dhmholley

For a guy who doesn't take himself too seriously, he sure creates a lot of sockpuppets to argue with his detractors and sing his own praises.

(Though unfortunately not HN)

If you have some citations for that I'd be interested in reading them, because I've never heard that before.

And unfortunately it often is used that way, by people who don't understand that animal testing would have caught the birth defects had it been tested on pregnant animals (advocating, if anything, for more thorough animal testing, not for animal testing's ineffectiveness). Of course people aren't interested in this, they're just after the conclusion that supports their preconceived ideas.

It's not offensive so much as you're generalising from personal experience to assert that Christian friendships are somehow qualitatively different from friendships as found in the Kabbalistic or Western Buddhist traditions, which is clearly a ridiculous thing to say.

If "hipster" engagement with faith is superficial or driven by fashion trends, there's nothing special they'll find in Christianity as compared to any other faith structure that will make the experience of engaging with that faith any less ephemeral or inauthentic.

once you experience healthy, constructive, no-judging, be-yourself community with other Christians

These qualities are neither exclusive to, nor always found in, Christians.

I hope the source isn't too horrible. I was basically a complete javascript novice when I started coding the game. If I were to write it again I'd probably do it very differently, though I still have a lot to learn.

It astounds me how people will happily let companies off the hook for causing negative externalities, while simultaneously blaming the government for failing to regulate them effectively and decrying the regulation in the first place.

"Remember that humans operate companies and governments alike. Except governments use force and companies are subject to it."

What utter drivel.

Inclusiveness means not discriminating against people based on who they are. It's the very simple idea that white people, black people, gay people and straight people are all people - they are entitled the same rights and the same protections.

Inclusiveness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate a person's actions. Damn right I'm going to criticise someone whose actions hurt people - they're not entitled to have me agree with their "conscience", nor are they entitled to my support for their actions.

Do you understand how discrimination against a person and condemnation of things that a person does are separate concepts?

Are people still blowing this whistle?

Tolerance for people is not the same as tolerance for speech, or tolerance for actions. You are not a victim if people disapprove of your bigotry - your speech may be protected, but you are not protected from the consequences of your speech (and that includes the opinions of others).

People will find any reason to view themselves as victims when something they do or a person they agree with is criticised. That people are crying about "discrimination", because someone who actively worked to oppress people was rightly criticised for those actions, quite frankly astounds me.

Besides which, people aren't just criticising him for seeking to strip one the basic and fundamental liberties a modern society gives its citizens, purely on the basis of who they are (which he is entitled to do). They're criticising Mozilla, a company which strives towards the principles of openness and inclusiveness, for picking someone to represent them who doesn't represent the values of the organisation.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should be tolerant of intolerance? And are you really bemoaning the fact that it is becoming less socially acceptable to be a hateful bigot in public?

Or is this satire? I genuinely can't tell.

Action against those in positions of power who cause harm to others is meaningfully different to action against those who are already victimised. The first is a movement for social change that increases the net good in the world, the second is simple oppression.

In the same sense, one might say that overthrowing a fascist dictator is more morally justified than overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install said dictatorship. Both are violence against a government, but they exist in different moral contexts.

Aside from the fact that the Daily Mail is a tabloid which makes its money primarily from inflaming right-wing sensibilities while misreporting or fabricating stories, this seems like a particularly ludicrous assertion considering that it would imply a far higher rate of welfare fraud than actually happens.

Could you tell us how much money it's possible to claim from the system, and how much a realistic minimal standard of living might actually be? If you do your research honestly, you might find it illuminating.