2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Poetry Running Contest - Submission Thread
    Saving the Damsel ~Amory McKeever (Icecreamman80)

    She once held open the golden door
    for all those who needed rest
    She stood for something so much more
    a memory buried deep in our chest
    Now sentinels watch our every move
    and their lies pit brother against brother
    For finally when the war was over
    we traded one Magneto for another

    It's been this scratched and broken record
    since as far back as I can see
    That every time we won a war
    we only lost who we fought to be
    That every time we found a cure
    we just became the next infected
    That while supermen may die for us
    its Lex Luthors that get elected

    If the goal was really peace and love
    we most certainly have failed
    For a long train of usurpations
    alone is steaming down the rail
    That locomotive never slacks
    with the end of liberty ahead
    With little time to change our tracks
    we must or else the damsel is dead
    Posted in: Personal Writing
  • posted a message on Which is more metal? (afterlife)Dying and going to hell forever or (no afterlife)dying and your life being over, done?
    I would argue metal isn't about total oblivion though. It may be about annihilation, but not absence of existence.

    Therefore, Hell is more metal.
    Posted in: Religion
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    Quote from Tiax
    Quote from IcecreamMan80

    And I haven't once said that the protestors are punishing him. Mozilla punished him. If you think he wasn't "pushed" to resign, you're dreaming. CEO's don't get fired very often, they "resign".

    Mozilla could have said something like
    "While we understand your concern, Eichs opinions are his own, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of Mozilla, it's parent company, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Mozilla supports equality, but also free speech, and the exercise of ones beliefs in their own privacy. We hope our customers will understand and support the right of everyone to vote their own conscious."

    Something like that.

    I'm confused. Are we talking about whether it was a good idea for people to boycott, or are we talking about how Mozilla handled the situation?

    I think I've been clear, even earlier in this very thread, that I'm talking about how Mozilla handled the situation.
    People have a right, I'd even argue a duty in some cases, to boycott.
    Nothing is wrong with boycotting. Mozilla should not have pushed him out.
    He donated $1000 in support of Prop 8. back in 2008. They find out in 2013, and show the guy the door because Okcupid and thousands in the twitter-culture boycott?
    Yeah, that isn't the right thing to do. If you think it was, fine, but I'm still not talking about the morality or righteousness of the boycott, I'm talking about him losing his job.


    All I see here is what amounts to "he's rich, **** him!"

    So the Janitor can be a racist homophobe, but he gets off easy.

    Also, your point is rather weak when sources have pointed out on several occasions that he only donated $1000.
    That's small potatoes, even smaller considering he is a CEO of such a lucrative company.
    It's as if I donated .75 cents.

    I've already addressed this exact point. It has nothing to do with him being rich. It has to do with the position of leadership. When you're the leader of the company, its success contributes to your prestige and influence.

    So VIP's better hide their beliefs in the closet, but not janitors. Got it.
    [quote]
    [quote]
    So you admit that you don't care about the countless others who are voting for Prop 8., just the rich and famous ones. Gotcha.
    I mean, it seems ridiculously flawed reasoning, but at least you admit it.


    That's...not even close to what I said. I don't think their job is relevant to their advocacy. Their job doesn't contribute to the effectiveness with which they can advocate.

    Eichs job was pretty damn irrelevant to his advocacy. $1000 in 2008 cost him his job in 2013?


    I disagree. It's hypocrisy, period.

    Wow, what a crushing rebuttal.

    It's not a complicated position.
    You support in principle the occasional job killing mass protest of a CEO who donated $1000, while ignoring the reality that thousands of janitors give their votes, and/or maybe $1 or more.

    You're fighting a belief system by canning a few priests, while ignoring the congregation.


    Jesus, try to keep up.
    It's the "living in the closet" that I was talking about - not HIS personal donations.
    If getting fired from your job is a REAL possibility if people find you you have opposing beliefs, you will hide those beliefs, you will live in the closet, you will keep your true voice quiet, a secret. THAT is the anthesis of democracy.
    Voices kept silent out of fear.


    Welcome to the real world. If I say that I don't think people deserve equal rights, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business.

