marky1991

'Religion is culture...'

This argument appears to me unjustified. This equating between culture and religion seems especially unworkable in modern times, where cultural groups don't have single religions at all. Eg in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions. If we were to equate these two things, does that imply that there is no shared american culture? I just don't see how this interpretation doesn't lead to a single stretched 'culture' term which basically ends up subsuming everything about people, and don't see how it is a useful term or how it aids in thought or understanding.

In this case, the point really isn't 'culture' vs 'religion' it's 'moral' vs 'preference'. Consuming vegemite is not a moral mandate for anyone, it's just a preference, like mayonnaise, fashion, or coke.

What is a 'secular dietary conviction'? Religious restrictions are 'God says it is morally wrong to consume this'. Are you suggesting that australian culture suggests 'it is morally wrong to not eat vegemite'? I don't think that's true.

Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.

Could you please communicate instead of just replying? I have no idea what you're talking about and would appreciate a fully expressed thought instead of a one liner or a vague 6 word phrase.

Could you explain how?

How so?

Both are os-specific graphics apis. It seems pretty comparable to me.

Ok, but even if that were true , it costs nothing to say "we'll let you know when we think we have fixed the issue so you can then retest"

"Idk lol, it'll probably be fixed one day, keep testing and find out" is a pretty crappy response.

But sugar is literally added to jelly as the preservative, that's why jelly exists to begin with.

For example, the very first recipe for strawberry jelly from some horrible spam recipe site:

2 cups (16 ounces) pure strawberry juice (I used 3 1/2 pounds ripe, fresh strawberries to get this amount of juice) 3 1/3 cups (666 grams) granulated sugar

It's literally more sugar than strawberry juice.

How is this a 'hack'? It's listing ingredients in order of quantity. The nutrition facts already tell you total amount of sugar per serving separately, that's not what the ingredient list is for to begin with. Also, I don't have much sympathy for someone surprised that jelly contains a lot of sugar: A) Have you tasted it B) Do you have any idea what jelly is or why it exists C) Have you ever made it?

Jelly inherently, as a direct consequence of its very reason for existing, contains a lot of sugar, duh.

If we were to take all preceding arguments seriously, couldn't that be explained by americans going to live in a low-cost-of-living country once they've earned their living?

(Don't know your country to know if that's true or not, but it's a possibility)

I was always taught that the executive branch enforces the law, not interprets it. If the executive branch or legislative branches disagree with the judicial branch, then they have the responsibility to appeal or deal with it; they can't just ignore it because they disagree.

Eg Python is barely trudging along with random forks of a library that stopped being supported 10 years ago, each fork only getting maintained for about a year at a time.

I really think outside of Java and c#, soap is totally dead.

So why are you commenting here?

Sorry, but that's not an answer to my question. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like you're not really talking to me, you're just responding to me.

If you're asking for evidence of people changing their minds, I've done that, though I will admit I haven't done it in the past page of comments on hackernews.

Normally it's not a wholesale change of opinion, but a shift in nuance or a changing of details.

But even if I found such a thing, that doesn't answer my question.

If you aren't interested in changing minds, why do you comment in forum threads at all?

So, are you admitting there's no moral justification here? It's just 'do-it-because-you-want-to'?

I don't understand, could you rephrase your answer to his question? I read his question and read your response, but don't see a connection between the two.

Yeah, obviously we wouldn't try to do that. Our laws, cultures, and priorities are wildly different. By this lens, the main problem seems to be that the eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose.

How would you detect broken video decoding or font rendering? I don't know what those are. I don't think i've had any issues this year (Maybe i had do do some pacman-wrangling once this year, but i'm slow to update, so that was probably my fault...)), that I noticed anyway, but maybe everything's broken and i just can't tell.

That makes me, a conservative, wonder what those other headlines are talking about and if those headlines are worthwhile or helpful. Because, regardless of what you are reading, the fundamentals of government are unchanged. So if people aren't reading about them, that to me just suggests they're ignorant.

This feels debatable to me. I wouldn't at all be upset if someone pulled the emergency stop cord in that case. Getting hundreds of dollars robbed from you on the <whatever> is a big deal.

I've never had that problem with my solar garmin watch.

What do you mean by 'removed from society'? Do you really mean you think someone should get a life sentence for stealing some cameras? Do you mean they should be executed? Something else? And then you say 'to set an example'. By that, do you mean 'they should be punished in excess of the harm they caused, to deter others from doing the same'? If so, by its very nature, that's obviously unjust and immoral.

Your reaction sounds far more third-world-country than the original act you're responding to. 'Straight to jail': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw It sounds like a desire to turn the country into an authoritarian paradise. In my opinion, such opinions are unamerican.

I read that but assumed that wasn't why they fired him. I don't understand, why would you fire someone for receiving some kind of medical treatment?

Ignoring the obvious legal landmines, what does that have to do with the job?

I assumed there was some other reason for the firing. If that was the reason (or if that's what the victim is alleging) then I think the article needs to be more clear, it all reads like vague gossip to me and it wasn't at all clear to me that that was what this was about.

I'm not trying to attack you but did you read the article? Because I read it and I don't know the answer to either question either.

How do you do t without backtracking?

I would not like this. This is the kind of change that made google search so annoying. (Eg what if I want to track the history of 'self-driving' vs 'auto pilot' in sales pitches? Or more basically, what if the system wrongly interprets me wrongly?) Better to support | or similar old-fashioned search engine syntax and dwis and not dwim.

So does 'mark' and 'Mark', that doesn't mean I correct everyone (or myself) every time they/I type my name without using a capital letter.

This sort of language policing is pointless.

But no one, including the government, is omniscient. This turns all agency into "exploitation", and the only logical conclusion is that all decisions for all people should be made by the most informed. Surely you don't argue that would be a good thing?

Not all laws are are meant to protect people from themselves, most laws aren't.

Murder isn't illegal because we want to protect people from the results of their actions, it's illegal because we want to protect people from the actions of others. (Or, failing to do that, punish the aggressors in response) Surely you see the difference?

Basically, the argument is that people's liberty should only be restricted up to the point of defending the liberty and rights of others. If an action hurts no one other than its actor, the state has no right to restrict them. People should be free to live in line with their wishes and conscience up to the point of not violating the rights of others.

With regard to seatbelt laws, I would ask the same question, as I do think that the seatbelt laws are also paternalism and morally wrong.