Be “tolerant” of all their dipshit opinons, including but not limited to: acceptance of pedophilia, acceptance of incest, and dismantling of the institution of marriage entirely because that would be better than my wanting a piece.
I’m sick to death of being told that wearing miniskirts or high heels or having nude photographs taken/posted on the internet is a sign of confidence. Don’t get me wrong - it does take a certain measure of confidence, or perhaps more accurately, thick skin, to do any…
Forbes, too, received complaints from Melaleuca lawyers which caused them to remove the article entirely. The very day the article was published, Melaleuca’s General Counsel, Ryan Nelson, sent an email to Suthers (as well as to various Forbes editors) accusing him of making “defamatory statements” and directing: “We expect immediate action here and no more stonewalling from you.” It warned them that “this is serious business” that “will escalate this quickly if you do not help us resolve these issues immediately.”
[…] Melaleuca responded by obtaining an after-the-fact copyright certificate for that lawyer’s letter, then demanded that the hosting company remove the letter from the website on the ground that it constituted copyright infringement (the hosting company promptly complied), and Melaleuca then sued the website for copyright infringement for having published the now-copyrighted lawyer’s letter without their consent. Worse, as part of that lawsuit, Melaleuca issued a subpoena demanding the identities of both anonymous bloggers — the one who wrote the original post about VanderSloot (“TomPaine”) and the one who posted the lawyer’s letter (“d2″). A district court in Idaho ordered the website to disclose to Melaleuca the identity of the blogger who posted the lawyer’s cease-and-desist letter, but refused to compel disclosure of the identity of the other blogger. It’s almost impossible to imagine any more thuggish attempts to intimidate people from speaking out and criticizing VanderSloot: this was a tiny website being sued for trivial offenses in federal court by a company owned by a billionaire.
There is no journalist or blogger too small to evade VanderSloot’s threats.
Anonymous asked: i don’t get asexuality. it’s inhuman to not love. like, what the fuck else is there? it’s natural. and i guess i just don’t see the point in just cuddling and stuff. eventually everyone gets curious. it’s a natural progression to sex becasuse it’s what we are made to do. idk. it just doesn’t make sense.
Oh! Oh! I know!
“So what’s the other H-word? The big one?”
He tipped his head and looked at me slyly. “You really can’t guess? Here’s a clue, then. What’s the most intellectually lazy way you can think of, to try to win an argument?”
“You’re going to have to spell it out for me. I’m no good at riddles.”
“You say that your opponent lacks humanity.”
I’d fallen silent, suddenly ashamed-or at least embarrassed-wondering just how deeply I’d offended him with some of the things I’d said the day before. The trouble with meeting people again after interviewing them was that they often spent the intervening time thinking through the whole conversation, in minute detail-and concluding that they’d come out badly.
Rourke said, “It’s the oldest semantic weapon there is. Think of all the categories of people who’ve been classified as non-human, in various cultures, at various times. People from other tribes. People with other skin colors. Slaves. Women. The mentally ill. The deaf. Homosexuals. Jews. Bosnians, Croats, Serbs, Armenians, Kurds-”
I said defensively, “Don’t you think there’s a slight difference between putting someone in a gas chamber, and using the phrase rhetorically?”
“Of course. But suppose you accuse me of ‘lacking humanity.’ What does that actually mean? What am I likely to have done? Murdered someone in cold blood? Drowned a puppy? Eaten meat? Failed to be moved by Beethoven’s Fifth? Or just failed to have-or to seek-an emotional life identical to your own in every respect? Failed to share all your values and aspirations?”
I hadn’t replied. Cyclists whirred by in the dark jungle behind me; it had begun to rain, but the canopy protected us.
Rourke continued cheerfully. “The answer is: ‘any one of the above.’ Which is why it’s so fucking lazy. Questioning someone’s ‘humanity’ puts them in the company of serial killers-which saves you the trouble of having to say anything intelligent about their views. And it lays claim to some vast imaginary consensus, an outraged majority standing behind you, backing you up all the way. When you claim that Voluntary Autists are trying to rid themselves of their humanity, you’re not only defining the word as if you had some divine right to do that… you’re implying that everyone else on the planet-short of the reincarnations of Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot-agrees with you in every detail.” He spread his arms and declaimed to the trees, “Put down that scalpel, I beseech you… in the name of all humanity!”
"We all knew if the seals failed the shuttle would blow up."
Armed with the data that described that possibility, Boisjoly and his colleagues argued persistently and vigorously for hours. At first, Thiokol managers agreed with them and formally recommended a launch delay. But NASA officials on a conference call challenged that recommendation.
