Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
-
Okidokey then. I'm glad we sorted that out.
Back to disabling UAC...
-
For every Democrat calling the Republicans racist religious zealots, you've got Republicans calling Democrats liberal communist/socialist nanny staters.
Sure, but only some of the Republicans fit that description.
It's pretty funny really, the last person to say that particular phrase was a lunatic right winger in Nevada that was trying to dodge taxes on his usage of government-owned public land.
That's not really what he said. But I will say that that case had no shortage of bad actors on both sides (and that's not even getting into the supporters).
-
Either that's the dumbest thing I've ever read on here, or you were intentionally trolling @flabdablet.
Let me put it this way. If that was the best information I had, then what I said following from that is not unreasonable, and pretending I'm not arguing from that premise is dishonest.
-
A quick trip to google returned this:
Interestingly a leading theory is that that demographic is against gay marriages because they feel the gay equality movement trivializes their own equality movement. Another other group of typically Democratic voters that are against gay marriage are the Mexican immigrants (due to being mainly Catholics).
-
Indeed, I've heard both theories.
-
Weren't you the one taking issue with oppression contests? While I agree that many stupid things are posted on the internet, categorizing all their authors as stupid is oppressing them. As a group.
-
The @FrostCat quote you used sounds similar, but lacks the vagueness that an actual slippery slope fallacy needs.
The bullshit about "bestiality". Considering that a major part of the argument for gay marriage involves CONSENTING ADULTS. When you show me a cow that is legally consenting, then maybe I won't consider the legalize bestiality FUD be the stupidest argument against gay marriage yet.
-
That's not really what he said.
to be fair what he said was more along the lines of "they were better off being slaves than they are now free", but it is a similarly stupid line of thinking.
-
his ridiculous position on letting school kids stick stuff into power sockets is actually serious.
Good lord, I wasn't suggesting people actually do it. I'm just saying that, among people who have respect for potential danger shouldn't cause as much of a freakout as much more likely to be seriously dangerous things.
You go shooting, you run the risk of getting hot brass down your shirt. If you took precautions like wearing a high-necked shirt, then the range officer shouldn't scream at you about the danger. Instead, he should focus on the idiot in the next lane who's pointing his gun in a direction other than downrange. That was my original point, and Rhywden seemed not to grasp the distinction, and, well, yeah, it was funny after that.
-
Immature Internet blowhards are not a minority group :-)
-
People who think I'm talking about modern day equivalents to suffragettes
The worst of this place is that no matter how many times you say that, people ignore you.
-
Sweet, the right wing lunatics have finally arrived with their retarded slippery slope arguments.
You are a dumb fuck. People are already making arguments that gay marriage implies polygamy should be legal.
-
People are already making arguments that gay marriage implies polygamy should be legal.
And those people are all stupid. I can see how you would be confused though. Clearly 1 person + 1 person = more than 2 people (polygamy). Math must have been very tough for you in school.
-
Neither does oppression or the wrongness of it have anything to do with numbers.
And yet, no matter how hard I try, I can't help agreeing that we all are. As if I needed more proof that I'm no different than anyone else!
-
Well, my position is that we don't know who is reading his idiotic notions and might take him up on it.
Ugh. Let me ask you this. If you see a person wearing jeans without holes, a long sleeve shirt, and sneakers, thus leaving almost no skin exposed, how much danger do you think he is from a single small drop of molten solder? Obviously that's a different proposition from someone wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I would argue the second person doesn't even belong in a lab setting, so I discounted that person from my safety evaluation. Yeah, I should have made that clear.
But geez, you acted like someone with a tiny little drop of solder was in the same amount of danger as someone who jumped into a bathtub holding a powered toaster. Before you set me off I was just trying to suggest a sense of proportion.
-
Once you come up with a reason how legal gay marriage means something other than, well, LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE, then let's hear it. If your reason is, because then we'd have to let everyone else do what they want too then you're a moron.
