Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
But a precedent will have been set that it means TWO PEOPLE ONLY.What part of that is too hard for you to math?
No part. I dispute your premise that such a precedent has been set. Also you still haven't (as of this post) answered my question about two non-gay guys getting married.
-
So you DO assume that, then. Are you cynical [inclusive-or] are your students that dumb?
The reason why they do something stupid isn't important here. That I'm the responsible adult is.
-
I dispute your premise that such a precedent has been set.
So you DON'T think that only 2 people are allowed to marry right now?Also you still haven't (as of this post) answered my question about two non-gay guys getting married
Except the part where i did answer it 2 or 3 posts ago.
-
My answer is implied there with the rhetorical question.
Sometimes it's useful to explicitly state a position. I'm not going for any kind of gotcha.
-
Sometimes it's useful to explicitly state a position. I'm not going for any kind of gotcha.
It's okay, keep reading. It's only THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
-
If it's okay for opposite sexes to marry without sexual relations, then it's just fine for straight people too.
I'll quote it here in case it's too hard for you to read 2 consecutive sentences in 1 paragraph.I do wish you'd stop arguing though. I have work to do, but making you look silly is too much fun.
sorry, ad hominem!
-
The legal system isn't based on math. Or popularity. Haven't you been paying attention?
This is exactly what I mean. The idea that this isn't all going to come up in a court is ridiculous.
And in the US, when things function properly, we make an attempt to do things a certain way. One of those is about not making arbitrary distinctions about rights and privileges. If you want to restrict marriage to two people, you have to come up with a reason for it that doesn't boil down to "because."
And that DOES mean that if, ask @darkmatter says, we've opened up teh definition of marriage, but only two "two people", it's "reasonable" from a legal standpoint to say, well, why not incest, for example. Now you have to come up with an actual argument other than "because there's a higher-than-normal risk of birth defects."
-
The idea that this isn't all going to come up in a court is ridiculous.
Did I say it wouldn't come up in court? That's the point. It comes up in court. The PRECEDENT (you should look that word up) is that only 2 people marry each other. Judges deny unless a new law is crafted allowing more.
-
It comes up in court. The PRECEDENT (you should look that word up) is that only 2 people marry each other. Judges deny unless a new law is crafted allowing more.
But they already overrode the previous precedent of one man and one woman without a law allowing different.
-
@darkmatter says, we've opened up teh definition of marriage
uh.... again, laws aren't limited to 140 characters. No one has said, change the law on marriage to be "LET THEM ALL MARRY WHATEVER"
It is not too complex to add to the law allowing explicitly for gay marriage. Unless you just aren't very good at English I guess.
-
But they already overrode the previous precedent of one man and one woman without a law allowing different.
They overrode the precedent to allow interracial marriage 50+ years ago, did that somehow magically make polygamy legal?
-
So you DON'T think that only 2 people are allowed to marry right now?
That's not what I said, but let me try to clarify. I disagree with your argument that the rule is now "two people can get married." The boundaries are not going to be clear until there's another court case. I think that if someone wants to sue to allow (say) polygamy and the State (that is, a level of government) wants to prevent that, it will have to come up with a better reason than "because only two people can get married."
-
Except the part where i did answer it 2 or 3 posts ago.
I meant "as of the post i was replying to."
-
I meant "as of the post i was replying to."
Sorry, Dicsourse's magical streaming feature led me to assume you'd have read things after that post already since they are inlined. Dicsourse's fault.
-
Snort.
ETA fix markdown and remove second quote because I didn't have any reply to it other than another snort.
That was the intended result. Like I said, this flamewar is boring (to be read in Homer Simpson's voice).
-
It's okay, keep reading. It's only THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
Well, next post. Which I wouldn't have seen.
Chill. I didn't mean to beat you over the head with it. The problem of having a nonlinear conversation, right?
-
-
To nobody in particular: this is by far the most boring political flamewar I've ever seen on this site.
I blame @dookdook he started it.To try and draw a line under it all, I think it has been decided that (delete as appropriate)
- Disabling UAC
- Windows 8
- Locking the front door
- Not locking the front door
- Diablo3
- UAC
- Windows Vista
- Bad grammar
- Grammar nazis
- Gay marriage
- Banning gay marriage
- Putting your fingers in power sockets
- Not putting your fingers in power sockets (at least once)
- Freedom Planet's voices
- Other (please specify)
-
The boundaries are not going to be clear until there's another court case.
