1481

Technology & Information / Re: My weekly OpenBSD time

« on: July 04, 2015, 05:29:52 AM »

Now that I've installed OpenBSD on my primary workstation, it's time to get this started again.

This weekend, I intend to keep working on my Perl bindings for libsndio, as well as trying to write a port. Things I'd like to write ports for include:

 - Ardour 3
 - bash-completion
 - daemontools
 - xpra
 - various libraries I rely on for scripts and what not

I'm sure I'll think of more as time goes on.

Add "dirvish and its perl dependencies".

1482

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 04, 2015, 04:08:24 AM »

Tom has finally stopped responding to me. I guess that's one way to resolve a double standard.

1483

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 04, 2015, 02:46:58 AM »

I have no reason to redact anything. You did not ask any question specifically, but expressed concern over the concept of majority rule and I justified that we presently live in a democracy and also mentioned the Bill of Rights as the key framework which limits the extent of majority rule. The founders put much thought into the American system of government, and many countries adopted their own constitutions and guarantees of rights, modeled directly after the system of the United States.

Irrelevant. You still used the existence of democracy as justification for democracy. That's like me expressing concern over the Charleston shooting, and you providing justification that there are currently racists in America.

I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.

It is satisfactory to precisely the same extent as your "justification" for democracy. Either my case is unsatisfactory, and so is yours, or they are both satisfactory. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

1484

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 03, 2015, 08:11:00 PM »

You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, it is your duty to start or join political groups which support those ideals.

Precisely. Your answer to "why should democracy extend as far as it does?" was "democracy currently extends as far as it does" ...

I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. The questions were not addressed. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.

... and my answer to "why should gay marriage be legal?" was "gay marriage is currently legal".

If you want to avoid a double standard, you'll either need to redact your circular reasoning in favour of American democracy, or else substantiate it with a reason why things should be as they are.

1485

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 03, 2015, 07:30:14 PM »

I notice you've ignored this part of my response:

If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.

Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:

Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.

Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.

Before we go any further, please explain why something being the status quo is sufficient justification in your argument, but not mine.

1486

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 03, 2015, 08:37:00 AM »

Yes, absolutely. Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. The majority rule represents the interests of the people, and must be upheld beyond all else.

The minority cannot rule the majority, as minority rule is antithetical to the concept of democracy. The founders of the United States worried that the majority could abuse its powers, as easily as a king, and so a framework called the Bill of Rights was drafted to preserve the basic human rights of the minority, and preserve the necessary rights to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections.The Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, trial by jury, and protection from excessive bails and fines.

I am not asking how democracy works, nor did I suggest that the minority be allowed to rule the majority. All I asked is whether you consider majority rule, as it applies to spending other people's money, to be fair. If the answer is "yes", as it seems to be, then we have reached an impasse.

You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.

There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Whether it is a federal or state matter has no bearing on your original question as to why same-sex marriage should be legal, nor does it in any way detract from my question as to why the majority should be allowed to dictate how minorities live their lives and spend their money. As I understand it, all of the states of the USA are democracies themselves, so the level at which that mechanism operates is hardly pertinent.

It doesn't matter what I agree with, or what you agree with. Our taxes currently exist, and nothing is going to change that. Marriage benefits are certainly not going away.

The matter at hand, today and now, is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual, despite providing nothing to society as a group. The question posed, of which you have yet to answer in a straight manner as a supporter of marriage equality, is why must we grant homosexuals monetary rewards for the incongruous act of shacking up with another homosexual? Why should society be impressed with that?

No, that isn't the matter at hand. The question you asked was:

Why should gay marriage be legal?

My answer to which is:

Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.

We then danced around in circles for a while, with you dismissing every answer I provided and then asking the question again with some slight variation on the wording. Now we have the question you just claimed to be the one posed all along, which is asking about a case most people would not attempt to defend.

Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere along the line, let me remind you that I agreed with your point that providing marriage benefits to same-sex couples is unfair, but only to the extent that it is also unfair for mixed-sex couples. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is even more unfair than spending other people's money, so for as long as that unfair policy exists, it should be applied to same-sex couples as well.

If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.

Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:

Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.

Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.

1487

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 03, 2015, 12:38:27 AM »

What are you talking about? It is fair and we do have a say. It's called a democracy. Our ELECTED OFFICIALS spend public money on things deemed beneficial. The state spends our money on everything from Agriculture to Space Travel.