"I am appalled," said NASA’s George Hardy, according to Boisjoly and our other source in the room. "I am appalled by your recommendation."
Another shuttle program manager, Lawrence Mulloy, didn’t hide his disdain. “My God, Thiokol,” he said. “When do you want me to launch — next April?”
When NASA overruled the Thiokol engineers, it was with a quote that no one who works with data, on the front lines of a project, should ever forget: “Take off your engineer hat,” they told Boisjoly and the others, “and put your management hat on”. Well, the people behind that recommendation managed their way to seven deaths and a spectacular setback for the US space program. As Richard Feynman said in his famous Appendix F to the Rogers Commission report, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled”.
And of course there’s nothing inside the “HAPPINESS” node; it’s just a naked LISP token with a suggestive English name.
So, McDermott says, “A good test for the disciplined programmer is to try using gensyms in key places and see if he still admires his system. For example, if STATE-OF-MIND is renamed G1073…” then we would have IS-A(HAPPINESS, G1073) “which looks much more dubious.”
Or as I would slightly rephrase the idea: If you substituted randomized symbols for all the suggestive English names, you would be completely unable to figure out what G1071(G1072, 1073) meant. Was the AI program meant to represent hamburgers? Apples? Happiness? Who knows? If you delete the suggestive English names, they don’t grow back.
And here, according to Trout, was the reason human beings could not reject ideas because they were bad: Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity. The ideas Earthlings held didn’t matter for hundreds of thousands of years, since they couldn’t do much about them anyway. Ideas might as well be badges as anything.
-Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
Do you have any idea how many times I’ve run into this kind of behavior on YouTube?
And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it’s strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.
Because whenever women are around men, it should be taken as a given that the women will be violently raped. Trotta doesn’t even think this problem should be addressed:
And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. Let me just read something to you from McClatchy Newspapers about how much this position on extreme feminism is costing us. “The budget for the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office leapt from $5 million in fiscal 2005 to more than $23 million in fiscal 2010. Total Defense Department spending on sexual assault prevention and related efforts now exceeds $113 million annually.” That’s from McClatchy Newspapers.
So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.
SHAWN: Well, many would say that they need to be protected, and there are these sexual programs, abuse programs, are necessary —
TROTTA: That’s funny, I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.
Yes, ensuring that members of the military are safe has nothing to do with the military. You idiot.
But the crossword’s real marvel was 25 Across, for which the clue “Cause of a sexual harassment complaint?” took the answer “MIDASSTOUCH.”
Mid-ass touch, really? It was the cleverest of the grid’s five long “theme answers”—all made puns off of common phrases by adding an extra “s.” (To “Talk about pitchers and quarterbacks” is to “DISCUSSTHROWERS,” and a “Pub with no karaoke” is a description of what some might call a “SINGLESSBAR,” and so on.)
[…] Since Shortz took over editing the crossword in 1993, he has seen fit to include “GAYDAR,” “SPAZ,” and “JEWFRO” (“Curly ethnic hairstyle, informally”) as answers. In an online Q. & A. on the paper’s Web site in 2010, Shortz explained that while using the the word “spaz” “for a person who is actually spastic … would be cruel,” he had no problem putting it in the puzzle because the more common usage is figurative, and “this is colorful vocabulary that most people would consider inoffensive.” In addition, Shortz wrote, “JEWFRO is simply a portmanteau of ‘Jewish’ and ‘Afro.’ The word is purely descriptive. It is widely used by young people.”
[…] But the infamous “SCUMBAG” incident of 2006 still takes the cake. That was when the word appeared, in response to the clue “Scoundrel.” Haberman, who was on vacation in Dublin at the time, ran back to his hotel to phone Craig Whitney, the standards editor. “It was a Monday puzzle, no less, and I was leaving Craig a message because it was something like 6 A.M. in New York,” he said. “I said, ‘Do the crossword, and when you fill in 41 Down or whatever it was, tell me if you don’t go ‘Yikes!’ ”
Haberman went on, “There’s a generational divide, I suppose. I’m in my sixties. To younger people—and I guess in the dictionary, it’s the third definition for the word—‘scumbag’ means scoundrel. But I always knew the word to refer to a condom. To me, it’s really obscene. It’s not much better than printing ‘fuck.’ It’s a little better, but not significantly better.”
The recent campaign against Ellen DeGeneres by the American Family Association epitomizes the total intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-gay movement. Even though their so-called “One Million Moms” project failed to find any plausible reason why she shouldn’t be the new spokesperson for J. C. Penney, they didn’t let that stop them - they went right ahead and said she’s wrong for the job simply because she’s gay. No further explanation was needed beyond that. She’s gay, and that’s bad, and that’s all there is to it.
