prev <-> next
[2005-05-12 12:42:19] - proportion ~a
[2005-05-12 12:42:05] - i guess one could guess . . . that other animal shelters are adopting out many more animals, and probably pulling in a somewhat simmilar preportion of health ones. ~a
[2005-05-12 12:39:24] - paul: i guess i missed something. did the article say anything about the animals being healthy? ~a
[2005-05-12 12:38:51] - One thing I will say about PETA, though. They certainly seem to have a lot of women willing to be naked for publicity (looking at the Ringling Brothers - The Naked Truth movie on PETA TV). -Paul
[2005-05-12 12:37:22] - a: Technically, it might not be hypocritical (I don't know what PETA's stance on euthanasia is) but it certainly seems to weaken their case if they are killing perfectly healthy animals. -Paul
[2005-05-12 12:36:03] - Amy: I've never been a fan of PETA but I used to at least respect them for standing up for what they believed in. If it turns out they've killed all those animals, though... -Paul
[2005-05-12 12:32:35] - i don't see any hypocracy. ~a
[2005-05-12 12:32:21] - what's unethical about euthanasia anyways? ~a
[2005-05-12 12:27:10] - paul: i followed links to "your mommy kills animals" thing. it is so wrong on so many levels. but most glaringly, do all women wear fur? what about men (and women) wearing leather belts or shoes. i never cared much for peta, but guh. this is too much. -amy
[2005-05-12 12:20:58] - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29394 Kodak fires man over gay stance. -Paul
[2005-05-12 12:16:27] - nm, I spoke too soon. Ignore my comment.
-Paul[2005-05-12 12:15:20] - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44226 I wonder if they have any proof that PETA is actually killing all these animals. -Paul
[2005-05-12 12:11:47] - a: I don't get an arrow unless it's red. Red is the only color it comes in for me. -Paul
[2005-05-12 12:10:58] - paul: my arrow is green . . . but i'm running 1.0.4 already. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:57:57] - Hurray! I got my red arrow!
-Paul[2005-05-12 11:53:00] - a: besides, I don't know if you would really need to use one since it's only two systems (shrug). You're probably safe against most things -dave
[2005-05-12 11:51:37] - is a popular -dave
[2005-05-12 11:50:58] - a: Snort is popular free IDS. There are both Windows and Unix versions -dave
[2005-05-12 11:50:27] - a: like usually people have the IDS send logs to a dedicated log server that is even more secure -dave
[2005-05-12 11:50:08] - a: right, for every safeguard there is a counter-safeguard. It's just a matter of how hard do you want to make the hacker work -dave
[2005-05-12 11:49:33] - compromised systems were found a year before the big DoS attacks against Amazon, eBay, etc, a year before the attack happened. They just had no clue what the compromise was for, or did -dave
[2005-05-12 11:49:07] - are there any free idss for windows? ~a
[2005-05-12 11:48:50] - right. but if a hacker/virus knows about how the IDS informs you of the comprimise, then the hacker/virus can hide the info it was trying to send you. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:48:42] - a: like it's all about detection. A lot of times people break into Unix systems and then just keep an extremely low profile. And then use it a long time later -dave
[2005-05-12 11:47:30] - a: Well, the point of the IDS usually isn't to stop the compromise, but to let you know it has happened, and to give you clues on to how it was done so you have a better idea of fixing it. -dave
[2005-05-12 11:47:05] - "hacker or virus" not "haker virus" ~a
[2005-05-12 11:46:39] - i don't see the point of an ids. if a hacker virus knows about it, then it's rendered useless. i.e. the more popular the ids, the less useful it is. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:46:05] - yeah, i mentioned chkrootkit. it only runs daily and is probably pretty easy to disable if the hacker or virus is looking for it. i'm not currently running a realtime ids. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:45:32] - a: you run things like Tripwire? Things that check your files to see if they match known good copies of the files? -dave
[2005-05-12 11:44:50] - a: Intrusion Detection System -dave
