Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
but it'll take a long time before the generally accepted religious version of 'one man, one woman' is torn down fully.
And then we'll have the previously religiously accepted version of one man, many women?
Also, what do you mean by "torn down?" Do you simply want other forms of marriage accepted, or are you actively hostile to that sort of family?
-
BTW, before someone starts shrieking "bigot," I will point out that while I'm not in favor of gay marriage I am not particularly interested in trying to keep it banned.
-
And then we'll have the previously religiously accepted version of one man, many women?
Polygamy, as historically practiced by, say, Arabs[1], has a severe disadvantage in that it removes women from circulation, meaning it creates a class of men that will never be able to get married.
[1] not singling them out here; that's the first group that came to mind.
-
Also, what do you mean by "torn down?"
I mean the overly-restrictive definition will be torn down and replaced with a more permissive definition. I thought that was clear enough, given the context of the rest of the post.
-
Wrong, btw. There's no argument you can make for gay marriage that isn't also an argument for polyamory (notice the word shift I used.) Or, frankly, for bestiality or incest.
The arguments, yes. The actual laws being introduced, not so much.
-
Besides, I already said I don't have a problem with civil unions. You want joint bank accounts, automatic medical power of attorney, all that stuff? I'm fine with that. I just don't appreciate the cultural appropriation
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. As an atheist, I'd prefer the civil and religious parts of marriage were separated, so I could have a straight civil partnership if I wanted, and if my gay friends can find a priest of their favourite religion willing to marry them then they can do that.
historically, noise
yeah, but we're not living in the past. Laws should be kept up to date to support the present, not preserve history
-
And then we'll have the previously religiously accepted version of one man, many women?
Plus, presumably, one woman, many men. A great complex web of marriages like facebook friends and twitter followers.
And really that's why governments try to limit marriage: their databases couldn't cope with such complexity.
-
The modern Western version of marriage is very deeply rooted in the Abrahamic religions' definition of marriage; in fact, it's essentially identical.
So...somewhere betweeen 2000 and 5000 years, and I assume you're not thinking that the human pair bond spun up solely due to Judaism.
Even among Eastern hemisphere people, one man one woman is the norm. Polygamy's for the wealthy, historically.
-
I mean the overly-restrictive definition will be torn down and replaced with a more permissive definition. I thought that was clear enough, given the context of the rest of the post.
You're still unclear. Do you want religions to change or law to change?
-
Because they're[1] food is good.
[1] yes.
I've been there twice since I moved to Texas last year. I was not impressed.
So you want to redefine an institution as old as mankind is with no concern for what adverse social effects it might have?
It's already been redefined by no-fault divorce. But more to the point, if you consider marriage to be important, the government is really the last set of people you should want to have in charge of it.
-
the problem is the tight coupling between religion and law, despite the USA's claims to have implemented dependency injection from the design phase
-
the problem is the tight coupling between religion and law, despite the USA's claims to have implemented dependency injection from the design phase
I think you misunderstand the actual claims, or are listening to people who either misunderstand or just want you to.
Let's try a slight modification that I think shows the flaws in what you seem to be saying in a less loaded manner: "The problem is the tight coupling between culture and law."
-
I've been there twice since I moved to Texas last year. I was not impressed.
I didn't say they were awesome. But they beat McDonald's if you didn't bring your own lunch to work or don't have time to go to a better place.
-
so you're excluding @accalia as a possible safe environment for raising children?
honestly? that's probably warranted...
-
It's already been redefined by no-fault divorce. But more to the point, if you consider marriage to be important, the government is really the last set of people you should want to have in charge of it.
Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I support the idea of breaking out marriage the social institution from the civil institution.
-
-
I want to eat lunch at Chick-Fil-A today in honor of this thread, but the closest one is some 30 miles away.
-
I think the real question is: when two gay people marry, do they get a UAC prompt?
-
I think one might get a bit of an alert when the other requests access.
-
-
So...somewhere betweeen 2000 and 5000 years, and I assume you're not thinking that the human pair bond spun up solely due to Judaism.
Even among Eastern hemisphere people, one man one woman is the norm. Polygamy's for the wealthy, historically.
So, somewhere between the first word of my post and the last you must have missed the word 'Western'? And the word 'Abrahamic'?
-
Yes
This explains why you use the word "progressive" like it doesn't belong in the evil ideas thread.
-
This explains why you use the word "progressive" like it doesn't belong in the evil ideas thread.
Progress is evil? OK...
-
Progress is evil? OK...
No, progress is good. "Progressive politics" is evil and only shares letters with the word "progress."
-
No, progress is good. "Progressive politics" is evil and only shares letters with the word "progress."
Funny, I don't remember mentioning politics. In fact, I believe the term I used was 'progressive countries', which covers not just politics, but also society and culture. And probably other stuff too, like food and shit.
-
I installed it on day 1 and don't remember having any problems with UAC or having to launch as admin. My anecdotal evidence trumps yours
Me too, so it's DOUBLE ANECDOTE POWER!
-
stop derailing the topic. Can't you see the new subject is politics?
Is there a @blakeyrat law that covers the fact that in a long enough thread there will always be an argument between left- and right-wingers?
-
stop derailing the topic. Can't you see the new subject is politics?
Really? I thought it was whether my avatar is pink or purple, and the sexual ambiguity it causes?
-
In fact, I believe the term I used was 'progressive countries', which covers not just politics, but also society and culture. And probably other stuff too, like food and shit.
If you think that would change his opinion, you haven't been paying attention.
-
If you think that would change his opinion, you haven't been paying attention.
Or I just like poking with a REALLY BIG STICK™
-
or is it grammar Nazis and commonly misused words/phrases?