According to these million moms, just hiring someone who’s gay is so intolerable to “traditional families” that they supposedly won’t want to shop at J. C. Penney now. That’s not just offensive to gay people. It’s offensive to those families, because it implies that this entire category of people is so uniformly homophobic that they can’t even bear to do business with a company that employs gay people. What makes them think every “traditional family” would agree with that?
They further demand that J. C. Penney "remain neutral in the culture war."But since when does neutrality require the total exclusion of gay people from jobs just because they’re gay? How could that possibly fall under any imaginable concept of what it means to be neutral? It sounds more like they’ve tried to redefine “neutral” as only doing what they want, and to do otherwise must be a departure from that. How else could someone believe it’s neutral to discriminate against gay people for no reason whatsoever?
After their attack on Ellen backfired tremendously, they sent out an email claiming that "Ellen is attempting to indoctrinate our children." Apparently she’ll be doing that via her role as a department store spokesperson, in which she’ll naturally be serving as an exponent of sexual morality. Clearly, that must be what J. C. Penney hired her to do. If they did decide to replace her, do those million moms expect that someone more representative of “traditional families” would use their position to instruct people on how they should be having sex? “Attention shoppers: Please don’t be gay! It makes a million moms really sad!”? How is this even tangentially related to their job? Are company spokespeople supposed to be a source of moral guidance now?
But they didn’t stop there. The American Family Association’s radio host Fred Jackson was unusually revealing when he said, "What makes Ellen DeGeneres dangerous is that she’s a nice person". And he’s right: Ellen is dangerous. Not to the rest of us, of course. No, she’s dangerous to these people. She provides them with no way to use her as an example of the alleged depravity, sickness and misery of gay people. She’s proven that an openly gay woman can be accepted, appreciated, and even admired by middle America and “traditional families”. She absolutely overturns their reality in a way they cannot respond to without retreating to simple prejudice.
The sheer breadth of her achievement incinerates their claims that gay people are doomed to a life of isolation, desperation and ostracism. The only way they can try to rescuscitate their failed perspective is by working to force that exclusion and disapproval upon Ellen herself, as if to prove that life must really be that bad for gay people - and if it’s not, they’ll do their damnedest to make sure that it is. This is their last resort: trying to roll back progress by hand.
And how dare these “million moms” suggest that motherhood must mean shielding children from the fact that gay people can be successful? Fuck everything about that! Children deserve better than to be told that happiness and accomplishment are off-limits to anyone who isn’t straight. I’d rather have my kids “indoctrinated” by Ellen, because they should know that the world can be theirs no matter who they love. And I bet there actually are a million moms who agree with that.
As Cooper finally explained in his closing argument, “Your honor, you don’t have to have evidence for this. … You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage,” Cooper told the judge. “You won’t find it had anything to do with homosexuality.”
This defense satisfied almost no one. Ted Olson, the plaintiff’s attorney, was absolutely flummoxed by Cooper’s claim that he had no burden to do anything beside assert the immutability of traditional marriage. In his closing argument, a perplexed Olson replied, “You can’t take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t have to prove anything.’ ”
We simply cannot speak about facts without embracing certain values. It’s not that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is,” you simply can’t get an “is” without embracing certain “oughts.” Consider the simplest statement of scientific fact. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. This seems to be as value-free an utterance as human beings ever make. What do we do if someone doubts the truth of this proposition? What if someone comes forward and says, “I’m sorry, but that’s not how I choose to think about water”?…
What do we do with that person? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. If a person doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. We must appeal to the value of understanding the world. The value of evidence - in this case some hundreds of years of evidence in chemistry. The value of logical consistency. Much of what we believe about the world is predicated on the validity of our beliefs about the structure of water. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves someone should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you invoke to show that they should value logic?
CPAC 2012 is as notable for who is coming as who isn’t. Peter Brimelow is a prominent white nationalist and founder of the racist and anti-Semitic website VDARE. He’ll be at CPAC 2012.
“Birther” leader Joseph Farah will be there. He has boycotted CPAC since 2009 when he was blocked from hosting a panel questioning the President’s citizenship. This year he’s being welcomed back with open arms.
Youth for Western Civilization’s founder was arrested in 2007 for karate chopping an African-American woman on the street while calling her “n****r.” They, like Google, are sponsoring this year’s CPAC.
Romney, Gingrich and Santorum will be there too, along with major Religious Right groups like the Family Research Council.