-
The bullshit about "bestiality". Considering that a major part of the argument for gay marriage involves CONSENTING ADULTS. When you show me a cow that is legally consenting, then maybe I won't consider the legalize bestiality FUD be the stupidest argument against gay marriage yet.
I think I may be somewhat sociopathic towards animals. I mean, I loved my dog when I had her, but I'm just not moved by stuff like dogfights. Or chickens in cages.
I think "legally consenting" is wrong here. Before it was legal, there was no way for two men to legally consent to marry. But if you talk about consent as a matter of morality or something, that is definitely different, sort of. But I'll give you credit for that one.
-
Oh look, more "Anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" rather than "this is why disagreeing with me on this point makes no sense"
-
Once you come up with a reason how legal gay marriage means something other than, well, LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE, then let's hear it. If your reason is, because then we'd have to let everyone else do what they want too then you're a moron.
So do you disagree that the arguments in favor of gay marriage work for, say, polygamy? Or do we just not care because the population of would be polygamists is apparently smaller than the population of would be same sex spouses?
Do you have a genuine opinion?
-
Anyone who disagrees with me is a moron"
Need more reading comprehension. I said, if your argument is X, then you're stupid. Not that you have to agree with me. Just that you have to have a REAL ARGUMENT, and not just a BUT BECAUSE I SAID SO!
-
What I have never seen is any ever evidence that anybody has ever chosen their sexuality (without lying to themselves in the process).
I have an older cousin who got married and had two kids and then came out and divorced his wife when the younger one was, say, five or so, about 30-35 years ago. Did he make a conscious decision to go from living as a straight man to living as a gay one?
We're starting to get into semantics here, I understand that. Now I don't know if he already thought of himself as gay before he got married or not, but considering how much of a shock it was when he came out, he managed to convince everyone else he was straight.
-
Oh look, more "Anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" rather than "this is why disagreeing with me on this point makes no sense"
No, @darkmatter is more about, "You have an opinion, you're a moron," sort of troll. He's not always wrong, but he's never really right, either.
-
I think you have non-bigoted reasons for not wanting marriage to be allowed between 2 people of the same gender. I disagree and think it should be.
Well, thank you for doing me the courtesy of not acting like @flabdablet.
Let me--again--reiterate and say that, while I'm personally opposed to gay marriage I wouldn't try to stop it. If I were Governor and someone passed a law legalizing it, I'd probably sign it. OTOH I don't agree with underhanded tactics like a court saying "you have 6 months to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or you must allow it" in a place that has laws such that constitutional amendments take a year or two to pass. (Actually I think that's a rotten tactic even if it would result in a law I approve of, because I have respect for the rule of law.)
-
OTOH I don't agree with underhanded tactics like a court saying "you have 6 months to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or you must allow it" in a place that has laws such that constitutional amendments take a year or two to pass.
I think the argument that not having it violates the 14th Amendment is bullshit. The courts have really fucked up here. But I'm in a smaller minority than people wanting to marry like this in that I think the process of governing is still important.
-
Do you have a genuine opinion?
I am of the opinion that they should make their own argument if they want it legalized. Not that they should automatically inherit legal status because of some other specific thing that a majority has decided is okay. And especially not that the other group should just be screwed over because something more people dislike might in the future make a similar argument to the one they used.
There is a lot more involved in legalizing polygamy. What would it even "mean". You would need a clear definition of what it is first, because you need to differentiate between what is polyamorous vs polygamous vs open marriages vs....
With gay marriage you have a single clear definition. 2 people. Same sex. Very easily comparable to 2 people, different sexes.
No, @darkmatter is more about, "You have an opinion, you're a moron," sort of troll.
Close enough, I guess. I've agreed with your arguments plenty of times despite disagreeing with your overall views/conclusions.
-
That is some reasoning I'll agree with.
-
Ugh. Let me ask you this. If you see a person wearing jeans without holes, a long sleeve shirt, and sneakers, thus leaving almost no skin exposed, how much danger do you think he is from a single small drop of molten solder? Obviously that's a different proposition from someone wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I would argue the second person doesn't even belong in a lab setting, so I discounted that person from my safety evaluation. Yeah, I should have made that clear.