[2005-05-12 11:44:40] - a: right, but webservers are probably one of the most targeted apps for exploits -dave
[2005-05-12 11:44:24] - what's ids? ~a
[2005-05-12 11:44:17] - right. of course it's not impenetrable. i'm just wondering if it's dave-penetrable. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:43:33] - amy: I forgot my shoes, so I'll run home first - which means I may be a little late. - lori
[2005-05-12 11:42:58] - a: so with Windows compromises, you can usually tell easily and fix it relatively easily, Unix ones are harder to find and get rid of. These are generalities of course -dave
[2005-05-12 11:42:47] - in the real world, user management in windows DNE. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:42:25] - right. well 0 day exploits only work if you have access to the software it affects. for example, a zero day exploit of a system call is pretty pointless if you don't have user level access to the system in question. and thanks to user management in linux, most 0-day exploits won't really give you very much. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:42:18] - a: what's amusing is that in the Unix vs Windows thing, the script kiddies seem to target windows, and the more advanced hackers seem to target Unix. -dave
[2005-05-12 11:40:25] - a: and firewalls are definitely nice, but they don't stop everything either. You run an IDS? -dave
[2005-05-12 11:39:11] - a: not that I dont' think your systems are high on the security scale, just that I think there is no such thing as an impenetrable system -dave
[2005-05-12 11:38:22] - a: I've just seen too many exploits that no one had patches for when someone used them to break into a system to think that systems are ever secure -dave
[2005-05-12 11:36:57] - a: well, 0-day exploits -dave
[2005-05-12 11:32:53] - amy: I'm going to have to miss ddr today. I have a dentist appointment. - aaron
[2005-05-12 11:31:26] - *** a ignores paul.
[2005-05-12 11:30:21] - a: It's sharp. I think it could hack into your computer. -Paul
[2005-05-12 11:26:21] - paul: what good would that do? ~a
[2005-05-12 11:26:14] - http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp?http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA tom ridge admits government would raise terror alerts for no good reason. - mig
[2005-05-12 11:23:40] - a: I would use an ax. -Paul
[2005-05-12 11:22:11] - i have a firewall on the p3 box (which is the gateway) and a personal firewall on every box behind the gateway. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:20:59] - i don't run firefox (or any browser or any im client for that matter) on the p3 box. chkrootkit (a program that finds root kits) is automatically run every night. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:19:54] - dave: i update the p3 box weekly. i manually install a new apache or php (if they have one) weekly. i read slashdot daily (where they post new kernel/apache vulnerabilities). i don't even use passwords over the net (everything is via keys) and even if i did, i have all of the server keys cached. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:17:30] - dave: how would you hack into my linux boxes? ~a
[2005-05-12 11:16:32] - a: after taking my network security class, I decided that Unix and Windows were both dang insecure. Not much you can do to stop someone who really wants to take over your computer if you're connected to the Net -dave
[2005-05-12 11:16:25] - ddr_people: right so 5.45? maybe we'll catch an abc crew this time and hope they'll call? ,) -amy
[2005-05-12 11:15:20] - a: eh, it doesn't really matter. He has a computer, it was taken over a long time ago -dave
[2005-05-12 11:00:55] - dave: it doesn't matter. he ran ie for a long time, his computer was already taken over years ago. ~a
[2005-05-12 11:00:25] - mig: yeah, I don't know much about the games since I'm a strictly computer person -dave
[2005-05-12 10:59:07] - Dave:
-Paul[2005-05-12 10:58:56] - Paul: or even better, someone already took over your computer through Firefox ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-12 10:58:35] - Paul: they figure your Firefox is a lost cause ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-12 10:53:52] - Vinnie: Oh man, what's wrong with my firefox then?
