balamw
Sep 21, 12:27 AM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
neilp4453
Feb 21, 03:16 PM
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
brap
Mar 20, 09:54 PM
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
Of course they do.
But have they been subjected to systematic discrimination (often legitimized by religious nonsense) for centuries? Is there and active campaign that promotes the idea that "God hate fatties"? Is the government trying to prevent fat people from exercising their basic human rights?
When all of this can be said of fat people, the situations will be equivalent.
Of course they do.
But have they been subjected to systematic discrimination (often legitimized by religious nonsense) for centuries? Is there and active campaign that promotes the idea that "God hate fatties"? Is the government trying to prevent fat people from exercising their basic human rights?
When all of this can be said of fat people, the situations will be equivalent.
Benjamins
Apr 9, 04:54 AM
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
Love Quotes Love Pictures
Boyfriend Romantic Love
+quotes+for+your+oyfriend
romantic love quotes
i am sorry quotes for
romantic quotes your oyfriend. romantic love quotes .
romantic quotes your oyfriend
romantic quotes your oyfriend
SVH #17 Love Letters
Love Images, Pictures
romantic ideas for oyfriend,
These love submitted by jimpg
Born this romantic love
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:32 AM
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
iphonetester
Oct 7, 04:24 PM
I will not be surprised. This is similar to what happened to Apple and PC makers back in the days. Just the sheer volume of PC producers finally lifted Windows above OS X. I believe similar trend will follow on for mobile market. More and more phone makers will adopt Android or Windows Mobile and overtake Iphone OS.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
gmcalpin
Apr 15, 10:31 AM
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:21 AM
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
It's the Q1 2010 share from the chart in the first post.
It's the Q1 2010 share from the chart in the first post.
Project
Sep 20, 01:55 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
Its Front Row. Which can play whatever Quicktime can play. Which means it can play avi, wmv etc. Just install the codecs.
Its Front Row. Which can play whatever Quicktime can play. Which means it can play avi, wmv etc. Just install the codecs.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 07:06 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
People try all sorts of wacky therapies that aren't backed by science. I wonder how many parents have followed his book, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
People try all sorts of wacky therapies that aren't backed by science. I wonder how many parents have followed his book, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
GGJstudios
Apr 15, 02:48 PM
could someone of the windows-people explain to me what the missing "Finder cut/paste" thing is all about? I am using OS 10.4.11 and if I go to the Finder and click on the second next menu next to the word Finder, a menu drops down where I can read:
"Cut" is greyed out on that menu and you can't use it to cut a file or folder from one area, then paste it in another area. You have to copy and paste, then delete the original, or drag and drop.
"Cut" is greyed out on that menu and you can't use it to cut a file or folder from one area, then paste it in another area. You have to copy and paste, then delete the original, or drag and drop.
OllyW
Apr 13, 02:41 AM
I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
killr_b
Jul 12, 04:55 PM
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 06:46 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Ahem, the CANDU reactor design is the 'common rail diesel' of the nuclear World.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:42 PM
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
Hence why I said in 'larger part' and not 'exclusively'.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
Hence why I said in 'larger part' and not 'exclusively'.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
skunk
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 11:03 AM
i find hard to believe that the casualties are only in the 1000-3000 range.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
Naturally, I hope they are right and unfortunately that still is a lot of people, but with the news of tens of towns and villages completely razed in densely populated areas I am amazed if the numbers remain so (relatively) low.
it would be a true testament on how well-prepared they were.
balamw
Sep 21, 08:22 AM
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
YoBit lets you to claim FREE CRYPTO-COINS from over 100 distinct crypto-currencies, you complete a captcha once and claim as many as coins you want from the available offers.
ReplyDeleteAfter you make about 20-30 claims, you complete the captcha and continue claiming.
You can click on CLAIM as many times as 30 times per one captcha.
The coins will stored in your account, and you can exchange them to Bitcoins or USD.