    "Welcome to the real world. If I say I'm gay, people are going to think less of me. People are going to be less inclined to interact with me. People aren't going to want to support my business."

    See the injustice yet? Oh no wait, you can only be racist if you're white! (err, something like that)


    Hmmmm, it's 2014, the mob with torches and pitchforks has changed it's style no doubt, it is now a legion of twitter pages and Facebook followers, but it's still a mob. The pitchforks are now "likes" and the torches "shares".
    You DO know what an analogy is right?


    But that changes the crucial part - a mob can forcibly silence its target. Twitter shares aren't a threat of violence. They're just people expressing their opinion.

    Should I avoid saying I think Brendan Eich is a person of low character, lest I leave him scared to express himself?

    Force is NOT limited to physical harm. If you believe it is, you're politicking wrong.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    Quote from Tiax
    Quote from IcecreamMan80

    I disagree. Because lack of hunger doesn't seem analogous to me. You're not "not hungry", you're deliberately not buying from them, whether you're hungry or not, and you're doing it to make a political point.

    I'm never (hungry) or (not hungry) as a matter of principle. I do however (boycott) or (don't boycott) as a matter of principle.


    None of that is relevant to point I'm trying to make with the analogy, which is that not buying from someone is not punishing them, and it is not forcing them to do anything.

    And I haven't once said that the protestors are punishing him. Mozilla punished him. If you think he wasn't "pushed" to resign, you're dreaming. CEO's don't get fired very often, they "resign".

    Mozilla could have said something like
    "While we understand your concern, Eichs opinions are his own, and do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of Mozilla, it's parent company, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Mozilla supports equality, but also free speech, and the exercise of ones beliefs in their own privacy. We hope our customers will understand and support the right of everyone to vote their own conscious."

    Something like that.


    Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the boycott isn't the problem. I actually don't mind boycotts. I'm boycotting the remake of TMNT this summer. Even if I managed to get a million man movement behind me (as opposed to the reality of me standing lonely in front of the movies with my sign as people line up to buy tickets), in no way shape or form, would I support Michael Bay being fired.

    The issue is that Eichs was pushed out of his job because of the political ideas he supported back in 2008 (with "the economic impact" and "Mozilla stands for equality...blah blah" being a thinly veiled disguise) with his own personal money. (only $1000 too, pennies in the political donations game)
    To me, this was the same as if he was pushed out for being gay.
    It's a web browser, his opinion of marriage has virtually zero to do with the services Mozilla provides.

    His opinion of marriage has plenty to do with Mozilla. As CEO, the success of the company gives him greater influence and power to fight for his position. If Mozilla is successful, and he's CEO, that empowers him to advance his position in a way he couldn't if that weren't the case.

    All I see here is what amounts to "he's rich, **** him!"

    So the Janitor can be a racist homophobe, but he gets off easy.

    Also, your point is rather weak when sources have pointed out on several occasions that he only donated $1000.
    That's small potatoes, even smaller considering he is a CEO of such a lucrative company.
    It's as if I donated .75 cents.


    You are also not addressing the issue I am actually talking about. Eichs is not nearly the only employee at Mozilla. They employ hundreds of people. How many of them might be for traditional marriage? Should Mozilla now witch hunt the rest of them down and demand resignations? Should those people hide or bury their beliefs out of fear that they might lose their jobs?
    Now what if Eichs was pushed out for being gay? Should the other possibly gay employees be hunted down and forced to resign? Should they hide their orientation and live in fear?
    What about the next 25 fortune 500 companies, should they all scour their ranks of anyone who believes in traditional marriage? Why not? If it's so heinous a deed as to be worthy of THIS boycott and resignation, why don't we track them all down? Should the many others who share his beliefs hide their views from sight, put on a face for the public so they don't lose their jobs? Why not, if Eichs deserved it, why not the others?

    As I said earlier, there is a difference between CEO/leader/owner and regular employee. An employee cannot parlay a business's success into political influence in the same way that a business leader can.