-Paul[2005-05-12 10:30:28] - paul: I got the Firefox update message thinger - vinnie
[2005-05-12 10:20:00] - on second thought... i hope they don't send a tape... how embarassing. i hope none of my coworkers caught it ^_^; -amy
[2005-05-12 10:19:44] - aaron: oh , you already did. carry on... - vinnie
[2005-05-12 10:18:56] - aaron: yeah, you or Amy has to ask for that tape
- vinnie[2005-05-12 10:18:35] - aaron: !!!! damn, I was hoping they'd just forgotten they'd taped that thin ^_^; but I never got a call, either! I hope they send a tape, or at least reply to your e-mail! -amy
[2005-05-12 10:17:53] - a: I'll let you know. - aaron
[2005-05-12 10:17:18] - a: Well, it tells me when I should check for updates.
-Paul[2005-05-12 10:15:13] - paul: i dunno. i never use the arrow thing. i didn't even know what it was for. ~a
[2005-05-12 10:08:00] - a: Shouldn't I be getting a red arrow in the upper left hand corner of my firefox if there is an update available? -Paul
[2005-05-12 10:06:29] - err . . . a copy that is
~a[2005-05-12 10:06:17] - if so, i want it
~a[2005-05-12 10:06:08] - aaron: cool. do you think they'll send you a tape? ~a
[2005-05-12 10:04:03] - a: The only contact info i found at the Fox 5 morning news web site was e-mail, so I sent them an e-mail. - aaron
[2005-05-12 10:03:21] - get the new firefox. it fixes some security shtuff. ~a
[2005-05-12 10:01:00] - aaron:
that's a funny story though. anyways, if you call them up and say something like "you guys taped me and told me you would call me when it aired. you aired it and never called me. send me a tape." i'm sure they'll do it. i would do it myself, but they guy never told me that he would call me (plus he didn't have my phone number) ~a[2005-05-12 09:59:03] - dave: with regards with the xbox2, show me the games! i haven't heard of any killer-app so far. - mig
[2005-05-12 09:56:49] - http://www.xbox.com/en-US/news/2005/0411-mtv.htm I wish I had some way of watching MTV. -Paul
[2005-05-12 09:51:34] - Aaron: My family was taped for a news segment once and they told us they would tell us when it would air and maybe even send us a copy of it but we never heard from them again. -Paul
[2005-05-12 09:50:22] - Vinnie: Yeah, there always seems to be unintended consequences of every law. -Paul
[2005-05-12 09:43:29] - aaron: apparently the next-gen Xbox is supposed to give the PS3 a run for its money -dave
[2005-05-12 09:43:09] - aaron: those were numbers for North America. This is the article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5703324.html -dave
[2005-05-12 09:35:24] - ddr_people: And they said they would call me - grr! I totally missed it. - aaron
[2005-05-12 09:35:10] - ddr_people: they aired our DDR segment on fox news! One of my coworkers came in with a huge grin and was like "that's some fancy dancing you did this morning!" - aaron
[2005-05-12 09:25:35] - mig: When the DS was first coming out they were plugging all these screens of what you could do with your DS friends, even if you didn't own any games - aaron
[2005-05-12 09:24:40] - mig: Oh is it? That's really cool - i didn't realize it had wireless capabilities like the DS. I guess i just have't heard as much hype about it - aaron
[2005-05-12 09:19:44] - aaron: ps2's online functionality is free as well (and the network adapter is as well if you get the ps2 mini). - mig
[2005-05-12 09:18:28] - vinnie: and that in turn will turn into laws requiring public notice everytime you have sex. I mean, how else are you going to find out who needs the required testing or not? - mig
[2005-05-12 09:17:58] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050510-4890.html DS to offer free online play. If this is true I think it would totally redeem the DS. Xbox live is one thing but offering free out-of-the-box multiplayer with no equipment is very unusual imho. Wouldn't be surprised if it's just a rumor.... seems too good to be true - aaron
[2005-05-12 09:16:47] - http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0504-34.htm more goods on iraq war lying. - mig
[2005-05-12 09:15:53] - I'm impressed GameCube is so close to Xbox actually, most magazines I've read would have you believe there was like 1 gamecube unit sold for every 3 xboxes. I always heard gamecube painted as a total failure but they're only 3 million units behind? - aaron
[2005-05-12 09:15:10] - dave: That must be worldwide? I've heard statistics somewhere that Xbox was outselling PS2 in the US, or maybe even that more Xbox units were owned - i don't remember. - aaron
[2005-05-12 08:56:09] - "Overall, Xbox is also behind the PlayStation2, with 12.1 million currently on the market, compared with 30.8 million Sony units. GameCube logs in with 9.1 million units. " -dave