FRC boycotted last year’s CPAC to protest the participation of a conservative gay rights organization, GOProud. CPAC 2012 will be different. The gay group got the boot, and CPAC and the Family Research Council kissed and made up.
Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that health insurance plans would be required to provide preventive care services for women, including contraception, at no extra cost and with no co-pays or deductibles. This January, they announced that certain religiously affiliated organizations would have an additional year to comply with this rule, but they would not be exempt from the requirement.
It is still possible for a religious employer to be exempted if it meets the following four criteria: it must have "the inculcation of religious values as its purpose", it must "primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets", it must "primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets", and it must be a non-profit organization. Under these standards, a church or synagogue would not be required to provide contraceptive coverage through their employee health care plans. However, religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and charities would still have to cover contraception.
In the wake of this directive, over a hundred Catholic bishops have spoken out and claimed that this requirement is an attack on their religious liberty and a violation of their conscience. Officially, the Catholic Church’s doctrine on birth control holds that separating the procreative element from heterosexual intercourse is a sin. This includes the use of condoms, birth control pills, injections, IUDs, and other artificial methods.
Instead, the church approves of "natural family planning", which involves reserving sex for the phases of the menstrual cycle when a woman cannot become pregnant. So, according to the church, it’s okay to choose to prevent pregnancy by intentionally having sex during a time of known infertility, but it’s not okay to choose to prevent pregnancy by medically or mechanically precluding the possibility of fertilization. It’s not entirely clear to me how that doesn’t encompass the technique of ensuring that an egg won’t be present to be fertilized when you’re having sex, but I’m sure they’ve justified it one way or another.
In any case, whether the requirement to cover contraception is against the beliefs of Catholics is largely irrelevant. The hospitals and colleges which would have to provide this coverage employ people from every walk of life and every belief system. These Catholic-affiliated organizations do not exclusively hire Catholics. We’re talking about hospitals and schools that all kinds of people go to, and all kinds of people work at.
With this objection, Catholic bishops are demanding that employees of the University of Notre Dame, St. Joseph’s Hospital of Phoenix, and practically any religiously affiliated business, should not have the same access to contraception that any other employees would. Why should non-Catholics and non-believers be denied that coverage simply because they work for a business that’s associated with a certain church?
Further, does this requirement actually conflict with the conscience of Catholics? Their doctrine considers contraception to be sinful, and their leaders have condemned this directive, but what do everyday Catholics think? Do they, too, have a problem with birth control? No! A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 49% of Americans overall agree that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide health care plans that cover birth control at no cost.
How many Catholics agreed with this? 52%, dropping to 45% among Catholics who vote. The difference in support for this requirement between Catholics and all Americans is negligible. A survey by Public Policy Polling confirmed this, finding that 57% of voters believe women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage, and 53% of Catholics agree with this.
But how do Catholics themselves feel about the use of birth control? A 2011 report by the Guttmacher Institute found that out of all Catholic women who have had sex, 98% used contraception other than the church-endorsed “natural family planning” method, which only 2% of them rely on - “even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more”. 68% use IUDs, hormonal methods, or male or female sterilization. Another 15% use condoms.
The statistics are largely the same for Catholic women who are married: only 3% use “natural family planning”, and 72% use IUDs, sterilization or hormonal methods. If that’s the case, then why are these Catholic bishops claiming it would violate their conscience if Catholic-affiliated businesses are required to provide access to birth control methods which a strong majority of Catholic women have already chosen to use? Why are they depicting this as an attack on Catholic values, when most Catholics don’t share those values at all? When Catholic views on this policy hardly differ from those of Americans altogether, there is no way this can be honestly characterized as something that has a disproportionate impact on Catholics.
So why are the media uncritically parroting and validating this plainly inaccurate narrative? Why is Reuters running a story titled "Obama risks Catholic vote with birth-control mandate", when surveys indicate he isn’t risking the Catholic vote any more than the average American vote? Why is USA Today letting Archbishop Timothy Dolan use their opinion page to allege that this policy is “un-American” - a claim which, in light of recent polls, doesn’t even make sense? Why does the archbishop of Atlanta get coverage for saying that “The Church is going to fight this regulation with all the available resources we have”, when a majority of church members don’t consider this worth fighting against, and many of them are actually using the very birth control methods at issue here?
If this is supposed to be about respecting the conscience of Catholics, then why has everyone been focusing on the bloviations of a handful of bishops, while ignoring the millions of Catholics who disagree with them? How does that possibly respect their values?
"Here's the answer is to what theists and atheists can do together: secular work."
