woman. ~a
[2012-08-03 11:31:38] - paul/mig/g:
~a[2012-08-03 11:14:25] - a: not sure where you came up with Paul/Mig being anti gay marriage... Honestly I dont know xpovos' view but I am surprised you would think that about paul/mig. ~g
[2012-08-03 10:35:00] - a: is there another mig on the message board that I'm not aware of? I don't recall ever having anything resembling a pro-TM viewpoint. Also I don't really change titles unless I have an amusing anecdote to replace it with. - mig
[2012-08-03 10:33:15] - a: "marriage should be between one man and one woman?" .... Seriously? -Paul
[2012-08-03 10:29:38] - paul/xpovos/mig: on an somewhat related note, why did you guys let my title live so long? doesn't it fly in the face of your whole: marriage should be between one man and one woman? ~a
[2012-08-03 10:24:07] - it's the execution under that definition that really matters though. when the government says you aren't allowed to have various benefits because your marriage is invalid, then people are physically harmed. ~a
[2012-08-03 10:23:54] - "If I define 4 = 2 how does that harm anyone?" valid point. feelings can be hurt though. if i defined marriage to be between one white man and one white woman, then feelings of those who aren't white could be hurt by that definition. ~a
[2012-08-03 10:16:35] - daniel: that sounds reasaonable to me. - mig
[2012-08-03 10:09:14] - mig: Yeah. It really is next to impossible to argue, or debate, without a common set of definitions. You just end up in shouting matches. But of course to let someone else define anything these days also allows them to define the issue (pro-choice/anti-choice/pro-life etc. as aaron noted). -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 10:08:01] - Well I guess if the gov had civil unions and marriage licenses it could be seen as them beging categorized differently but I would just get rid of gov marriage licenses and put everyone in the civil union group (from the gov perspective). If people want "marriage" then they go talk to a church. -Daniel
[2012-08-03 10:06:54] - xpovos: that is the hangup where I get unbelievably confused as to who's arguing what when this issue comes up. - mig
[2012-08-03 10:04:56] - of course, I could be very wrong on the whole "license is all that's legally important" thing. You all have gone through the marriage process, after all, so you would know better than a view from someone on the outside. - mig
[2012-08-03 10:03:29] - Daniel: It's absolutely about the word marriage. You'll find there's amazingly less rejection of the notion of civil unions. But "civil unions" has been rejected as a compromise position by many liberals because it still forces homosexuals to be categorized differently... that is intrinsically alienated. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 10:02:07] - Unless I'm a religious engineer and build a bridge based on those assumptions or something. But that's application of the definition. Which is what we're discussing, I know. But the root is in the definition. The problem is in the application. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 10:01:20] - a: That's a very valid question. Certainly the people who think it's divinely revealed believe so. After all, "God told me to do it" is only just behind "The Devil made me do it" in terms of excuses for behavior. But when does a definition hurt someone else? If I define 4 = 2 how does that harm anyone? -- Xpovos
[2012-08-03 09:58:19] - Now I may have this wrong on this, but it seems in the eyes of the state, obtaining the marriage license is really all that's important for its recognition. Obviously individuals for the most part value the wedding ceremony a great deal, but the government doesn't really care if you have one or not, or if a christian church refuses to hold a ceremony for you. - mig
[2012-08-03 09:54:00] - mig: Hmmm, is a boy scout troop leader not a job? What about the Hooters example that Daniel gave? -Paul
[2012-08-03 09:52:24] - paul: I think the distinction is that most people view the opportunity to have a job is an unalienable right, whereas being the member of a private club is not. - mig
[2012-08-03 09:49:32] - Daniel: Right, my initial thought was that it's obviously illegal for a business to not hire somebody because they are female or black or gay or whatever, but then I realized the examples of places like the Boy Scouts and Augusta. Do you know what the difference is there? -Paul
[2012-08-03 09:40:10] - slapped down really hard by the supreme court. - mig
[2012-08-03 09:39:53] - paul: I don't doubt there is probably a small contingent of the pro-same sex marriage who would want to force churches to marry gay couples, but I can't imagine it ever happening. The politicians who would push for it would be committing career suicide, most of the current movement doesn't want to go that far, and I'm fairly confident such attempts would get ...