[2005-05-12 08:23:00] - ... if there was a law that said passing AIDS to someone knowingly was a crime, no one would get tested so they'd need some other law about needing to get tested frequently or something - vinnie
[2005-05-12 08:22:30] - dave/paul: yeah, I remember some case where someone was either found guilty of attempted murder or assault. I think the govt is loathe to make a law about it though because there is a deniability aspect... - vinnie
[2005-05-12 08:04:20] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050511-4897.html Interesting discussion on H1-B visas -dave
[2005-05-12 07:59:49] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050511-4896.html Apparently Sony and Toshiba aren't reconciling HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, they're still fighting -dave
[2005-05-11 17:55:35] - Where somebody knows they have AIDS and yet still goes around having unprotected sex. I think people have been found guilty (of something) in those cases. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:55:06] - Dave: I think there have been court cases about that. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:50:26] - -dave
[2005-05-11 17:50:24] - /me waves to adrian
[2005-05-11 17:50:13] - a: awww, but the person just wants to be loved, heh heh heh -dave
[2005-05-11 17:49:45] - *** a goes home.
[2005-05-11 17:49:36] - if it isn't, you could go around "murdering" people legally ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-11 17:49:30] - dave: i'd say probably. (but i don't know for sure) ~a
[2005-05-11 17:48:26] - I wonder if it is illegal to have sex with someone, when you know that you have an STD and will probably give it to them (and don't tell your partner) -dave
[2005-05-11 17:46:39] - a: well, like I said earlier, they get classed with people who do things that christians think are wrong...which is everybody, so it's one big class -dave
[2005-05-11 17:45:37] - one in three marriages end in divorce "so they get classed with those people" ~a
[2005-05-11 17:45:36] - Dave: Where is Pierce when you need him to point out how something wouldn't prove anything?
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:44:34] - "reasons why extra-marital sex is a bad idea than gay marriage?" you mean worse? i actually don't understand. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:44:20] - it's be kind of interesting to see the number of people that die from STDs vs the number of people who are murdered -dave
[2005-05-11 17:43:40] - a: yeah, I'm against divorce too -dave
[2005-05-11 17:43:22] - like, it's clear that we wouldn't have STDs without all this extramarital sex, but people just like sex too much -dave
[2005-05-11 17:42:41] - a: I'm trying to be accurate. Because honestly I am probably against the government expanding their marriage definition to include gays (even though I mostly don't care since it's such an insignificant issue to me compared to others). -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:42:37] - a: you know what's kind of funny? I can think of a better reasons (that you would accept) why extra-marital sex is a bad idea than gay marriage -dave
[2005-05-11 17:42:09] - do you think divorce is wrong? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:40:41] - a: ok, I'll change my statement to gay lifestyle instead of gay sex, tho I think you're splitting hairs that don't need to be split -dave
[2005-05-11 17:40:28] - paul: you're just trying to be difficult. the point is that you don't have any more problem with gay marriage than marriage in general. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:38:57] - dave: so you don't have a problem with virgin gay people marrying? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:38:29] - a: what? that gay sex is wrong? it's in both the new and old -dave
[2005-05-11 17:37:38] - or how about sex out of wedlock, I think that's wrong. I don't hate the people who do it, but I think the act itself is wrong and that people shouldn't -dave
[2005-05-11 17:37:00] - is that from the new testiment? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:36:50] - like, someone stealing something, I don't really have a problem with the person, just the fact that they stole -dave
[2005-05-11 17:36:25] - so, I don't have a problem with the gay people, just the things that they do -dave
[2005-05-11 17:36:05] - which is pretty much everyone -dave
[2005-05-11 17:36:01] - a: well, the christian perspective is this, living a gay lifestyle is wrong, so there are plenty of other people who do wrong things in their lives, so they get classed with those people -dave
[2005-05-11 17:35:55] - Dave: I wouldn't bother with that, Adrian doesn't think "hate" is a "valid" reason to support something.