Here’s the answer is to what theists and atheists can do together: secular work. If you’re really as committed to working together and finding common ground as you claim to be, then you have to concede that the common ground is found in nonreligious conversation. You don’t have to relinquish your beliefs to have that conversation, you just have to not include them. That’s the point and the problem. The “middle ground” for an atheist and a believer is not actually somewhere in between: it’s where the atheist already is.
Yeah. Well, you deserved it. So, fuck you. I hope it happens again soon. I’m tired of being treated like shit by you mean little cunts and then you using your rape as an excuse. Fuck you. I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow. Actually, I don’t believe you were ever raped! What man would be tasteless enough to stick his dick into a human cesspool like you? Nice gif of a turd going into my mouth. Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole? Or was it both? Maybe you should think about it really hard for the next few hours. Relive it as much as possible. You know? Try to recall: was it my pussy or my ass?
I suspect that this will not be the last time a member of our species will be obliged to make the following point (but one can always hope): disbelief in the God of Abraham does not require that one search the entire cosmos and find Him absent; it only requires that one consider the evidence put forward by believers to be insufficient.
Nice picture you posted. I see three beauty queens in it though. :) Your girlfriend seems like the coolest girl. I really enjoyed her guest video on your Youtube channel. Will you two ever be doing that again?
Yes! She always welcomes your suggestions for topics.
“Rep. Gingrey found the breakfast to be inspiring until President Obama began politicking, which the congressman found to be inappropriate,” Jen Talaber, spokeswoman for Rep. Gingrey, told CBS Atlanta. “While he commends the president for his attendance, Rep. Gingrey wanted to hear what was in his heart and not campaign rhetoric.”
During the National Prayer Breakfast speech, the president compared his economic policies to the teachings of Jesus.
Sorry if I’ve missed something, but this is a prayer breakfast attended by politicians. What, exactly, were you expecting? It exists to allow politicians to capitalize on the Jesus/religion/piousness brand for their own benefit. And you’re surprised when the president promotes his own positions using scripture? If this kind of thing is so objectionable, what are you even doing there? The entire event is poisoned by its very nature from the outset.
If acquiring more funding for their causes requires spending more money on marketing and directors, why shouldn’t they aim to maximize their available funding? It’s easy to get angry about a charity’s CEO making a million dollars a year. It’s not so easy to say that cancer research and health services for the poor should lose their funding because your sensibilities were offended.
[…] Remnant Publications claims that every donation of $3 will ship one Bible to Mozambique. Knowing that $800 will prevent someone’s death, would you rather spend it on 260 Bibles or saving one life? People make choices like these on a regular basis. They withhold their money from initiatives to provide food and vaccines - initiatives they may not have even been aware of - and instead spend it on Bibles or toys or the Make-a-Wish Foundation. Considering that this is how many people choose to allocate their donations on the scale of tens to hundreds of dollars, what the hell makes them think they’re qualified to manage the finances of a $400 million-a-year foundation?
i am a christian and for you to bash different religions over the internet isn’t right.. and i dont know if this is true but i am assuming you are a evolutionist .. evolution has not been proved or anything else nothing has been proved so for you to say religion is stupid is obserd and with religion you have hope for life and that you will live beyond the world life.. as for you , you will just die and thats it ? ya so stop because you sound absolutly ridiculous and you need to be stopped…
What if Starbucks lost 80% of its customers? Christians across the USA are boycotting Starbucks for promoting homosexual ‘marriage’ in Washington State. There is an 80% Christian majority in the USA and 1-2% homosexuals.
And apparently 100% of that 80% is in full theological agreement with this guy, and completely willing to stop going to Starbucks for this reason.
Also, some fun with statistics:
CDC reports that one in five homosexuals have HIV, with many unaware they are sick. The average homosexual dies at 42 years and has a higher depression rate, Cameron reports.
"Looked at another way," Slate reported, "if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early age (11, actually).”
Possession or production of child pornography is a crime, everywhere. If you have knowledge of it happening, then you have a duty to report it to the police. When designing communications infrastructure, this should be taken into account in the same way it’s considered in other industries: do makers of cars wonder what would happen if their vehicles were used to transport CP? Do makers of cameras struggle to build detection and tracking of potential CP images in to their hardware? Do we record the names, dates and times that each person enters and leaves a room, just in case we happen to learn that CP was made in that room at a certain date and time? No, we don’t.
The network does not need to take any specific measures based on type of traffic. In fact, it should arguably be content-agnostic, acting as a common carrier for any data. If a crime occurs, you deal with it the same way you deal with any other crime at any other place and time.