[2012-08-03 09:38:02] - Paul: Pretty sure private institutions can discriminate in several ways. Augusta (the golf club) is still men only. Boy Scouts don't like gays. Hooters can hire only hot chicks. I'm not sure what all the rules for it are but its not just all private things must conform to the current gov standard. -Daniel
[2012-08-03 09:36:39] - paul: if there were no other way to legally get married except through churches, the argument might have some merit. But you can easily get married without the assistance of a church these days. - mig
[2012-08-03 09:34:51] - mig: Maybe you're right. I just assumed that if the government decided that people had a "right" to something, then it would logically follow that it would be illegal to not acknowledge that "right", but I guess it isn't always that clear cut. -Paul
[2012-08-03 09:32:44] - aaron: Because wouldn't it be discrimination otherwise? I'll fully admit that I could be wrong here, but aren't there anti-discrimination rules that would apply? How do the boy scouts get away with discriminating against gays? -Paul
[2012-08-03 09:28:50] - paul: I do think that's one fear that a lot of churches have that I think is unfounded. Can the state governments where same sex is reconginzed force christian churches to marry same sex couples right now? I think that would have immediately triggered a supreme court case right then and there if that was the case. - mig
[2012-08-03 09:24:41] - paul: i don't think that's true. the government recognizes/condones a lot of stuff which churches don't recognize/condone... why would people suddenly expect churches' beliefs to line up with their government? - aaron
[2012-08-03 09:22:40] - aaron: I don't know, but I doubt anybody would phrase it that way. If you ask, "Should the government make discrimination against gay marriage illegal", though, I think you would get a lot of people agreeing. -Paul
[2012-08-03 09:21:09] - aaron: "i don't think the government cares about what churches recognize" If gay marriage ever becomes widely legal in the US, though, I think you'll see that change in a hurry, because any church that doesn't recognize gay marriages would be discriminating. -Paul
[2012-08-03 09:19:59] - paul: is there anybody on the messgae board who thinks the government should stay in the marriage business? i don't think so but -- i kind of forget - aaron
[2012-08-03 09:17:25] - Daniel: "shouldn't the Gov just get out of the "marriage" business". Careful, that's the stance that Ron Paul takes which got him labeled as anti-gay marriage here at one point.
-Paul[2012-08-03 09:14:40] - daniel: i don't *think* any gay people care about what the church recognizes, they care about what the government recognizes. if it's the former, it wouldn't be a government issue because i don't think the government cares about what churches recognize - aaron
[2012-08-03 09:05:42] - If we are talking about anything that has to do with "divine" anything then I'm all for letting churches handle it. If we are talking about who can be on who's health insurance or who gets the default stuff when someone dies or who is allowed into a hospital room to be with someone then having a church decide that seems kinda wacky. -Daniel
[2012-08-03 09:04:25] - -Daniel
[2012-08-03 09:04:24] - Is the word marriage important? Do gay people care about "the church" recognizing their union in front of god or do they care about the legal rights that get conferred by the gov. If its the latter then shouldn't the Gov just get out of the "marriage" business and into the recognizing civil unions b/w two adult consenting individuals and leave the god to others?