But geez, you acted like someone with a tiny little drop of solder was in the same amount of danger as someone who jumped into a bathtub holding a powered toaster. Before you set me off I was just trying to suggest a sense of proportion.
No, you went full "HERP DERP! it's so harmless nothing will happen!" way before that, my dear.
And it's not only the "amount of danger" that's relevant, it's the amount of grief you'll get over an "accident" like that. Because I can't see telling a story like "so I let them put solder into the mains line and someone got burned as a result" go over so very well while sitting in front of the principal.
Such stuff is giving off the signal that it's okay to mess with main lines. It's not. Period. Because sooner or later some stupid pupil will think that, because it worked fine at school, it's okay to do that at home. And when they get hurt as a result, their statement that "Mr. XYZ allowed us to do that at school!" is, again, not something that will go over well.
-
The courts have really fucked up here. But I'm in a smaller minority than people wanting to marry like this in that I think the process of governing is still important.
Right. BTW I wasn't speaking in hypotheticals. Massachusetts actually did that. I don't remember how it came into the courts, but the SJC (MA's supreme court) actually ruled that the state had 6 months to come up with a constitutional amendment, or to allow gay marriage. The amendment process requires--IIRC--a potential amendment to be passed in two consecutive annual session. So the court pretended to give the state a choice.
This is not a thing people who believe in the rule of law should support. Now that I think about that, I wonder if someone with deep pockets could've fought that somehow, given that the court told the state it could do something it couldn't do.
-
Not to mention that the vast majority of complaints scattered around the 'Net are from home users
Straw man. The ultimate complaint is not using their product, Vista, which is what businesses did.
But equally it's unfair to exclusively lay the blame on Redmond
FTFY
I think this was a learning experience in the industry. The end users ended up paying the price in lost time, aggravation, broken programs, lost income, etc. etc. Not sure if there was a better way, but the way it was done hurt.
-
There is a lot more involved in legalizing polygamy. What would it even "mean".
The obvious reply is to ask why should marriage be limited to two people. And this isn't a hypothetical, because people were asking that almost before the ink was dry.
And here's the thing: you can't just say "because it's obviously not the same." If you want to try to distinguish between why gay marriage should be legal but...let's use the term "group marriage" as a shorthand for "any other arrangement"...shouldn't be, you have to craft something that can withstand equal protection arguments. If two guys can get married, why can't three people? Seriously, spend a couple of minutes trying to come up with an answer.
For that matter, let's have a bit of fun. If two gay guys can get married, should two straight guys be allowed to? If not, why? Be sure to phrase your answer in non-discriminatory terms, because if allowing straights to do something and not allowing gays to do it is discriminatory, so is the opposite situation.
Sometimes a slippery slope actually is a real thing.
I'm not actually taunting or trolling you here, at least not deliberately.
-
The obvious reply is to ask why should marriage be limited to two people. And this isn't a hypothetical, because people were asking that almost before the ink was dry.
People were asking that before the gay marriage thing became an issue. So what makes it different now?
-
For that matter, let's have a bit of fun. If two gay guys can get married, should two straight guys be allowed to? If not, why? Be sure to phrase your answer in non-discriminatory terms, because if allowing straights to do something and not allowing gays to do it is discriminatory, so is the opposite situation.
Should two people of opposite sex that have no sexual attraction/relations with each other be allowed to marry? Happens though, so what makes it somehow worse when they aren't opposite sexes?
@FrostCat said:Sometimes a slippery slope actually is a real thing.
but usually it's just FUD, see above.
-
People were asking that before the gay marriage thing became an issue. So what makes it different now?
The arguments seem to have succeeded once?
-
it's so harmless nothing will happen
Actually, if you go back and carefully re-read, you'll see I repeatedly said I was more worried about things that were more likely to have worse consequences. I admit I could probably have stressed it more, but I know I said it several times.
[I had a bunch of other stuff here I deleted]
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?