    So you admit that you don't care about the countless others who are voting for Prop 8., just the rich and famous ones. Gotcha.
    I mean, it seems ridiculously flawed reasoning, but at least you admit it.


    Not analogous. Anchovies is a pizza topping, and it's place on the menu seems slightly relevant to a pizza business. Jim supporting Prop. 8, not so much. You aren't boycotting Jim's Pizza because he didn't offer Anchovies, you're boycotting Jim's Pizza because Jim voted differently than you. The antithesis of democracy, and I further believe that you're being hypocritical. John's Pizza, Chevron, Dave's Groceries, Google Chrome, VISA, General Mills...etc. all likely employ someone who votes contrarily to you, and I don't see you boycotting them. Be consistent, have integrity, or don't, but if not, it makes your "righteous stand" against Jim both hollow, and hypocritical.

    The calculus of whether someone feels that its worth it to boycott will vary from company to company. If a company offers a service that's very important to me, maybe I'll decide it's worth the trade off. If I like other things about the company, maybe that will balance out the negatives. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to be so all-or-nothing on the question.

    I disagree. It's hypocrisy, period.

    This is not the "antithesis of democracy". He's quite able to keep on donating to whatever terrible causes he wants. No one has stopped him from advocating for anything.

    Jesus, try to keep up.
    It's the "living in the closet" that I was talking about - not HIS personal donations.
    If getting fired from your job is a REAL possibility if people find you you have opposing beliefs, you will hide those beliefs, you will live in the closet, you will keep your true voice quiet, a secret. THAT is the anthesis of democracy.
    Voices kept silent out of fear.


    Even if <anchovies at a Pizza place> was remotely analogous to <traditional marriage bill supported by a web browser CEO>. I also don't see you acknowledging the fact that you gathered a mob of people to publicly shame Jim's Pizza into changing their menu to include anchovies.
    Now, other pizza places who do not think anchovies are proper to have on a pizza, are changing or hiding their opinions not out of good common reason, but out of FEAR.

    No one is gathering mobs. There's not a pitchfork-and-torch wielding crowd outside Mozilla's offices. If a bunch of people feel that they don't want to support Mozilla, that's each of their individual prerogatives. If I want to suggest that people consider whether they want to support Mozilla, that's not remotely comparable to "gathering a mob".

    Hmmmm, it's 2014, the mob with torches and pitchforks has changed it's style no doubt, it is now a legion of twitter pages and Facebook followers, but it's still a mob. The pitchforks are now "likes" and the torches "shares".
    You DO know what an analogy is right?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    Quote from Tiax

    IcecreamMan - What does it mean for me to "not going to be a customer anyways"? I eat at my local deli regularly. I would have been a customer had I been hungry. My lack of hunger is analogous to my disapproval of the owner. If not for that factor, I would have eaten there and given them my money.

    I disagree. Because lack of hunger doesn't seem analogous to me. You're not "not hungry", you're deliberately not buying from them, whether you're hungry or not, and you're doing it to make a political point.

    I'm never (hungry) or (not hungry) as a matter of principle. I do however (boycott) or (don't boycott) as a matter of principle.

    Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the boycott isn't the problem. I actually don't mind boycotts. I'm boycotting the remake of TMNT this summer. Even if I managed to get a million man movement behind me (as opposed to the reality of me standing lonely in front of the movies with my sign as people line up to buy tickets), in no way shape or form, would I support Michael Bay being fired.

    The issue is that Eichs was pushed out of his job because of the political ideas he supported back in 2008 (with "the economic impact" and "Mozilla stands for equality...blah blah" being a thinly veiled disguise) with his own personal money. (only $1000 too, pennies in the political donations game)
    To me, this was the same as if he was pushed out for being gay.
    It's a web browser, his opinion of marriage has virtually zero to do with the services Mozilla provides.