[2012-08-03 00:08:48] - xpovos: what about when people's lives are negatively affected by interpretations of things that are "divinely revealed". do we continue to use interpretations of things that are divinely revealed if they also hurt people? ~a
[2012-08-03 00:01:03] - Wow. Typing on an iPad is really shitty. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 23:59:46] - aaron: That's exactly what I expected you to say. Explaining it will take paragraphs... That's why I tried the alternate path. Cathy wants to use a "divinely revealed" and/or ancient and/or natural definition. Others are using/demanding a modern equivalency-type defenition. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 23:54:28] - ahhh i follow now. ~a
[2012-08-02 23:53:28] - a: Reproduction got introduced with Eugenics, not marriage specifically. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 23:33:19] - what does reproduction have to do with marriage? ~a
[2012-08-02 23:29:00] - aaron: "i think we are inviting god's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. i pray god's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." cathy supposing that he should define what marriage is about. ~a
[2012-08-02 23:28:43] - xpovos: i guess you're right that reproduction is "more fundamental" than marriage. i don't know though, i'd say denying people the right to marry is also denying them a fundamental human dignity. maybe i'm misunderstanding your words - aaron
[2012-08-02 23:18:00] - paul: a combination. ~a
[2012-08-02 20:49:46] - We lack a shared vocabulary. So perhaps a definitional look is better, probably not. Ultimately eugenics is about who gets to define a right to procreate. This issue is about who gets to define marriage. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 20:48:26] - So... meanness. I don't think it's meanness vs. efficiency. I think it's identifying a right vs a wrong, or a best option vs. a good option in some cases. Eugenics is wrong because it fails to acknowledge a fundamental human dignity. I've been thinking a bit about how to explain these other positions in terms of human dignity and it's been hard. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 18:25:03] - xpovos: have you been cutting teddy bears in half again!!! - aaron
[2012-08-02 18:02:22] - aaron: I'm generally in the "government shouldn't" camp, with regards to almost everything. One of the difficulties here is that we're dealing with an unit of measurement smaller than the government but which serves a similar purpose: organizing people towards common goals. I want to come back to the meanness issue, but I hear a daughter crying... -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 17:11:47] - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement#section_2 hmm i guess it's not on the main wikipedia page so that link didn't work - aaron
[2012-08-02 17:11:08] - List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement#section_2 millihelen: a metric term for the amount of beauty required to sail a single ship (named after helen of troy, of course) - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:38:20] - xpovos: oh and yeah i'm not really trying to argue "the government should/the government shouldn't", i'm just trying to express that like you, i'm not 100% on one side or the other, one side seems inefficient and the other side seems mean. personally i'd rather be inefficient than mean but i understand if sometimes the government needs to be mean - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:29:46] - xpovos: okay see you! - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:29:31] - xpovos: but yeah like maybe every time a heterosexual couple between the ages of 18 and 24 has unprotected sex, obama gives you a dollar or something, i don't know. i totally understand why stuff like that makes practical sense and how our government can help encourage traditional families to flourish - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:29:18] - Hmm. You sucker punched me as I'm heading out the door. I thought we were making progress, but you were just setting up an analogy. I guess it gives me more time to contemplate a response. Not running away... just running to the carpool. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:28:42] - xpovos: yeah i'm not all "100% equal rights for gays" either i totally understand where you're coming from about how a traditional "nuclear family environment" might be better for children, and maybe the government needs to provide advantages for heterosexual couples to encourage that, it makes logical sense. it just seems mean - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:26:08] - aaron: Yeah, it's also not something I'm hung over on. I'm not going to go protest in front of the state capitol if they permit it. To abuse a meme, I've got 99 problems, but HS-marriage and adoption of children ain't one of them. It's just that if I'm forced to pick a side, I end up picking this other side from most of you. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:25:22] - xpovos: again, kind of like i understand why it makes sense like people with certain genetic defects shouldn't have children. i just feel like just because something isn't optimal, doesn't mean it should be illegal. especially if making it illegal requires you to hurt a lot of otherwise happy families - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:23:05] - xpovos: and yeah that sounds plausible to me, i feel like men and women are different enough that growing up without a strong male/female role-model would disadvantage a child socially - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:21:36] - xpovos: yeah, i agree that intuitively, "one mom one dad" makes sense and it's how families have been working for 5,000-ish years, and intuitively the families should be healthier and growing up around both parents would help you grow up normaller. just putting it into practice seems really icky and bad to me - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:20:57] - * the study I read indicated that children growing up in a same-sex marriage household performed generally at the same level on certain mental wellness tests as children from single-parent or divorced parent households, which were both significantly lower than traditional nuclear family households. Probably still better than those from foster care situations. -- X
