User Profile: Keep Your Skepticals On

Keep Your Skepticals On

Member Since: October 24, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] October 13, 2014 at 11:58pm

    “If this was a case involving race, religion or national origin, there would be no debate on right or wrong.”

    This makes no sense because they refused the content, not the people.

  • October 5, 2014 at 1:47pm

    Nevermind the truth behind it, it is a completely different issue with the Nazi Germany photos because in the ISIS case it is individual papers choosing not to publish something on their own while other publications can do as they please. That does not prevent distribution. In the case of the Nazi photos it was individuals trying to prevent anyone from publishing it. That is wholly to prevent any distribution.

    Comparing the two is a horrible analogy. People should be able to choose what they do/don’t publish but people should not be able to choose what someone else can/can’t.

  • [2] October 5, 2014 at 1:37pm

    Each publication should be able to decide to publish or not publish whatever it wants.

    Whether or not it is right depends on the publication and their readership. Especially these days, not much reason to republish controversial stuff anyway – just link to it or reference it or don’t. For every one not publishing it there’s a thousand that are.

    A publication choosing not to publish it doesn’t mean it’s hiding or censoring it – it’s just not providing it. Otherwise it may as well be argued that any publications – news or not – that isn’t publishing it is censoring it or that anyone not talking about it is censoring it.

    But, if a higher authority keeps it from the press or orders it not to be published, that’s a problem. If it’s about controlling the source to prevent it being seen that’s one thing – not plastering it on the front page should be individually discretionary. The only people who know if the decision is a good one or not is the publication, it’s readership and their tolerances either way.

  • [3] September 30, 2014 at 3:02pm

    The law is not the problem here – the problem is no one seems to be able to tell the difference between declining objectionable work and refusing service to certain people. The shop knowingly served gay & lesbian customers without issue – the problem was how they were asked to prepare the cake.

  • [5] September 30, 2014 at 2:59pm

    Yes – they happily served gay & lesbian customers. They only took issue with one particular requested service. It’s almost like they have no problem with who the customer is, only with the service they were asked to provide.

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 2:56pm

    …or just explain the difference between refusing service to certain people vs. declining objectionable work.

    That would make sense though.

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 2:53pm

    The painter does have the right to refuse to paint something he disagrees with – just as a newspaper or magazine can decline to run ads it finds disagreeable or objectionable.

    Cakes do endorse things. If the Kleins win in court and you have a cake shop can I ask you to make a cake that celebrates the Kleins success? Heck – signs, balloons, ad space, the works – all the print shops & party stores & venues have to express my opinion exactly how I want or I get to drag them to court?

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 2:44pm

    So the shop happily served gay & lesbian customers regularly, but after declining to make one particular item a certain way they are discriminating?

    Do research, they knew they had gay/lesbian customers and did not refuse them service. They declined to provide a service – they did not decline to service certain customers.

  • [11] September 30, 2014 at 2:40pm

    Do some research. The shop happily served gay & lesbian customers – they just drew the line at preparing a cake a certain way that endorses a lifestyle they disagree with.

    The point that just flew by was that the problem is not the gay clients, it’s with the service they were asked to provide. Just like a publisher can deny ad space for material it finds agreeable or objectionable without violating free speech or discrimination laws.

    Just because someone wants to express something doesn’t mean someone else has to publish it – be it in a magazine or on a cake. If I go in to a cake shop and ask for a cake to celebrate successful passage voter ID laws, pro-life legislation and repealing a ban on military style assault weapons can they refuse? Is that refusing service to someone because of their political views? Or is it simply objecting to the ideals I want them to help me express via their services?

    They cannot refuse me service, but they can refuse to publish my ideals. Not that hard to understand.

  • [12] September 30, 2014 at 2:18pm

    “Klein and her husband, Aaron, have been at the forefront of the debate surrounding whether Christian business owners who provide wedding services should be forced to serve gay and lesbian clients.”

    It has nothing to do with serving gay and lesbian clients. It has everything to do with providing gay and lesbian services. BIG difference. They happily served gay & lesbian customers but drew the line at participation and enabling it. Stop spreading the same horse manure that obfuscates the issue.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 26, 2014 at 3:06pm

    That is not the point – a nude pick from a stolen wallet getting Xeroxed is no different.

    The point is that while she did not expose herself publicly, she did expose herself to a high risk of getting exposed publicly. Their fault it was stolen? No. Their fault something not meant for prying eyes was recorded on a medium easily stolen distributed? Yes.