    You are also not addressing the issue I am actually talking about. Eichs is not nearly the only employee at Mozilla. They employ hundreds of people. How many of them might be for traditional marriage? Should Mozilla now witch hunt the rest of them down and demand resignations? Should those people hide or bury their beliefs out of fear that they might lose their jobs?
    Now what if Eichs was pushed out for being gay? Should the other possibly gay employees be hunted down and forced to resign? Should they hide their orientation and live in fear?
    What about the next 25 fortune 500 companies, should they all scour their ranks of anyone who believes in traditional marriage? Why not? If it's so heinous a deed as to be worthy of THIS boycott and resignation, why don't we track them all down? Should the many others who share his beliefs hide their views from sight, put on a face for the public so they don't lose their jobs? Why not, if Eichs deserved it, why not the others?

    If I want anchovies on my pizza, but Jim's Pizza doesn't offer them, so I eat at John's Pizza, am I punishing Jim for not offering anchovies? Am I forcing Jim to offer anchovies?

    Not analogous. Anchovies is a pizza topping, and it's place on the menu seems slightly relevant to a pizza business. Jim supporting Prop. 8, not so much. You aren't boycotting Jim's Pizza because he didn't offer Anchovies, you're boycotting Jim's Pizza because Jim voted differently than you. The antithesis of democracy, and I further believe that you're being hypocritical. John's Pizza, Chevron, Dave's Groceries, Google Chrome, VISA, General Mills...etc. all likely employ someone who votes contrarily to you, and I don't see you boycotting them. Be consistent, have integrity, or don't, but if not, it makes your "righteous stand" against Jim both hollow, and hypocritical.

    Even if <anchovies at a Pizza place> was remotely analogous to <traditional marriage bill supported by a web browser CEO>. I also don't see you acknowledging the fact that you gathered a mob of people to publicly shame Jim's Pizza into changing their menu to include anchovies.
    Now, other pizza places who do not think anchovies are proper to have on a pizza, are changing or hiding their opinions not out of good common reason, but out of FEAR.


    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    For example
    You don't buy a sandwich from Jim's Deli down the street because you weren't hungry, David the shift manager and the employees on duty at that time are not caused any harm by your inaction. You weren't going to be a customer anyways, your money was irrelevant. David is also not fired, or asked to resign by Jim because you didn't buy a sandwich because you weren't hungry. You weren't going to be a customer anyways.

    This is NOT the case with what happened with Mozilla and their former CEO.

    The Mozilla incident:
    Now, you normally eat at Jim's Deli once or twice a month. (yeah, because you NEVER used firefox before right)
    David, the shift manager voted democrat. You, being a conservative Christian and living in a conservative neighborhood, find out David voted democrat. Not only that, David voted for equal marriage, and you believe marriage is between a man and a woman only. You then organize a boycott of Jim's Deli because you're mad at David, and want to punish him for his liberal views.
    In setting up this boycott, you deliberately lead many other conservatives in the area to also boycott Jim's Deli. Many of these people were often customers of Jim's Deli, eating there frequently. Some may have even planned to eat there that day, and instead joined the boycott.
    Jim is now facing a public backlash. The potential loss of income from the boycott could mean many of Jim's employees like Melissa the cashier, might see reduced hours, or other cuts. Jim now feels that David the shift manager is costing him business, and pressures David to leave in order to save the business from more economically painful losses. David is allowed to save face by "voluntarily resigning" his position.
    David has now been economically punished simply for exercising his democratic rights protected under our Constitution.
    Except, it's not just David who was punished, Jim's Deli, and many other employees who worked at Jim's Deli, even fellow conservatives and people who held similar beliefs to the people boycotting, still lost quite a bit of business.
    Other liberals in the area heard of what happened to David, and are now scared to voice their beliefs in public for fear of backlash.
    Harm has now actually be done to free speech itself. Literal harm to the market of ideas. People now fear speaking out for equal marriage, and liberal ideas, because they fear losing their jobs, or worse.

    People have been fired, or worse, when they were found out to be gay. It was a gross injustice then, and the fear that drove homosexuals to hide from the public, to stay in the closet, rather than face persecution, is the EXACT SAME harmful injustice used to railroad this guy out of his job. It was wrong to force gay people to hide from view, to live in secret, scared of what the public might do if they found out.
    It shouldn't matter if he is the janitor, or the owner. Jim, David, or Melissa the cashier.


