http://dammitfreehaven.com/use Live RSS feed for http://dammitfreehaven.com/use en http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14025.html#14638>>14602
Don't need to, the continually trump it in other ways.
Oh sure, the punishments aren't to the same severity level, not yet anyway, but the things you can get charged for...well honestly even some Muslim countries probably treat them like a joke. Don't forget this case, after all.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/bart-simpson-child-pornography-and-free-speech/
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/cowabunga-simpsons-porn-on-the-pc-equals-child-pornography.ars

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14581.html#14637
As an addendum, the Classical schools in Texas are predominantly conservative Christian, so that's a whole other headache. I should move to Colorado.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14581.html#14636
And I really DO think the problems run deeper than just Texas, by FAR. The ONLY schools whose fucking history programs matter are the few Classical schools that start with the dawn of history and teach the ancients (Mesopotamia & Egypt, Greco-Roman Classical civilization, China, etc.).

Guess how education worked in ancient societies from Sumer to Egypt to Hatti to China to Rome? Big emphasis on fucking MATH, a particular SCIENCE OR RIGOROUS DISCIPLE (astronomy for the Babylonians, Panini's Classical Sanskrit for India, physics for the Greeks, etc.) and THE FUCKING ANCIENT HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THAT CULTURE.

China had the longest-lasting continuous culture in world history and their entrance exams for distinguished government service were about HISTORY AND POETRY, not the fucking "jump through the hoops" shit our modern education has (and that fucking includes Western Europe, I am fucking sick of Western Europe's education systems).

The fact this overhaul is debating the nuances of SHIT NO ONE WILL BE STUDYING IN FIVE HUNDRED YEARS EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE WILL STILL FUCKING KNOW HAMMURABI, RAMSES THE GREAT, ARISTOTLE, LAO TZU, THE PUNIC WARS, HOMER, ECCLESIASTES is FUCKING MIND-BOGGLING.

I've taught for private education, and some of my public-minded friends are trying to get me to teach in public school instead of going back to university for a higher degree. But I've taught history, literature, and economics in a PRIVATE school and that shit is fucked up there. If I get a degree in math, I'll fucking teach math. But I can't imagine teaching social studies or science in an American school. Fuck.

But this takes the cake:

"Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs."

Look, I'd be shocked if anyone on these boards has read any Aquinas or Calvin (you don't have to be religious to appreciate your heritage) and you all seem like smart folks. And I'd be fucking ecstatic to know that Texan teens are learning about those influential thinkers.

But taking out Jefferson? The only Founding Father that fucking matters? NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW BLACKSTONE YOU IDIOTS

TEXAS I HATE YOU BUT YOUR WOMAN AND YOUR BEER SUSTAIN MY SOUL

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14635
>>14618
>civil unions are a step down from marriage rights
Yeah. If they're going to have two separate systems, at least make them equal.

Still separate.

But equal.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14581.html#14634>>14614

You sir would win many internets if you. Throw in some Ninja Cyborg Pirate Jesus (not necessarily all in one) and it would be epic.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14581.html#14633>>14614
I think I'm gonna write a really stupid fake-script for the trailer.

It will involve Abraham Lincoln riding a Harley-Davidson, Nazi Aliens, and Time-Travel.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14632>>14630

This makes me feel a little better about my state: according to their records, only 27 people in NC supported Prop 8 with donations (with the top donation being $1,000), while 321 people donated to organizations against it (there were four $1,000 donations and a $2,500 dontation on that side).

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14630>>14626

My pet theory is that people thought that "yes" meant "yes, gay people can marry" instead of "yes, let's fuck over gay people." Probably no basis in actual fact though, and it can't really be proven.

>>14627

I'd love to engage someone logically on the idea that people can marry the same sex, but for the most part I've found that people tend not to listen to any reason besides the one they made up for themselves. At that point when a person literally has no logical argument that has not already been refuted and still refuses to accept that they are incorrect, I'm pretty sure it's safe to call them a bigot.

>>14629

I'm assuming by "the law that was in place before the courts overturned it" references California Proposition 22, on the ballots in 2000, passed, and then struck from the record in 2008 by the California Supreme Court, and then promptly superseded by Prop 8. Unfortunately I was unable to find campaign funding information from the Proposition 22 campaign, but Proposition 8's campaign was very clearly funded by out-of-state interests, including the Latter-Day Saints, as well as companies in places such as Utah and Arizona.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

This is a nice search tool that looks through the donations for the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns. So yes, there was funding coming in from outside California for the Yes on 8 campaign.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14629>>14624
>What gave us Prop 8 wasn't the courts, it was a bunch of in-state bigots being funded by a bunch of out-of-state bigots to put a measure on a ballot to try to make an example out of California.

Alright, if that's what you truly believe, then explain how the law that was in place before the courts overturned it was passed to begin with. Was that just "out-of-state bigot"s as well?

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14628>>14627

>How do you expect to change someone's mind if your response to their view is to call them a bigot?

If they can't take being told the truth, that's their problem.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14627>>14624

I like how suddenly people are trying to paint California as a land of roving hicks and bigots since Prop 8. It's this kind of emotional and irrational response that's going to keep marriage away from homosexuals.

Instead of engaging, you're name calling and crying. How do you expect to change someone's mind if your response to their view is to call them a bigot?

Hell, even Elton John said that was the wrong approach to the voters.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14626>>14624

What I found funny was that in the aftermath of Prop 8 passing, a number of people pointed out that it was likely because record numbers of black people voted due to Obama being up for election, and that black people actually tend to be heavy on the "social conservative" side... they like church, they don't like gay people, and they really don't like immigrants.

Of course, anyone that brings up such a thing is immediately labeled a racist, because how DARE you say that there's anything negative about black people. The explanation is obviously that a giant sleeper cell of Republicans in California all showed up to the polls, voted Yes on Prop 8 in numbers sufficient to overwhelm all the No votes cast by pro-Obama voters, completely declined to vote in the actual elections, and then went underground again.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14625>>14621

I find that macro doesn't really fit. If that was really meant for Hogan it would say "This, brother!"

... just an aside.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14624>>14623

What gave us Prop 8 wasn't the courts, it was a bunch of in-state bigots being funded by a bunch of out-of-state bigots to put a measure on a ballot to try to make an example out of California. A campaign that succeeded by "addressing the people directly," as you put it. Because the people are still a bunch of bigots themselves and are afraid of little Timmy learning that two men or two women can be perfectly happy together.

Also gay sex hurricanes or something, according to the ads that NOM put out.

]]> http://dammitfreehaven.com/use/res/14504.html#14623>>14618

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the point I was making. If I want to convince you that your view of something is false, then I gotta communicate with you right? And do you want me to treat you as a fellow rational being whose views are valuable or do you want me to backhanded methods to force my views on you without giving you your due respect?

I think forcing the courts to make a decision on gay marriage rather than addressing the people directly is what gave you prop 8, among other props that passed in other states to officially limit marriage.

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8. I don't give a shit WHO gets married. Why anyone would want to is actually a mystery to me.


Also, I said marriage was ritualistic, which implies its existence before modern religions, however I would like to add that marriage in the past if you wanna bring that up, was almost solely for business and breeding, not for love. In fact, marriage for love is relatively new and very western concept. So, if you wanna use the whole "it's been around forever" thing, then lets use it in its proper context and not bring up "love".

]]>