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:35:28] - a: I could care less if gays got married but I am against the government recognizing marriage. So I guess in a way, you could say I am against gay marriage. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:35:14] - a: well, it just comes down to what you think is right and wrong, which is at the heart of all laws anyways -dave
[2005-05-11 17:34:56] - just their right to commit to their relationships? (mostly joking) ~a
[2005-05-11 17:34:25] - a: but I don't have anything against gay people themselves -dave
[2005-05-11 17:33:51] - dave: any reasons that i would disagree with? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:33:27] - a: probably not anything that you would agree with, no -dave
[2005-05-11 17:32:36] - dave: that's why i said 3 out of 4. out of curiousity (i know it doesn't matter, i'm curious) do you have any other non-religious reasons? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:31:59] - that's why i said "wow" ~a
[2005-05-11 17:31:53] - a: I'm against gay marriage for religious reasons, if you didn't know -dave
[2005-05-11 17:31:50] - no i didn't think you thought that. until i misread what you said as "No, I think don't gays can raise children." ~a
[2005-05-11 17:31:13] - paul: but you (paul) don't oppose gay marriage. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:31:03] - a: Sorry, I guess I don't hate gays or think they can't raise children or whatever you think I thought.
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:30:25] - a: I still maintain my point, that you can have reasons for opposing gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:30:02] - i think i lost my point since i got a "yes" answer out of you a long time ago. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:29:59] - a: Awwww
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:29:21] - i guess i lost my point. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:29:17] - yes, probably more often than not. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:28:57] - i understand that the government should get out of the marriage business, i do. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:28:50] - Usually the person who gives birth to a child ends up raising the child, I would imagine. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:28:22] - a: Sometimes, but not often. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:28:04] - but producing and raising are independent from each other. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:26:50] - And seeing as how I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, you can understand why I'm not enthusiastic about them expanding it, especially if there appears to be no good reason (to me). -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:26:12] - a: Yes, I meant "producing and raising". Basically, I feel like the reason governments encourage marriage is because it helps create more good little citizens. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:24:41] - hmmm. you're telling me that "If the assumption is that the government supports marriage to encourage good child raising, then I would see no reason to expand it to gays." and "I think gays can raise children" there's a conflict here (unless i'm just ignoring the difference between child raising and good child raising) ~a
[2005-05-11 17:23:16] - a: Good reason for what? -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:21:23] - so back to "If the assumption is that the government supports marriage to encourage good child raising, then I would see no reason to expand it to gays." you actually think this would be a good reason? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:21:10] - Dave: I think he knows that, but he's being difficult.
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:20:48] - -dave
[2005-05-11 17:20:27] - i misread of course. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:20:26] - a: he's talking about producing, not raising. as in gays can't produce a child just between the two of them dave
[2005-05-11 17:20:19] - oh hahaha! ~a
[2005-05-11 17:20:09] - a: Why not what? Who said anything about not? -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:19:32] - wow. that was an unexpected answer. why not? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:19:03] - a: No, I think gays can raise children. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:18:12] - paul: who said anything about producing? the question was "you don't think gays can raise children?" ~a
[2005-05-11 17:17:51] - Aaron: Yeah. I really don't feel strongly about the topic either way except to say that it shouldn't be any of the government's business. -paul
[2005-05-11 17:16:58] - a: I don't think gays normally produce children. -paul
[2005-05-11 17:16:53] - paul: yep. he said "yes." ~a
[2005-05-11 17:16:51] - paul: Like dave said though that's covered by the tax breaks for kids and stuff - so i guess i'm just very confused right now - aaron
[2005-05-11 17:16:34] - a: Vinnie responded? -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:16:31] - paul: you don't think gays can raise children? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:15:39] - a: Honestly, though, right now I really don't see a good reason to change things to allow gay marriage. If the assumption is that the government supports marriage to encourage good child raising, then I would see no reason to expand it to gays. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:15:15] - yes. i asked four people (i'm including myself) and got three responses (my response was implied) ~a
[2005-05-11 17:15:04] - paul: I'll agree, although I think a government might have logical selfish incentives for wanting its inhabitants to procreate - aaron
[2005-05-11 17:14:24] - paul: that i agree with, but it's a different problem all together. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:14:20] - a: Three out of four? -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:14:04] - ok. 3 out of 4. that's good enough for now. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:13:41] - a: In other words, I don't think the government should be giving marriage licenses to anybody.