This is true. But that's kind of the point of the court cases. To say that the law can't be changed to allow Gay Marriage explicitly because the court might misinterpret it is a pretty shallow argument though.
-
Hey man, we discussed Freedom Planet for a while quite high up there. I call discrimination!
(while blatantly ignoring the "Other (please specify)")
-
Putting your fingers in power sockets
I am pro that.
It also solves many of the other problems listed.
-
My aunt always says that the perfect solution to idiocy is to remove all safety labels from everything ever and let the situation sort itself out.
-
Was Freedom Planet bad?
-
The voices sure were!
-
Tell me this: if you had a class of four students, who were all thoughtful, intelligent, and safety-conscious, would you expect them to start sticking forks into mains at home just because they put solder in an outlet once in class and nothing happened? You don't assume all your students hit each other in the head with cast-iron frying pans because they saw a Bugs Bunny cartoon, right?
I don't have a class of four students. I have eight classes of averagely 23 students. And no, they're not all "thoughtful, intelligent and safety-conscious" because they're almost all adolescents.
By the way, did you know that the frontal lobe is only fully developed until after you turned 25 years of age? I'm talking about the part of the brain which is involved with stuff like "long-term planning" and "weighing consequences" and "replacing immediate satisfaction with future benefits". That is the reason why adolescents pull stupid shit: They literally cannot calculate the long-term consequences of their actions sometimes.
Which is also the reason why I myself opted for the "Nuke from Orbit" tactic when dealing with safety issues among adolescents. I've worked with youths long enough to have experienced the moronic actions they can do.
-
Duly rectified
-
did you know that the frontal lobe is only fully developed until after you turned 25 years of age?
Wait, my frontal lobe was fully developed but that changed last year and now it's not fully developed anymore?
-
I know a chemist working on his Ph.D, and from his explanations of what the undergrads are like, they don't get any better as they get older. Which is pretty terrifying when you're working with solvents.
-
I want to eat lunch at Chick-Fil-A today in honor of this thread, but the closest one is some
30398¹ miles away.
FTFM¹Measured from some arbitrary point in Seattle; their web site refuses to find anything if I give it my actual location.
-
Wait, my frontal lobe was fully developed but that changed last year and now it's not fully developed anymore?
As usual, such figures are an average over the whole human population.
-
Whoosh.
EDIT: And if he gets the "Missed The Joke" badge for this, I better be getting a pedantry one!
-
Did I say it wouldn't come up in court? That's the point. It comes up in court. The PRECEDENT (you should look that word up) is that only 2 people marry each other. Judges deny unless a new law is crafted allowing more.
It's touching you think things are that simple.
Judges make rulings without precedent all the time. I encourage you to find a court case explicitly stating the rule is now "marriage is now between two people." You aren't going to find that, unless a really sloppy judge wrote it. And if one did, then he loosened the definition too much.
-
It is not too complex to add to the law allowing explicitly for gay marriage. Unless you just aren't very good at English I guess.
It would be nice if you didn't assume I'm stupid just because you don't understand what I'm saying. I usually extend that courtesy to you.
-
You're arguing with someone on the internet about politics. I guarantee you look silly. As do I.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/cancel-all-my-meetings.jpg
-
Well, sorry, I'm a bit tired and I still have to correct some tests where pupils in the 10th grade are unable to compute stuff like this: -45+2(20+2)
Without a pocket calculator, that is.
As a result, my snarkiness-detector is a bit impaired.
-
Sorry, Dicsourse's magical streaming feature led me to assume you'd have read things after that post already since they are inlined. Dicsourse's fault.
With the length threads can get, I don't make any attempt to read the whole thing first. It makes it too difficult to maintain enough state to reply to everythign I want to reply.
The downside, of course, is this. But I don't want to have to take copious notes while reading.
-
Plenty would get it wrong even with one, due to order of operations and a cheap calculator.
-
Judges make rulings without precedent all the time. I encourage you to find a court case explicitly stating the rule is now "marriage is now between two people." You aren't going to find that, unless a really sloppy judge wrote it. And if one did, then he loosened the definition too much.