-
Or I just like poking with a REALLY BIG STICK™
So you're going for a pedantry badge? I can help with that!
-
honestly? that's probably warranted...
As I think I probably made clear before @Rhywden abandoned arguing with me on the other thread, I think "safe" is somewhat overrated.
Society has been greatly harmed by an insistence on excessive safety, and a certain amount of pain is an excellent teacher. Here's an example: when I was about 5, I stuck a my finger in an electrical outlet. You know what happened? I got a shock, and because I'm not a moron I never did it again.
-
-
So, somewhere between the first word of my post and the last you must have missed the word 'Western'? And the word 'Abrahamic'?
NOpe.
-
NOpe.
Ah, so you decided to go for the Pedantic Dickweed badge by bringing up something I wasn't talking about.It all makes sense now...
-
Cite please
Apparently flabdumblet thinks that anything went right up until we had writing.
-
Actually flabdablet thinks your argument against liberalizing present-day marriage law, apart from being poorly researched and historically inaccurate, is fallacious.
-
Funny, I don't remember mentioning politics. In fact, I believe the term I used was 'progressive countries', which covers not just politics, but also society and culture. And probably other stuff too, like food and shit.
I'm not aware of a common meaning of "progressive countries" that doesn't include at least a bit of progressive sorts of politics. In any case, Progressives have ruined that term.
-
I'm not aware of a common meaning of "progressive countries" that doesn't include at least a bit of progressive sorts of politics. In any case, Progressives have ruined that term.
Yeah, pretty much I guess. I'd hesitate to substitute the word 'liberal' for similar reasons.
-
Actually flabdablet thinks your argument against liberalizing present-day marriage law, apart from being poorly researched and historically inaccurate, is fallacious.
By contrast, gay marriage proponents' mainly appears to simply be "fuck history or any concerns about whether changing things is a good idea or the idea of unintended consequences, let's just change things."
-
-
Progressives have ruined that term
... in much the same way as radical economic fundamentalists have ruined the term "conservatism".
-
"fuck history or any concerns about whether changing things is a good idea or the idea of unintended consequences, let's just change things."
Straw man fallacy. Next?
-
... in much the same way as radical economic fundamentalists have ruined the term "conservatism".
Those (liberal, conservative, progressive) words are all just labels now, mostly separate from their original meanings. Those guys were originally called "liberals," of course. It was probably the Orwellian rise of the modern liberal that caused them to be labeled conservatives.
This is because modern left wingers (and their historical precedents) often choose to confuse people with language in order to get the people to go along with them.
-
This is because modern [s]left wingers[/s]politicians (and their historical precedents) often choose to confuse people with language in order to get the people to go along with them.
FTFY. Sadly, the propaganda-brain-worms are not limited to any one political subgroup. As flabdablet puts it:and note in passing that the disease is common to demagogues of all political persuasions.
-
I'd agree with that, and note in passing that the disease is common to demagogues of all political persuasions. Personally I find it more distressing when done by people whose fundamental positions I have more sympathy with, which is why I've always been somewhat surprised to find you so eager to tip this particular bucket on leftists specifically.
-
Straw man fallacy. Next?
It's hardly a straw man; many gay marriage supporters actively reject the idea that there might be unintended adverse consequences. As was already mentioned, no-fault divorce proved that such fears are not necessarily unfounded.
Now you might not be making that argument, but I wasn't specifically replying to you, which is why I didn't say "flabdablet thinks ...."
-
Like a billion different things. A simple example would be a hostile program trying to replace or patch a .dll in another program's directory.
Yes, but as has been pointed out already, if all UAC gives the user is a nag screen, they'll eventually just see it as something to click through, eliminating its functionality. Any information it could give the user would encourage them to take the prompt seriously.
At the point where UAC is triggered, all it knows is that a program tried to create a file in a directory it doesn't own. It doesn't know the file contains code, or anything else. It doesn't know if the file is a .gif, a .dll, or a .exe. So there's really no extra information it can give.
I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be made to have more information. Something knows that the process user doesn't own that file or have permissions, or else UAC couldn't have been triggered.
Well, I think if you hate it now, you're an idiot. Wanting to make it worse makes you, I dunno, double-idiot? Whatever.
It's a thin veneer of protection on Windows; most of the issues I've had with malware (all of two in the past four years, so hardly representative) have been things UAC couldn't have prevented anyhow. Spybot is actually much better at preventing most of these things than UAC, and it uses basically the same interface: something wants to do something that could be bad->nag the user.
As for sudo... if I could have UAC do half the things sudo can do... I might actually be happy it exists. As is, it's a weak attempt to make IT folk less suicidal.
To be fair, there's probably no reason Windows couldn't put that information in the Event Log somewhere. It probably does if you're running a Checked Build of Windows.
... like I said before. It can be done. Not doing it just shows how condescending MS are to their users. At this rate, they'll be indistinguishable from Apple in a few years.
-
I fall into the modern conservative camp but with a strong dose of libertarianism, i.e. I have my own beliefs but also want to live and let live. I may strongly disagree with how you live your lifestyle, but if you keep it out of my face I'm not going to bother you.
The United States is now such an amalgamation of strong and differing cultures and belief systems that moving all these things up to some kind of one-size-fits-all federal law is a huge mistake, and regardless of the issue will only serve to piss off approximately half the country. I'd prefer that stuff to remain on the local and state level. Want gay marriage? Move to a state where that's legal. Want unfettered access to firearms? Move to a state that allows that. Etc.
And given enough time, such a system should provide empirical evidence as to which side is right (or "more" right).