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:13:01] - Vinnie: Bye Vinnie. -paul
[2005-05-11 17:12:46] - *** dave waves to vinnie
[2005-05-11 17:12:40] - a: I don't think it's the government's place to judge. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:12:30] - vinnie: yes. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:12:05] - anyway I'm off. so long all - vinnie
[2005-05-11 17:11:55] - that was me - vinnie
[2005-05-11 17:11:37] - a: yes. I was trying to argue in generalities this whole time because I don't feel like looking up five articles that point out the problems with gay marriage or however many it would take you to see my point. which is that everyone has their own sources for what's valid or not. I mean, are your sources really that valid? wikipedia articles?
[2005-05-11 17:10:11] - vinnie: haha -dave
[2005-05-11 17:09:04] - a: George Mason. In 1787 this esteemed man did quote: "gays suck man" - vinnie
[2005-05-11 17:08:57] - paul, dave, vinnie, all believe that banning gay marriage is pretty silly, right? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:08:39] - a: but that's just it, does it matter what the reasoning is behind some law? If everyone thinks a law would be good, but for all different reasons that aren't the same, the law gets passed anyways, even tho no one agrees on the reasons -dave
[2005-05-11 17:08:28] - ok. lets take this in a new direction. nobody actually believes any of this filth (imo, of course) that they're spewing forth, right? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:08:22] - a: But see, you can't just throw out reasons you don't like. It doesn't make them any less of a reason. You can't just arbitrarily decide which are valid and which aren't. -Paul
[2005-05-11 17:07:45] - a: the only place that "reasons" have is that people usually try to use them to convince other people to vote for their law ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-11 17:06:53] - dave: not really. just stay away from hate and religion and have some sort of explanation (with sources of course). if you've got all that then i don't see what's wrong. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:05:22] - a: at least in the framework that we have now -dave
[2005-05-11 17:05:15] - a: everyone has reasons for thinking something should be a law, it's just a matter of how many people think the same thing that makes a difference -dave
[2005-05-11 17:04:58] - paul: well i guess his examples lacked explanation. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:03:42] - a: Wait, wait, wait. Parents are a valid reason to pass a law against gay marriage. How does that even make sense? -paul
[2005-05-11 17:03:10] - and parents i can't refute without knowing who's parents and how they're relavent to your new law. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:02:46] - which forefathers were against homosexuality and furthermore how are they relavent to your new law? ~a
[2005-05-11 17:02:44] - parents, forefathers are the only two i see that weren't covered. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:02:14] - a: And what examples did Vinnie give? -paul
[2005-05-11 17:01:49] - except the aids one (which lacked a source) ~a
[2005-05-11 17:01:31] - not ones that weren't based on hate or religion. ~a
[2005-05-11 17:01:13] - a: What!? Actual examples!? I've been giving you examples!