Democracy is rule by majority. Are you suggesting it is fair that the majority gets to forcibly take money away from the minority and choose how to spend it for them?

It was determined that the long term health of our economy depends on stable nuclear families creating future workers and taxpayers. Therefore, heterosexual unions were rewarded and homosexual unions were not.

It was also determined that you can tell if a woman is a witch by drowning her.

The state regulates lifestyle choices of all stripes. The state regulates drugs, prostitution, and pedophilia. The state places limits on words, dress codes, and many other things. The justification is that we elected our government to do so. This regulation is what the public consensus wants.

The fact that the powers that be have done a bad job in the past is no reason for them to continue doing a bad job in the future. Your appeal to public consensus is circular logic; if we all have to accept that public consensus is justification for a decision being the right one, then none of us can question established consensus, and public consensus can never change.

If the best you can do to counter my points is "the majority of people disagree with you", I'll take that in stride.

The state decided that heterosexual marriage was best for society, not homosexual marriage, and that trend has been upheld for many years, through many election cycles, cementing in the undeniable fact that it is what the public wants as well.

Even if you assume that our democratic process is flawless (it's not, even in Australia where things are a lot better than in the US), and that this implies most people are satisfied with all government decisions (in a representative democracy, it doesn't), the only fact this cements is that it is what more than 50% of the public wants. Why should 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% are allowed to live?

The state does have business telling us what we can and can't do and how we are to live our lives. We elected them into power to do that! I want to live safely in my neighborhood, I want to go to the store without worrying about seeing indecency, and I want my tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. The state provides guidance in the form of laws and tax benefits to ensure that we live in a safe and prosperous society.

No, nobody elects representatives to tell them how to live their lives. Some people do, however, feel the need to elect representatives to tell other people how to live their lives. When the majority do this, the minority have to play along, even if they never wanted the people in charge to be there.

The state only has business interfering when what we do stands to harm others. You can live safely in your neighbourhood because it is the state's prerogative to protect us from criminals. On the other hand, it is not the state's prerogative to prevent you from seeing "indecency". Are you suggesting that people would suddenly stop caring about social acceptability and walk around naked if the government made it legal? If so, is it really that disturbing to you if they do? You may wish to consider finding a hobby, in that case.

Everyone wants their tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. Very few people ever agree with what the government thinks is beneficial. Therefore, the only way to accomplish that goal is to lower taxes and let people spend their money the way they want to.

1488

Technology & Information / Re: My weekly OpenBSD time

« on: July 02, 2015, 12:50:17 PM »

Now that I've installed OpenBSD on my primary workstation, it's time to get this started again.

This weekend, I intend to keep working on my Perl bindings for libsndio, as well as trying to write a port. Things I'd like to write ports for include:

 - Ardour 3
 - bash-completion
 - daemontools
 - xpra
 - various libraries I rely on for scripts and what not

I'm sure I'll think of more as time goes on.

1489

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 29, 2015, 10:20:42 PM »

Regardless of your views that taxes should be abolished or changed, that is not the current situation. The current situation is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual.

No, the current situation is that the government is already unfairly distributing wealth from non-married couples to married couples. The metrics used to qualify as a married couple are irrelevant; it's unfair to expect taxpayers to support the institution of marriage if they choose not to partake in it, regardless of whether those they are subsidising are heterosexual or homosexual. This issue is separate from and unrelated to the issue of same-sex marriage, but while this unfair practice exists, it should be extended equally to gay and straight couples alike.

Marriage between and man and a woman is the foundation of a stable union, of a stable family, and creates tax payers and consumers. It makes sense that a state would support the stability of that union with tax breaks and other benefits. It directly affects the prosperity of society.

A state does not exist to enforce prosperity. A state exists to protect the rights of individuals and organisations, thus enabling them to prosper in a free market. There is no justification for a state deciding which lifestyle is best for society on behalf of the populace.

What does not make sense is forcing the state to support gay marriage, which does not create life, does not benefit society as much, and which has been considered a mental illness for much of history. Homosexuality is certainly not "normal," and assuredly, a homosexual union does not bring as much benefit to society as a heterosexual union.

Indeed, the state should not support it. It is none of the state's business how consenting adults choose to live their lives.

Why does homosexual marriage deserve equal benefits without providing equal benefit to society? That is not fairness.

Correct. The whole point of my previous post was to point out the unfairness of providing benefits to married couples. I'm glad we agree.

1490

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 29, 2015, 04:54:03 AM »

Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with it. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?