    Do we not want transparency in political donations? Do we really want political contributions to go back behind closed doors, secret donations from secretive people?
    That doesn't sound good to me. No transparency will be achieved if we start calling for heads to roll every time someone says something we disagree with.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on PRC 250
    My votes went to Echoe and Zelderex, Fix You was my favorite for sure.

    Posted in: Personal Writing
  • posted a message on ACA and rate hikes
    Quote from VaclavRomanov
    Quote from IcecreamMan80
    I'm with billy here.

    I pay a low car insurance rate because I am a low risk.

    I do not subsidize the 23 year old male driver with a DUI. THAT person pays a
    much higher premium according to their level of risk. If I had to pay the premium
    necessary to cover a 23 year old male with a DUI, because the insurance company has to
    leverage against that persons foreseeable loses, that would be a subsidy.


    Actually if you look at the actuarials, you do - and probably more than you actually think - average state minimum benefit actually takes the insurance company $25/mo to cover a $15k value car (and of course scales down from there, slightly), while the average state minimum insurance rate is $65/mo for a "good driver" on the same vehicle - I'm not sure of the breakdown on the rest, not privy to the specifics as an Allstate shareholder but of that $40 some of it is profit and the rest goes into buttressing the rest of the pool, uninsured driver coverage, and administration.

    If I am covering any cost for the dangerous policy holder,then I shouldn't be.
    Point is, the person with the history of wrecks and DUI's pays through their own nose for coverage.

    So too should people with PEC's.

    Which is exactly what the ACA mandates, and people with PEC's, women, drug users, and the poor, are getting.


    ACA only mandates PEC - women was enacted in 1985 or so (bill is referred to as a 1985 bill in my books, but sometimes that's actually the year it's penned not passed), drug users are allowed to be charged different rates still (as are alcoholics and smokers), and the poor aren't mandated anything new that they didn't already have - Medicaid was established in the 80's.

    I have to have a policy that covers maternity, addiction treatment, and pay a premium that reflects the shared risk of PEC's because that's the minimum required by the ACA.
    Since I'm clean and sober, healthy and low risk, can't get pregnant, and have no PEC's. My premium increase is a SUBSIDY for such people.


    All policies were required to cover maternity before FYI - it could not be exempted before - it's literally a meme based on nothing, the only difference is now it has to be explicitly listed so people aren't confused if it's available. All forms of birth coverage got mandated before the Contract with America for Christ's sake. It just until now was left under the listing that "Gynocological Services" must be part of a valid insurance policy (yes, even mens policies - but urologists are another line of the old requirement) - that meme is over them adding an extra line to clear up the confusion that child birth is in fact considered a Gynocological Service under Federal guidelines since the last Medicare revision. [Not sure the year off-hand, been quite a while though - a 1998 printing that I got in 2005 or so is the oldest booklet I have, and it's defined as such then]

    Again on addiction treatment - yes, you are required to have addiction coverage UNDER THE RATES OF A NON-ADDICT, addiction is something that can be charged an additional premium for under the ACA - there's only a handful of things that can result in an additional charge - but all of them are things that are brought about by choice on the part of the person. [Addiction/Smoking/Drinking and high risk employment are the one's I know for sure off my head - there are others though - I think around 5. Obesity is NOT on there which I disagree with personally (I think it should be on there with a waiver someone can get from their doctor in the rare cases of someone being obese completely by uncontrollable genetics - it should be penalized for the 95+% that are ignoring their health)]

    I shouldn't have to. I should only have to cover the risk I represent.

    Who is the highest risk of loss? The unhealthy poor. The ACA caps premiums based on income (instead of risk?!?), so the poor are already subsidized, add in an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Then, tack on a PEC, like diabetes, or something...it all amounts to the healthy middle class paying more to cover the people who can't pay, won't pay, or are a guaranteed loss.


    Incorrect, statistically speaking the highest risk of loss are in fact the elderly by a pretty stark margin. The poor get ruined by medical bills, but over relatively minor ones - even something common like a heart stent for an elderly person (something about 20% of elderly people will have at least twice in their life, my father's on number 5 at this point) runs about $80k before insurance, and that's a simple common procedure. Nursing home care costs around $10k a month, and many elderly are in nursing homes for years - often into DECADES.