[2012-08-02 16:18:51] - Third is that adoption is generally speaking a state-law issue, which is adds even more complication, but might actually be better long term because we can experiment and see what works best, and where people are happiest. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:18:09] - aaron: These are as close to my own beliefs as I can get within the confines of the issues. Adoption's a tricky one for a lot of reasons. First is that a lot of organizations that sponsor adoption are faith-based, and opposed to the idea, which makes the whole process ugly if you force it. Second is that there's evidence that it is harmful* to the child. ... -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:13:40] - xpovos: i understand theoretically why a government might want to organize people into one-man-one-woman couples for the sake of passing on traditional values (much in the same way that i 'understand' eugenics) but i don't know, every time i think about concretely enforcing it it as far as, "you can adopt, you can't adopt," it just seems cruel to me - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:11:27] - xpovos: are those your personal beliefs or just examples? i can't imagine why two moms couldn't form any less of a family unit than one mom. and i guess arguably i didn't grow up in a "family unit" cause it was just my mom there but i don't know, it felt like a family to me - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:10:46] - FYI, my caveats on that previous issue would be 1) human. 2) Only one (at a time). Same thing goes for death 'benefits', etc. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:09:43] - But now I'm just defining my positions, which are probably not anyone else's, so categorizing around my shape is probably a bad idea. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:09:07] - aaron: Heh, I'm sure they'll have a cardio screen for their next guy. And he gets fewer free meals at the restaurants. Should heterosexual couples get special treatment?: no. Can non-heterosexual couples realistically form a family unit?: no. Can they share health care: yes* (caveats). Adopt children: no. Etc. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:07:10] - xpovos: but there's no snappy 3-word-phrase like "pro-traditional-marriage", it took me like four sentences to explain it to myself and i'm still not convinced i did a good job - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:05:24] - xpovos: it really doesn't (imho) have anything to do with religion, or marriage, it just has to do with whether non-heterosexual-couples can realistically form a family unit, and whether they can share health care and share custody of adopted children, stuff like that - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:04:32] - xpovos: yeah i don't know, i mean we had the discussion of how pro-life/pro-choice might arguably be better-represented as pro-choice/anti-choice, that's more what i was trying to draw the analogy towards. really the question is whether heterosexual couples should get special treatment by the US government - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:02:47] - xpovos: yeah, exactly, maybe they can find a new PR guy with fewer heartattacks and get this all sorted. but like you pointed out earlier, for every boycott there's an anti-boycott so maybe this will just solidify their chick-fil-a fanbase - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:02:47] - Aaron: Mm. Interesting different tack. Let's try it. I'd consider myself to be provisionally pro-TM. Do I also consider myself to be provisionally anti-HS marriage? Yeah... probably. I think that's an acceptable logical statement. Certainly much cleaner than the pro-life/pro-choice one. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 16:01:28] - xpovos: "pro-traditional-marriage" would imply stuff like, "straight people should be allowed to get married" or "the government needs to stop interfering with christian marriage ceremonies..." or maybe "there should be laws to stop hate groups from picketing heterosexual weddings" that's not really what they want - aaron
[2012-08-02 16:00:54] - aaron: Essentially, I guess. CFA is definitely pro-TM. They may also be anti-HS. Knowing what they are thinking is difficult, so we try to read that by their actions. They support pro-TM groups. Those groups also might be anti-HS, but their biggest chunk of support is for a group we've not been able to conclusively identify, let alone identify their positions. -- X
[2012-08-02 15:59:21] - xpovos: it's really really hard to separate the two ideas, because, kind of like the goofy pro-choice/pro-life labels most people who are self-proclaimed "pro-traditional-marriage" are actually "anti-gay-marriage" they just don't like how that sounds - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:57:14] - xpovos: "them" meaning, chick-fil-a? you're speaking pretty abstractly but i think what you're trying to say is, chick-fil-a is pro-traditional-marriage, but they accidentally supported some groups which are pro-gay-discrimination and they didn't mean to do that - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:56:31] - Interesting also that their head of PR died of a heart attack right in the middle of this whole controversy. Really bad timing. I'm sure that hasn't helped their response in terms of accuracy or coherence. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 15:55:23] - aaron: It's definitely a different set of values. They strongly believe A, and may be in the B camp, and if they are, they may well believe that A implies B, which is problematic. Or that B is acceptable, if different (still problematic). But the only things I've seen (so far, still doing research) confirmed from them is A-type material. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 15:52:33] - xpovos: and i think it's telling that over the past couple years (this controversy dates back to like 2009 iirc) chick-fil-a hasn't said anything similar, renouncing/cutting ties to these kinds of pro-traditional-marriage/anti-gay groups - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:51:06] - It's probably a difficult line. There are probably a lot of people in these organizations who want B but claim A. That definitely makes A less defensible, regardless of the logical position; simply because of the realities. I understand that, and it's very frustrating to me. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 15:50:41] - xpovos: but yeah again, maybe it's a splinter group or maybe it's a parody, who knows. still, it would be nice if chick-fil-a distanced themselves from this kind of opinion... the instant the Jim Henson Company found out about chick-fil-a's ties to this shit, they were like, "hold the phone, we absolutely 100% do not support anti-gay religious groups, etc etc" - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:47:00] - xpovos: well, the question of whether a christian group which promotes the definition of marriage as one-woman-one-man as anti-gay is a little fuzzy. this page goes a lot further than that, to where they're explicitly saying "we want it to be legal to discriminate against homosexuals" - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:38:15] - (To answer a part of my own question). -- XPovos
[2012-08-02 15:38:03] - aaron: The site you linked is also linked by a new article. I'm not sure it's right, because it's strange that it's Virginia-centric, but it's the top Google site. Maybe the ctual group doesn't have a page. Maybe this is a splinter group, etc. But the two positions of essentially trying to re-criminalize sodomy and opposing domestic partner benefits are anti-gay.