The state doesn't have any money. It seizes money from its subjects and then doles it back out to them again. This process implies a value judgment by the government about the citizens it purportedly serves; those who pay the most tax per dollar earned are seen as least valuable, while those who pay the least tax are seen as most valuable. This is interference in our lives just as surely as legislation regarding homosexuality is.

Why should those who don't marry be forced to subsidise those who do? Marriage is a personal choice; the state needn't be involved at all, let alone take sides. The way to resolve this problem is to abolish the government benefits associated with marriage and cut taxes for everyone.

1491

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 29, 2015, 04:07:54 AM »

Over the years the courts have barred polygamists from marrying, from adopting, and even cohabitating in some states. Why is gay marriage so great that it deserves an exception in the law? Every argument in favor of gay marriage can be applied towards polygamy as well.

Like I said, the state has no business running people's lives for them. That applies to polygamy as well as homosexuality.

1492

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 29, 2015, 04:00:41 AM »

Why should gay marriage be legal?

Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.

1493

Science & Alternative Science / Re: False Vacuums

« on: June 29, 2015, 12:16:11 AM »

While this is interesting and everything, there's really no way to predict or stop it from happening, and since we'll be obliterated if it does we'd never know what hit us. So it's kind of pointless to worry about it.

1494

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Offshore immigration detention in Australia

« on: June 28, 2015, 06:24:41 PM »

You or your parents arrived via the Australian points system - a system envied the world over. In other words the same system you earlier derided, assessed that you would not be a drain on the economy. You aren't a refugee who arrived on a boat and was allowed to stay by political pressure from bleeding-heart liberals and economically illiterate students who believe we should all be holding hands and singing kumbayah.

Is it really this difficult to educate yourself on a topic before you ejaculate all over the thread? The policy of detaining refugees indefinitely is entirely distinct from Australia's points system. Moreover, when I arrived in Australia, the offshore detention facilities had not yet been established.

All of this is irrelevant to your claim that immigrants "vampire" a country's economy. Would you care to back that up, or have you reneged?

1495

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Offshore immigration detention in Australia

« on: June 28, 2015, 04:40:14 PM »

Well some of mine did. You're welcome.

Irrelevant. Are you going to tell me how I'm "vampiring" the Australian economy?

1496

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Offshore immigration detention in Australia

« on: June 28, 2015, 02:30:56 PM »

Without your forefathers, Australia was just a squandered opportunity, wasted on the natives.

That's interesting, given that none of my forefathers ever lived in Australia.

1497

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Offshore immigration detention in Australia

« on: June 28, 2015, 11:00:11 AM »

Immigrants harm an economy badly. They vampire it.

Um, no. Not every immigrant is the same. That's my whole point, actually.

Yes, some immigrants will come to a country just to leech off its economy, but that's exactly the kind of immigrant I'm saying we don't want. There are plenty of immigrants who move to Australia with their families simply to live a better life; we have quite a large Turkish population who are largely self-sufficient, for instance.

Indeed, I am an immigrant to Australia. How exactly am I "vampiring" its economy?

1498

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Offshore immigration detention in Australia

« on: June 27, 2015, 08:27:32 AM »

Australia should return to the White Australia policy forthwith

I strongly disagree with this. I view immigration as an economic matter, not a cultural or political one. Anyone who wants to come to Australia, regardless of ethnicity, religion, political views or country of origin, is okay by me provided that they are a net asset to our economy and that they peacefully respect the differing views of others. I would much rather we take in five hard-working, well-educated Muslims who are willing and able to support themselves than a single caucasian who is going to bum around and take advantage of our welfare system.

1499

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 26, 2015, 03:36:51 PM »

A great day for freedom. It'll be our turn soon (probably, or at least hopefully).

1500

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Offshore immigration detention in Australia

« on: June 26, 2015, 12:42:25 PM »

Unfortunately, your country seems to be a being used as a model by various right-wing parties in Britain and the EU. Even one of the front-runners for the Labour party leadership, Liz Kendell, has said that she'd back an Australian-style immigration system.

It's not our immigration strategy that disgusts me most (although I do disagree with the system in place), it's the implementation details. They could work it a lot better than they are now by imposing time limits on incarceration, allowing free media access, imposing mandatory reporting of child abuse, and ensuring that the offshore facilities are run in accordance with Australian law. All of these things were proposed as amendments to yesterday's bill by either the Greens or the Liberal Democrats, and all were voted down by the big parties. That's what I really find shocking.