    I'm pretty sure elderly people can be both UNHEALTHY, and POOR.

    They don't get ruined like youthful poor, but they do contribute to the losses, coverage by Medicaid and Medicare are not free.

    Also on diabetes - it wasn't allowed as a PEC declaration unless it gets to the point of amputation and the like. Normal diabetes and COPD for amongst other things that might sound like a "PEC" to a layman, weren't allowed to be termed as PEC. And as stated above most of those are still allowed to be penalized today.

    So in your whole thing there, you are legitimately subsidizing obese people in all those things you have consternation over - the other examples are carrying their own weight under what the ACA allows for penalties. [Or per the maternity stuff - already existed, just the wording made it more explicit now - gogo factchecking...]

    I shouldn't have to cover other peoples risk.
    When I buy car insurance, I am not also required by law to buy boat, motorcycle, homeowners, and flood insurance or face a tax penalty.

    When I buy life insurance, I should pay what a healthy,young, nonsmoker, nondrinker, contributes to the risk factor. Certainly I actually do. My life insurance is like $3 a month.
    Also, I am not forced through the threat of fines or imprisonment or loss of property if I do not buy life insurance. (I'm sure it's only a matter of time with democrats)

    Even moreso that I haven't gone to the doctor in like 6 years, so ANY premium I have paid over that time is unjust. I am paying for a product I do not use.

    Just like my auto insurance. I haven't had a claim in over 11 years. 11 years of paying for something I don't use, but if I stop paying, I get ticketed, or worse. This is extortion.
    Since I do not use these services I am paying for, I am definitely subsidizing the people who do.


    Additionally, if you have an employer based policy and not an exchange one - you only share risk pool with your fellow employees - so unless your employer is hiring people with all those things you take issue with covering - you're not actually paying anything to cover that stuff. (Unless your employer is on a private exchange of their own - but I've yet to see an employer use those, they've existed a long time too - apparently a good option for really small mom and pop type businesses - but never heard of one that used it. Never really made sense with anyone over a few dozen employees like I always worked for though)

    Quote from billydaman »
    So how does this prove they are not subsidies? Once again, I do not take issue with people getting subsidies in this thread. I take issue with people who reject the fact people are getting subsidized. You are even saying they are subsidized.....


    I'm saying if they're subsidized, their subsidy is actually coming from the Fed - not from other individuals. You and ICM80 now have said "The healthy are..." and "I am..." type statements on where the subsidy is coming from. Taxes come from all types, and inordinately from those that are older and wealthier and tend to consume more healthcare costs (even if they don't get sick as often, they tend to get the best of the best to treat them and get insurance packages that include flights to take advantage of the best, etc). Hell, there was a statistic I saw a few years back that was talking about how many people have PECs normally, then it went on to say how many people ACTUALLY have PECs but weren't showing because of the fact they were 65+ and on Medicare which doesn't care about PECs - if you added the 65+ people in back then the number of people with PECs literally would quadruple. So in a manner of speaking the PEC "subsidy" could be said to be almost entirely footed by those that aged out of having to worry about their PECs due to Medicare. (Even Medicare Advantage when it was established was exempted from considering PEC, FYI)

    The Fed doesn't have money it has not taken from the people, or borrowed against the labor and future labor of the people and their descendants.

    The Fed paying for something doesn't make it free.

    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on ACA and rate hikes
    I'm with billy here.

    I pay a low car insurance rate because I am a low risk.

    I do not subsidize the 23 year old male driver with a DUI. THAT person pays a
    much higher premium according to their level of risk. If I had to pay the premium
    necessary to cover a 23 year old male with a DUI, because the insurance company has to
    leverage against that persons foreseeable loses, that would be a subsidy.

    Which is exactly what the ACA mandates, and people with PEC's, women, drug users, and the poor, are getting.