-
.let's use the term "group marriage" as a shorthand for "any other arrangement"...shouldn't be, you have to craft something that can withstand equal protection arguments. If two guys can get married, why can't three people? Seriously, spend a couple of minutes trying to come up with an answer.
When they figure out a way for defining the outcome for polygamists' "legal marriage" including all the insanity as far as legal rights, tax laws, etc should be handled, then yes you would have a real argument for equal protection. But until then, there is nothing equal about it.
So far I have yet to see any of that when it comes to polygamy other than the people crying OMG first gays next polygamists and bestiality ONOES though.
-
To nobody in particular: this is by far the most boring political flamewar I've ever seen on this site.
Why don't you find a black American and ask him how he feels about having gay marriage co-opting the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement.
You rang? I don't care, it's not like we copyrighted it.
For the record, my stance on gay marriage is: go ahead, let them suffer with the rest of us.
-
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?
But if I condoned doing that sort of thing in my classroom, I'd expect to be fired.
-
People were asking that before the gay marriage thing became an issue. So what makes it different now?
Because before they were completely ignored, and now they're saying "well, if you allow gay marriage, why can't I marry two women?"
A precedent has been set that "marriage doesn't mean one man and one woman." Once you erase the line, any attempt to redraw it will have to be justified. In the US, that means eventually someone will sue under the Equal Protection clause. They may lose. But they may win. If you want them to lose, you can no longer just say "because we said so."
-
The arguments seem to have succeeded once?
Because the general population has become nearly a majority in support of it.
When the general population is nearing a majority in support of polygamy, then I'm sure we'll have this same debate again (and more bestiality comparisons are guaranteed!)
-
Because someone can silently execute the application.
Sure for Diablo3 not so bad.
But imagine if you know you're going to use api command X all the time, but it can be used to frag your machine, and you whitelist that out of frustration.
Seriously, UAC is just the inverse of SUDO.
-
A precedent has been set that "marriage doesn't mean one man and one woman."
But a precedent will have been set that it means TWO PEOPLE ONLY.
What part of that is too hard for you to math?
-
Should two people of opposite sex that have no sexual attraction/relations with each other be allowed to marry? Happens though, so what makes it somehow worse when they aren't opposite sexes?
You didn't actually answer me. I'll tell you my thought: to be consistent, I think the answer is no, but that no is consistent with what I've been saying, so if society accepts it I'm not going to try to stop it.
Having said that, do you support what I'm going to call cissexual marriage? (What? It's concise.)
-
but usually it's just FUD, see above.
I'll allow it's frequently FUD. But it's not ALWAYS FUD, so you can't just say "slippery slope" as if that ends discussion, if you want to maintain a coherent/logical position.
-
But a precedent will have been set that it means TWO PEOPLE ONLY.What part of that is too hard for you to math?
The legal system isn't based on math. Or popularity. Haven't you been paying attention?
-
My answer is implied there with the rhetorical question. If it's okay for opposite sexes to marry without sexual relations, then it's just fine for straight people too. Hell, two GAY people of OPPOSITE sexes can marry legally right now.
Once you start denying the non-lover opposite-sex marriages, then you'd have an argument against non-lover same-sex marriages.
-
The arguments seem to have succeeded once?
Interestingly enough, that's basically the argument I've seen advanced.
I'll admit I've only heard of a couple of instances of people talking about a lawsuit, and I haven't followed to see if it was just trolling or was serious. But the people who were talking about it were acting as if they were serious, and if they weren't sooner or later someone will. I mean, you've got those people in Germany trying to get a monkey declared human[1].
[1] or that he has human rights or whatever it is. BTW, that's another case where the slippery slope argument isn't FUD. If some primates deserve human rights, why not all of them? What about whales, dolphins, and elephants, species generally considered to be quite intelligent?
-
-
You rang? I don't care, it's not like we copyrighted it.
Snort.
ETA fix markdown and remove second quote because I didn't have any reply to it other than another snort.
-
But if I condoned doing that sort of thing in my classroom, I'd expect to be fired.
So you DO assume that, then. Are you cynical [inclusive-or] are your students that dumb?
