Mac Fly (film)
Sep 21, 12:49 PM
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
skunk
Mar 16, 02:09 PM
The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. Is completely irresponsible the opposite of short-sighted?
FarNorth
Jun 16, 09:26 AM
Bear in mind that Apple/A T & T were VERY liberal letting people upgrade out of 3G phones, allowing folks to preorder with 6-9-12 months left on contract, a reversal of past practice. Also note that Foxconn gave their workers two pay raises in the last few weeks that add up to 122%. That money came for somewhere so clearly Apple as taking no chances on a supply interruption.
They are very agressively keeping old customers while courting new - in 12 months, we are going to say that the iPhone 4 was the single most successful product Apple history.
They are very agressively keeping old customers while courting new - in 12 months, we are going to say that the iPhone 4 was the single most successful product Apple history.
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Xapplimatic
Aug 29, 03:46 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
benixau
Oct 12, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
Too right. I had an LC630 up until about 2 months ago. First problem occured on week into use, apple monitor stoped working. 10 yrs later, power supply went. Only problem after the monitor problem and before the power supply porblem was the family needed to use it. That only meant that i couldnt sometimes.
A pc we had was upgraded every 6 months to make sure it would run. 2 months ago, four years into its life, the celeron 333 couldn't handle windows XP (it came with 98) after a serious OS problem. We chucked it, bought an AMD XP 1800+ and got two brand new power macs (MDD model). Cant afford an iBook or Powerbook yet.
Macs last longer, as long as you dont want the latest and greatest app to run, like Office v.X on a performa. If you can live with Office 2001 or 98 then, why get something untested.
A mac cost 2x as mush upfront. They last 4 - 5 times as long. Who saves money???
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
Too right. I had an LC630 up until about 2 months ago. First problem occured on week into use, apple monitor stoped working. 10 yrs later, power supply went. Only problem after the monitor problem and before the power supply porblem was the family needed to use it. That only meant that i couldnt sometimes.
A pc we had was upgraded every 6 months to make sure it would run. 2 months ago, four years into its life, the celeron 333 couldn't handle windows XP (it came with 98) after a serious OS problem. We chucked it, bought an AMD XP 1800+ and got two brand new power macs (MDD model). Cant afford an iBook or Powerbook yet.
Macs last longer, as long as you dont want the latest and greatest app to run, like Office v.X on a performa. If you can live with Office 2001 or 98 then, why get something untested.
A mac cost 2x as mush upfront. They last 4 - 5 times as long. Who saves money???
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 01:40 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.
In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".
Get a ****ing life.
If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.
I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.
Nomadski
Apr 28, 09:16 PM
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Im not even sure this guy can be serious. Windows 7 sells so well because people who upgraded an 8 year old OS (XP) to a buggy overbloated OS (Vista) had to quickly replace it with something that actually works (7). W7 is great IMO, but Mac users don't need to use Windows in any form, they have OSX. And OSX rocks.
Just because they CAN install Windows doesn't mean they do.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Im not even sure this guy can be serious. Windows 7 sells so well because people who upgraded an 8 year old OS (XP) to a buggy overbloated OS (Vista) had to quickly replace it with something that actually works (7). W7 is great IMO, but Mac users don't need to use Windows in any form, they have OSX. And OSX rocks.
Just because they CAN install Windows doesn't mean they do.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 9, 09:46 AM
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
All of that is true but my point is regarding the future. Nintendo and Sony are sitting ducks if they continue their current strategy. You are 100% correct, both have legacy customer to support the sales of new platform titles. However, that is going to fade as a new generation grows up on iOS, not Nintendo or Sony, portable gaming.
Nintendo DS is to Blackberry what Blackberry was to 2006. It's only personal observation, but the preteen and even pre-pre teen set I see now has iPod touches, not the Gameboys or DSes of carried in my gen, as the preferred device. A lot of that has to do with Apple, but more so with the price of games.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
All of that is true but my point is regarding the future. Nintendo and Sony are sitting ducks if they continue their current strategy. You are 100% correct, both have legacy customer to support the sales of new platform titles. However, that is going to fade as a new generation grows up on iOS, not Nintendo or Sony, portable gaming.
Nintendo DS is to Blackberry what Blackberry was to 2006. It's only personal observation, but the preteen and even pre-pre teen set I see now has iPod touches, not the Gameboys or DSes of carried in my gen, as the preferred device. A lot of that has to do with Apple, but more so with the price of games.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 12:59 PM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:56 PM
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
thespazz
May 8, 02:46 AM
Hopefully one day I won't drop a call. Happens too often.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:19 PM
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
So do you figure they might just walk away and abandon this situation?
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ... certainly, not containing this situation is NOT an option.
So do you figure they might just walk away and abandon this situation?
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ... certainly, not containing this situation is NOT an option.
.jpg "Style Journal: Vanessa Hudgens")
archipellago
May 2, 05:02 PM
My head hurts� everyone needs a time out! Go to your corners! :p
sorry, I'm done here now.
sorry, I'm done here now.
PJWilkinson
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I've just got back from the live streamed event in London and summarised the key highlights of the show here:
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
JesterJJZ
Apr 12, 10:16 PM
Might be great down the road, but something tells me my FCP7 will be plenty useful for at least the next couple years.
TraceyS/FL
Oct 7, 03:12 PM
Apple already seems to have lost some parts of the European market with the 3GS because they didn't add the features that are frequently used there (like HSUPA, (r)SAP, etc.). For example GFK numbers showed that the Android based HTC Hero outsold the 3GS in Germany.
I have no clue if this is true, BUT, this is what Apple needs to deal with. Cell phones are cut-throat, and certain areas demand certain features. If you are going to compete globally and long term, you need to be ready to play ball.
Which means, looking at what is coming from your competitors and matching them with features, not relying on the user experience. And a year is huge in phone life cycle.
Otherwise, give up on the PHONE and concentrate on the Touch... let the phone follow it. A Touch with a phone if you want it.
I don't think we are going to see a drop in data charges anywhere though.... even if it comes to Verizon in the US. Everyone charges mostly the same thing...
I have no clue if this is true, BUT, this is what Apple needs to deal with. Cell phones are cut-throat, and certain areas demand certain features. If you are going to compete globally and long term, you need to be ready to play ball.
Which means, looking at what is coming from your competitors and matching them with features, not relying on the user experience. And a year is huge in phone life cycle.
Otherwise, give up on the PHONE and concentrate on the Touch... let the phone follow it. A Touch with a phone if you want it.
I don't think we are going to see a drop in data charges anywhere though.... even if it comes to Verizon in the US. Everyone charges mostly the same thing...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:50 PM
The Bible? I don't think I've ever heard of it. :rolleyes: No one can prove the existence of God in any form, let alone some specific God as described in the Bible (a compilation of edited stories mostly derived from hearsay).
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 12:44 PM
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
iOS v Android
Apr 28, 07:33 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
kirk26
May 2, 11:36 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
http://www.mcafee.com/us/products/virusscan-for-mac.aspx
I have it on mine just in case. ;)
http://www.mcafee.com/us/products/virusscan-for-mac.aspx
I have it on mine just in case. ;)
CaoCao
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
No comments:
Post a Comment