-Paul[2005-05-11 17:00:47] - a: I just don't even know where to go from here. I feel like you are the ultimate judge of what is "valid" somehow and that there is no way to convince you of the validity of anything I say. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:59:55] - vinnie: there we go. acual examples, thank you vinnie. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:58:28] - paul: no. they could have other non-valid reasons (or valid reasons you haven't yet brought up). ~a
[2005-05-11 16:58:00] - and sometimes not even then - vinnie
[2005-05-11 16:57:51] - a: my parents. our forefathers. the bible. myself. people have passed laws on just those sources essentially. I think Paul and my point is that it's just too hard to look at things objectively in this world to say this law makes sense and this law doesn't. I don't think there's really any rule for passing laws except public acceptance - vinnie
[2005-05-11 16:57:43] - a: You're basically saying that the only reason somebody would be against gay marriage is because of religious reasons? -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:57:37] - paul: i added to my statement. i said "i mean . . . it matters whether the lawmakers think it's a valid reason or not." ~a
[2005-05-11 16:57:09] - a: In that case, since you're the judge of what is valid, I obviously can't win this.
-Paul[2005-05-11 16:56:44] - paul: religion or hate, that is. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:56:23] - Aaron: At this moment, I'm just trying to say that I think there are plenty of reasons (which may or may not be good ones or even ones that make sense) to oppose gay marriage (or anything) which don't revolve around religion. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:56:20] - i mean . . . it matters whether the lawmakers think it's a valid reason or not. and HATE is NOT a valid reason (i can assure you of that). ~a
[2005-05-11 16:55:54] - sure it does. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:55:27] - Maybe I hate all gays and believe there should be laws banning them. That's a reason. It doesn't matter whether you think it's valid or not. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:55:18] - or that you hate them? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:55:00] - that homosexuality is causing the spread of aids? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:54:50] - references for which? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:54:49] - paul: Is your whole point that our laws are based on the morals of a majority which may or may not be moral? Or what are you saying? - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:54:47] - a: Besides, I would even argue that you don't need to have a VALID reason to have a reason to support a law. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:54:24] - a: And I can find references for me too. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:53:34] - that is a valid reason. i can find references. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:52:37] - vinnie: if you were promoting your new law, you'd probably have real sources (that do say otherwise) ~a
[2005-05-11 16:52:36] - a: So? That's not a valid reason. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:52:01] - a: What are your reasons? -paul
[2005-05-11 16:51:49] - the psychological affects on the non concenting 8 year old girl would be unfathonable (except that they aren't) ~a
[2005-05-11 16:51:36] - a: so you claim. my sources say otherwise (they don't, but now does this make some sense?) - vinnie
[2005-05-11 16:51:10] - paul: yes. AND i have reasons. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:50:54] - paul: please explain. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:50:50] - a: DO you believe that having sex with an 8 year old girl is wrong? -paul
[2005-05-11 16:50:42] - vinnie: i was looking for my wikipedia reference currently. heterosexuals are doing more to promote the spreading of aids than homosexuals. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:50:20] - a: It is based on something in particular. My belief that two guys living together is wrong. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:49:51] - a: hahaha just when I thought you had understood paul's point. why isn't slowing the spread of AIDS a valid reason? - vinnie
[2005-05-11 16:49:27] - or at least, you shouldn't be able to do that in a reasonable society. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:47:00] - you want laws not based on anything in particular. you can't do that. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:46:50] - i understand. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:46:36] - a: God, can you really not understand what I'm trying to say?
-Paul[2005-05-11 16:45:57] - you already gave me some . . . hold on. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:45:51] - scratch that. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:45:21] - like? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:45:08] - a: It's not a matter of refuting. The point is that I can have reasons which aren't based on religion. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:44:17] - so pick one and i'll refute it. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:43:15] - sure it matters. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:43:03] - not hate i hope. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:42:54] - a: My hatred of gays? My belief that it will slow the spread of AIDS? That it will make me feel less icky? Does it really matter? -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:41:10] - what will your law be based on? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:40:45] - a: That's besides the point anyway. The point is that I can support a law banning gay marriage without basing my objections on solely religious reasons. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:40:17] - that sounds like a different problem. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:40:04] - a: Our laws hate the rich. And the white. And the males. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:39:32] - a: My reasons sound just as made up as yours do.
-Paul[2005-05-11 16:38:50] - you can hate whoever you want. but our laws can't. ~a
prev <-> next