Really, if judges make rulings without precedent all the time, then how does gay marriage open the door for polygamy? If there is no precedents for any of this, then your argument that somehow this time will magically be a precedent to follow rather than the last time (interracial marriage), is again, really really terrible.
-
That was the intended result. Like I said, this flamewar is boring
I'm attempting to keep it that way, because @darkmatter is sometimes civil.
-
Plenty would get it wrong even with one, due to order of operations and a cheap calculator.
The sad thing is that it's now week 5 of practicing this exact thing.
-
It would be nice if you didn't assume I'm stupid just because you don't understand what I'm saying
tbh, i wasn't referring to YOU you, but the general "everyone" you.
-
I especially liked hearing my classmates proudly proclaim, "Ha, I've never read a book in my life!"
-
To say that the law can't be changed to allow Gay Marriage explicitly because the court might misinterpret it is a pretty shallow argument though.
Why would you think that was my point? I thought I was pretty clear that if you are going to change it and make your changes stick you have to write them in such a way that (I use this for a shorthand for "and a bunch of other things") you don't violate the equal protection clause. I don't see how "marriage is between two people" is immune to an equal protection challenge by three people. I haven't yet--again, as of me writing this--seen you acknowledge that. Instead you resort to insults, which is not the tactic of someone who's got a reasoned argument[1].
[1]Yes, I know.
-
I thought I was pretty clear that if you are going to change it and make your changes stick you have to write them in such a way that
So..... basically we agree. I said, amend the law to explicitly allow gay marriage. You say... change it to specifically allow gay marriage.
-
I don't see how "marriage is between two people" is immune to an equal protection challenge by three people. I haven't yet--again, as of me writing this--seen you acknowledge that.
I have argued that point, but with @boomzilla, so you must have missed it in the flood.
-
I don't have a class of four students. I have eight classes of averagely 23 students. And no, they're not all "thoughtful, intelligent and safety-conscious" because they're almost all adolescents.
The class I was in--which I will admit was atypical--had 4 people.
I'm glad to know you think adolescents are incapable of self-preservation. Can you tell me where your school is, so I can avoid being traumatized by the constant flow of people walking out of fourth-floor windows, walking in front of steamrollers, and otherwise generally acting suicidal?
-
I especially liked hearing my classmates proudly proclaim, "Ha, I've never read a book in my life!"
I'm doing this in a sort-of remedial math class and I've been asked by the pupils which grades I would give them. The grading is a bit weird in this school (not my usual school, by the way, with grades going from E1 over E4/G1 to G6, with G6 being the worst).
When I told them that most of them would probably only get a G4 I was met with surprise: "But my usual math teacher gave me a E4!"
I did not reply: "I honestly can't see how."
-
The class I was in--which I will admit was atypical--had 4 people.
I'm glad to know you think adolescents are incapable of self-preservation. Can you tell me where your school is, so I can avoid being traumatized by the constant flow of people walking out of fourth-floor windows, walking in front of steamrollers, and otherwise generally acting suicidal?
It's not all of them. But you only need one.
Glad to see you first accuse me of doing a too-broad painting of your statements and then you yourself committing to the fallacy you accused me of..
-
I'm glad to know you think adolescents are incapable of self-preservation. Can you tell me where your school is, so I can avoid being traumatized by the constant flow of people walking out of fourth-floor windows, walking in front of steamrollers, and otherwise generally acting suicidal?
Somehow reminds me of this:
When I was in high school, there was a TV on a cart stored near my desk for a certain class. It was hooked up with two chained extension cords. My friend who sat next to me took a piece of pencil lead, stuck it on MY desk hanging off the edge, then grabbed the cord where the two extension cords plugged into each other, slightly unplugged it so you could see the prongs, then brought the prongs into contact with the pencil lead. The lead exploded with a flash of light and a bang (all 12" in front of me btw), even leaving scorch marks and pitted metal in the prongs.
The teacher stopped his lecture, silently walked over to our corner of the classroom, unplugged the TV, pushed the cart to the other side of the classroom so it wasn't near me, then went back to the front of the classroom and continued his lecture.
-
It's not even a matter of it being hugely dangerous. If one student does something mildly dangerous and ends up with so much as a tiny burn spot or a skinned knee, and has just the wrong sort of parents, suddenly as a teacher you have a rather serious problem. Something may be minor, but the parents will sue you for damaging their minor.