  • September 26, 2014 at 2:47pm

    Nudity between spouses is not a sin, but exhibitionism due to carelessness or ignorance is still exhibitionism. Accident happen and people make mistakes, but using the same mediums that are used to publicize nudity for private intimacy ignorant, careless, stupid or reckless and it should be acknowledged so everyone can learn from the situation.

    It is a sin to expose yourself publicly, no? Regardless of intentions, there was no reasonable expectation it would not be public exposure – pictures (especially digital) are easily copied & distributed and easily end up in the hands of unintended recipients. Just because she did not expose herself doesn’t excuse putting something on a public medium that is not meant to be public.

    “Hey honey, let’s videotape ourselves. It’s not our fault for being on video for the world to see even if chances are at some point the world will see it.”

  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 2:11pm

    So, if it being “for her husband”… at what point does carelessness constitute willful publication?

    Is it ok to have a stack of polaroids in the nightstand where the kids can easily find them? How about a few Kodaks in the wallet that can eahsily be lost or stolen then maliciously reproduce

    Intended audience is all fine & dandy but there is personal responsibility in not making intimacy easily accessible and/or reproducible. The hacker are solely to blame for the leak, but someone is responsible for the picture existing in the first place.

    “Judge not lest ye be judged” – sure it’s not up to anyone to damn them or visa versa, but if people are exposing themselves to harmful situations in risky ways, let’s not be afraid to point it out, lest we all be willfully ignorant of those risks.

  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 1:54pm

    Isn’t there a commandment about graven images with more than a few reference of vanity and lust used to describe an idols of worship?

    Who it is intended for it really irrelevant. Horrible situation for them, but I am a little saddened the message they are conveying is “Hackers are solely responsible for the situation” instead of “Hey, this is one very good reason not to do what we did.”

    Is the thought process really “It’s not exhibitionism unless explicitly intended for public consumption” even when knowingly using the same format and medium that is used for public distribution? 10 years ago, wasn’t it a bad idea for a husband to keep a nude photo of his wife in his wallet? Sure it’s only meant for him, but anyone who happens upon his wallet suddenly has it and may or may not have access to a Xerox.

    Nudity is great, just don’t publish it. The elephant in the room is the personal responsibility of not generating, allowing access or allow misuse of things beyond intended persons or uses. Next let’s all blame petty thieves when they steal personal items from the car without acknowledging who didn’t check to be sure it was locked or who carelessly left such priceless items in it. Sure the thieves are to blame, but let’s put pride aside and teach everyone how to protect themselves from similar violations.

    Don’t expose your nudity in easily publicized ways without expectation it is will be easily publicized – by accident or by malicious intent.

  • [1] September 4, 2014 at 11:48pm

    …and everything was going so well until 7 ate 9.

  • September 4, 2014 at 11:45pm

    This is generally how I did math in head, very quickly, for as long as I can remember – works great. Never was taught this method, but it made sense to me.

    The problem is Base 10 is a language concept, not a mathematical concept – so using it as a foundational replacement of absolute values is only going to make advanced mathematic concepts harder to grasp when Base 10 is not applicable – or incompatible. It can and should be taught of course, but not as primary mathematical foundation. It’s more important to foundationally understand 6 + 9 = 15 than it is to rely 10 being easy and converting everything into it.

    It’s a great trick, but not a good foundation.

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 4:44pm

    Luggage makes sense – the secret service has serviced many a presidential vacation lately.

  • August 23, 2014 at 2:09am

    Maybe 55% don’t think it should be legally recognized. But I do doubt 55% think the other 45% should be legally obligated to like it, let alone cater to it.

    Browse around the internet, you’ll find all kinds of things a lot of people find beautiful, yet maybe you won’t. If you find any one of them asking for your services that involves your participation and cooperation, you’re OK with being legally obligated to do it?

  • August 6, 2014 at 6:07pm

    If only I had realized before that the purpose of hospitals is to help the ill, patients benefit and do not threaten the country and helping people is the right thing to do I wouldn’t be worried about contagious diseases. The objectivity is overwhelming.

    But seriously – more worried about what’s coming across the southern border unchecked. The Ebola thing is a perfect timing excuse to not cover it right at the time people would be demanding it.

  • [5] July 29, 2014 at 9:32pm

    Better to let a rumor lie and allow people to think you’re a lowlife than to sue a widow and remove all doubt.

123 To page: Go