[2012-08-02 15:33:15] - aaron: This gets back to a discussion we've had before. Is Christian group which promotes the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman inherently anti-gay for speaking their religious beliefs? Related, but different to my question to a earlier. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 15:20:50] - http://familyfoundation.org/initiatives/marriage/ assuming this is their web page (maybe it's not) they seem to explicitly oppose domestic partner benefits, and oppose homosexual behavior as a protected class, because it infringes on religious liberty - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:18:34] - i don't know if chick-fil-a explicitly denounced the accusations, but presumably they'd either have to deny donating to the marriage & family foundation or deny that marriage & family foundation have an anti-gay agenda? do you think one of those is true? - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:16:44] - xpovos: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177807/The-Muppets-Jim-Henderson-company-cut-ties-Chick-Fil-A-restaurant-presidents-anti-gay-marriage-comments.html#ixz according to an LGBT group "equality matters", chick-fil-a donated nearly $2million to "christian groups with a known anti-gay- agenda" such as the Marriage & Family Foundation - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:11:58] - a: which statements by which executives? - aaron
[2012-08-02 15:03:00] - paul: my stance on nyc is not related to chick fil-a, more so with Bloomberg desire to ban anything that is delicious. - mig
[2012-08-02 15:01:22] - mig: Was NYC one of the cites? I knew Chicago was one, right? -Paul
[2012-08-02 15:00:48] - a: Just to be clear, will you not eat there because of the CEO's statements? Because the charitable funding? Something else? A combination? -Paul
[2012-08-02 15:00:36] - paul: hey! I sort of boycott nyc. - mig
[2012-08-02 14:59:28] - mig: I never saw any confirmation for them giving money to the anti-gay groups. There's plenty of money going to charitable organizations, but most of those are squeaky clean. It's a private company, so the money could be going anywhere, but all I saw was rumors. If there's more than that, I'd be interested to know. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 14:59:07] - a: I guess the appropriate thing for me to do is to boycott the cities those mayors are mayors of?