    I have to have a policy that covers maternity, addiction treatment, and pay a premium that reflects the shared risk of PEC's because that's the minimum required by the ACA.
    Since I'm clean and sober, healthy and low risk, can't get pregnant, and have no PEC's. My premium increase is a SUBSIDY for such people.

    Wrong or right, hurt feelings or not, it is what it is.

    Who is the highest risk of loss? The unhealthy poor. The ACA caps premiums based on income (instead of risk?!?), so the poor are already subsidized, add in an unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Then, tack on a PEC, like diabetes, or something...it all amounts to the healthy middle class paying more to cover the people who can't pay, won't pay, or are a guaranteed loss.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Poetry Running Contest - Submission Thread
    Glacier, by Amory McKeever (IcecreamMan80)

    All them frozen bodies
    floating down the maw
    poor bastard climbers
    all victims of the thaw
    slain by the peaks
    the sought to traverse
    only to find their hearts
    riding in a hearse
    what mountain is this
    they challenged in vain
    t'was a matterhorn of sorts
    shall I tell you her name

    Her eyes like wishing wells
    begging for the silver
    her lips little liars
    that whisper in your ears
    such breathtaking beauty
    that much is clear
    but if you get too close
    she'll send you down the sheer
    So let this be a warning
    if her face draws you in
    you'll find you're not alone
    in a graveyard full of men
    Posted in: Personal Writing
  • posted a message on Why do religious people force their beliefs on others?
    As it has already been said...

    They believe they have a ticket to heaven, and that nonbelievers will suffer greatly for their disbelief.

    I'm an agnostic (leaning atheist)
    I hate organized religions, and think they are more harmful than helpful. That being said, I have way more respect for someone who
    truly stands up for their beliefs.
    They are literally reaching out to save you from hell in their minds. It can be annoying, and sometimes intrusive or destructive, but for any worthy cause I'd rather have 1 true believer over 20 wishy-washy sorta-believers.
    Those people who just go to church on Sundays and then the rest of week they're hooligans...yeah, no respect.
    Posted in: Religion
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    All the "sweat shop" "labor pimps" "wage slavery" outrage over Apple's Foxconn thing didn't cause them to diversify away from that company.
    It hardly even got Fair Labor inspectors involved (and when they did it was a token gesture at best)

    What did lead Apple to diversify their labor away from Foxconn to Pegatron?
    Tiny scratches on the metal casings.


    I don't always agree with B_S, but when I do it's 100%.

    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Liberty
    Azmod said what I was thinking, only he said better.

    I usually look at it like this.

    First, is it as free as possible.
    Second, is it as equal as possible.
    Third, is it as efficient as possible.

    If it's super efficient, but less equal, and hardly free, look for another answer.
    If it's super equal, but less efficient, and hardly free, look for another answer.
    If it's super free, but less efficient, and hardly equal, look for another answer.
    If it's super free, but less equal, and hardly efficient, look for another answer.

    I would always try to find the answer that reaches optimal possible levels of all three.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    Quote from combo player
    Quote from IcecreamMan80

    Should I be able to fire a guy who voted for Obama?
    Who voted against Obama?
    What if this is a conservative town, and everyone is upset? What if they won't buy my paint because I employ an Obama supporter?
    What if it's a liberal town, and the people won't buy my lemonade as long as I employ a Romney supporter?
    Should I fire a guy who voted pro-choice? Pro-life?
    What if I live in a heavy pro-life area, and the people complain that I employ someone who voted in support of abortion rights?

    I should fire them right? They're gonna cost me money?

    No. That seems wrong to me. Especially if we're supposed to stand for free speech, and stand for democracy. Not saying we ARE a democracy, we are a democratic republic - but do we not stand for letting people vote their own consciences?


    Perhaps we should use a model of organisation that is more efficient at fighting the forces of reaction than private employment subjected to the profit motive. I don't really approve of a single individual having power over another person's livelihood, anyway.

    Meaning what, no private industry/market?