-Paul[2012-08-02 14:57:27] - xpovos: it's a little bit deeper than that. Not just a statement of beliefs but also the political activity (giving money to groups) on top of that. - mig
[2012-08-02 14:50:36] - Note: I'm not denying that you can do that... if an Aztec owned a restaraunt and said, "I believe in human sacrifice, it's part of our core values here at Tenotich-lan-A", I'd be inclined to avoid eating there as well. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 14:49:02] - a: Because he made a statement of fact about what his religion believes? -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 14:35:59] - (a flip-flop from what i argued here earlier in the week) i'm against the mayor's moves to try to keep out a private company that hasn't broken any laws. still, i'm more against these remarks made by the executives. i will likely not eat there anymore. ~a
[2012-08-02 14:33:57] - jon stuart was with you guys: he was like . . . uhhh, you can't do that: you're a mayor. ~a
[2012-08-02 14:19:16] - mig: I don't know, but it definitely had a big affect on me. I disliked the CEO's comments. I thought the boycotters were a little misguided, but had no problem with it (they are free to boycott if they want), but I had a BIG issue with the reaction by the mayors. I went from ambivalent about Chick-Fil-A appreciation day to somewhat supporting it. -Paul
[2012-08-02 14:08:09] - paul: that's an interesting wrinkle. I do wonder how much those 2 mayors damaged the cause of the boycotters by essentially threatening censorship on Chick Fil-A? - mig
[2012-08-02 14:00:55] - but ultimately the long term relationship between a consumer and Chick-Fil-A is based around the price, the food and the customer service. Not the personal beliefs of the owners. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 14:00:22] - a: Probably more than that, though, I wasn't sure if I would want to go because I wouldn't want it being misconstrued. I wouldn't be going because I approved of the CEO's comments... I would be going because I disapproved of the two mayors comments. -Paul
[2012-08-02 14:00:06] - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/chick-fil-record-setting-sales-appreciation-day/story?id=16912978#.UBq_5aCwVX4 Chick Fil-A reports "record sales" for yesterday. - mig
[2012-08-02 13:59:53] - This is as if a bunch of racists had decided they were all going to ride the bus a lot in Alabama to fight back against the black boycott re: Rosa Parks. If there's a counter-boycott, the possibility for success is nil. There is the long-term issue, you noted, and that's more to the heart here... -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 13:58:47] - a: I did not go to the Chick-FIl-A appreciation day. Chick-Fil-A often has too long of lines anyway, I didn't need to go on a day where they were almost guaranteed to be more crowded than usual.
-Paul[2012-08-02 13:56:19] - Someone else (More someones?) decided that they needed to boycott the company because it's owners are bigots. This is semi-common, but always a lark. Boycotting the company doesn't do anything because there's a counter "buy"-cott (works in both directions, politically), the beliefs are too deeply held, and there's no actual legal issue at play. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 13:53:24] - a: A chief officer of a private company made a statement in an interview that he and other chief officers have a certain set of beliefs. Not only is this not unexpected, it's a continuation of the same statement from the company over a long period of time. Someone somewhere (many someones?) decides this means that the owners of the company are bigoted. ... -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 13:18:05] - xpovos: how do they lack a complete understanding of the situation? what is the complete understanding? ~a
[2012-08-02 12:55:33] - a: I think it's sad because while they are standing up for what they see as a moral principle, they're doing so with what I perceive to be a lack of complete understanding of the situation. They just know that they support a cause and there's been a kerfluffle in the media about it. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 12:53:55] - a: i probably should have thought to check the lines at the chick fil-a that's across from where I usually get lunch (chipotle) because I was curious how it would look. Unforunately I had to go to a meeting at off site and by the time I got back I didn't want to deal with peak time chipotle lunch lines so I didn't bother. - mig
[2012-08-02 12:52:24] - why is it sad? ~a
[2012-08-02 12:49:00] - a: I know some people who have pledged that, and I think that's sad, but it's their right. I appreciate that they're standing up for something they feel morally opposed to. That's a good thing. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 12:45:13] - i did talk with some of my coworkers about it, i think some people are going to stop eating there because of the whole bigotry thing. ~a
[2012-08-02 12:44:18] - I don't have any problem with it. It's a little off--I'm one of those no-any PDA kind of people, though. I think it's a bit silly to as a counter-counter-protest, but I thought the counter-protest was silly too, even if I was willing to participate at the margins. Mostly because I really like the food and customer service at CFA. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 12:40:49] - i was half expecting to see a protest or something. i didn't venture close enough to see if anyone was handing out flyers or anything. we'll see if this amounts to anything, but you're likely to get people who dislike all PDA to have a problem with it. ~a
[2012-08-02 12:36:52] - i agree, the lines looked longer than they usually are (which are already pretty long). ~a
[2012-08-02 12:33:08] - a: I probably would have, but I'm broke, so I ate sympathy chicken at home. I did see impressive lines at a few Chick-Fil-A's that I passed, though. The lines are always long, but they were noticeably longer yesterday. -- Xpovos
[2012-08-02 12:30:41] - did anyone attend the chick fil-a appreciation day yesterday? ~a
prev <-> next