    Quote from IcecreamMan80
    Mozilla says they stand for free speech, yet they caved to the protestors, and punished someone for exercising theirs.
    Oh but wait, they stand for equality too.
    Except, that some opinions are more equal than others. Wink


    "Free speech" doesn't mean "I can say any bigoted thing I want without consequence", it simply means that the state can't necessarily stop you from having whatever opinion it is. A person resigning from a leadership position because his values don't match those of the organisation doesn't seem like a problem of insufficient free speech in the first place.

    Please believe, I KNOW that the First Amendment is a limitation on GOVERNMENT power, and not private.
    I KNOW that free speech doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what you say. <Insert shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire meme here>
    I also support the consumer right to boycott, or complain, or protest.
    I am boycotting the new reboot of TMNT.

    What I am NOT supporting is a company being able to fire someone because they hold an unpopular belief. Especially if they simply gave a thousand dollars to a political interest group six years ago, and now they happen to be run out of a job they helped create because of it.

    Seriously. Switch hats for ONE minute.
    If fighting for gay rights was "wrong". Would you honestly be defending the actions of Mozilla?
    A bunch of traditionalists protest, complaining that the company CEO is pro-gay marriage, and donated money to the LGBT community to support equal rights activism.
    Mozilla forces the guys resignation, because Mozilla stands for traditional marriage (it's a web browser, but whatever?), and the guy gave money six years ago to a pro-gay marriage organization, and maybe they even voted against Prop 8.

    Would you really be defending these actions? Somehow I doubt it. Somehow, I think you'd be calling it an injustice.

    If it's right to punish beliefs in such a way, that street goes both ways.
    I 100% support equality, equality in everything, jobs, marriage, housing, services, you name it.
    It's one of the fundamental parts of the constitution which I believe in.

    However, I stand against the traditional marriage agenda pushers AT THE POLLS. Not when I choose
    to use firefox or google chrome.
    I hate religion. I hate with a passion people using erroneous beliefs in fairies and unicorns to push inequality and oppression on others.
    However, I do NOT believe that Christian fundies deserve to be fired from their job for it.
    I do NOT think a CEO who believes in creationism and voted against teaching evolution needs to be fired or I won't buy those tires they sell.
    Do they sell the best tires?
    Do they clean carpets the best?
    Is their web browser the fastest, most bug-free browser available?
    Is their chicken bacon ranch burger better than the one at Carl's Jr.?

    Nowhere do I suggest we tolerate intolerance, not by a long shot, we should scour it from public policy wherever we may find it.
    But with every fiber of my being, I suggest we learn to tolerate intolerant speech.
    We better protect unpopular political ideas, someday it may be your idea, or mine.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Mozilla CEO resigns because he donated to support Prop 8.
    Quote from combo player
    Quote from IcecreamMan80

    Should I be able to fire a homosexual because around here homosexuality is despised and unpopular?
    If not, why can I fire a homophobe because around here homophobes are despised and unpopular?
    Should I be able to fire a guy for supporting desegregation, and the repeal of Jim Crow?
    If not, why can I fire a guy for wanting to keep it?

    Seems like a rather big dissonance of reasoning.


    Homosexual people and homophobes aren't equivalent. Racists and anti-racists aren't equivalent. You're basically wondering why it is okay to enforce negative or corrective consequences for harmful behaviour but not for benevolent behaviour.

    Should I be able to fire a guy who voted for Obama?
    Who voted against Obama?
    What if this is a conservative town, and everyone is upset? What if they won't buy my paint because I employ an Obama supporter?
    What if it's a liberal town, and the people won't buy my lemonade as long as I employ a Romney supporter?
    Should I fire a guy who voted pro-choice? Pro-life?
    What if I live in a heavy pro-life area, and the people complain that I employ someone who voted in support of abortion rights?

    I should fire them right? They're gonna cost me money?

    No. That seems wrong to me. Especially if we're supposed to stand for free speech, and stand for democracy. Not saying we ARE a democracy, we are a democratic republic - but do we not stand for letting people vote their own consciences?

    Mozilla says they stand for free speech, yet they caved to the protestors, and punished someone for exercising theirs.
    Oh but wait, they stand for equality too.
    Except, that some opinions are more equal than others. Wink

    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.