4 ms·

Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100

Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years" - baseless argument. comparing fiat money to fiat money says nothing about efficacy of fiat money. "Too bad when California deregulated their energy market..." - http://www.tylervigen.com/ http://www.tylervigen.com/ Furthermore, where does this money appear from? If the government makes energy cheaper by paying for it by taxing you more, you are just lying to yourself. "anti-abortion" - please explain why third-trimester abortions should be allowed. the baby can live by being born at that point, and the mother has had plenty of time to deal with the issue. but sure, you can disagree with that, and I won't debate it here. "anti same-sex marriage" - "I think the way to fix DOMA is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue [of same sex marriage], and I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in.", Rand Paul "vaccination" - http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rand-paul-vaccine-20150212-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-ran... So hey, maybe you disagree with some of his positions after you found out what they actually are. Is that enough to say, you shouldn't care at all about privacy, the military industrial complex, foreign entanglements that make us less safe, more drones strikes on civilians, and a corrupt, racist criminal justice system? I recommend becoming informed and making a rational decision about such things instead of lying to yourself.

azar1 11y ago
"third-trimester abortions" - Excellent straw man. How about his proposed personhood legislation? https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign...
- natmaster 11y ago
  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan...
MCRed 11y ago
I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of laws that violate it. Alas, most gays and lesbians are more leftist and wanted some sort of recognition form the government.... if they had taken the position of getting government out of marriage completely, they would have found many christians (whose ideas of what their marriages should be are regularly infringed upon by government) as allies. I'll take Rand Pauls government out of marriage over Bill Clinton (signed DOMA) and the democrats (3/4 of which voted for DOMA) and Obama (he was anti-gay marriage before he was "for" it) anyday.
- natmaster 11y ago
  This. Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress.
  - GabrielF00 11y ago
    Some googling shows this to be, at best, partially true. While marriage license requirements were used to prevent miscegenation, they were not invented for that purpose and they have been used for other purposes. >Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match. >The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry. >By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. >In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. >But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html]
discardorama 11y ago
> "anti-abortion" - please explain why third-trimester abortions should be allowed. the baby can live by being born at that point, and the mother has had plenty of time to deal with the issue. but sure, you can disagree with that, and I won't debate it here. And you please tell us who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body. As a matter of fact, how does anyone other than the woman and her doctor have any standing in this issue? Here's an analogy. Suppose you have a very rare blood type. Someone with that same blood type is in danger at a hospital; and your blood donation would definitely save his life. Would you let the government force you to donate blood to save this life? Even if it endangered your own life?
- XorNot 11y ago
  A more apt analogy would be denying the removal of a dangerous tumor because the government was interested in studying it. Because thus is essentially the only situation under which third trimester abortions happen in the first place.
dang 11y ago
> Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. > I recommend becoming informed and making a rational decision about such things instead of lying to yourself. Please don't insult the person you're talking to. Doing so breaks our rule about civility. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

azar1 11y ago

"third-trimester abortions" - Excellent straw man. How about his proposed personhood legislation? https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign...

natmaster 11y ago
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan...

MCRed 11y ago

I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of laws that violate it. Alas, most gays and lesbians are more leftist and wanted some sort of recognition form the government.... if they had taken the position of getting government out of marriage completely, they would have found many christians (whose ideas of what their marriages should be are regularly infringed upon by government) as allies. I'll take Rand Pauls government out of marriage over Bill Clinton (signed DOMA) and the democrats (3/4 of which voted for DOMA) and Obama (he was anti-gay marriage before he was "for" it) anyday.

natmaster 11y ago
This. Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress.
- GabrielF00 11y ago
  Some googling shows this to be, at best, partially true. While marriage license requirements were used to prevent miscegenation, they were not invented for that purpose and they have been used for other purposes. >Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match. >The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry. >By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. >In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. >But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html]

discardorama 11y ago

> "anti-abortion" - please explain why third-trimester abortions should be allowed. the baby can live by being born at that point, and the mother has had plenty of time to deal with the issue. but sure, you can disagree with that, and I won't debate it here. And you please tell us who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body. As a matter of fact, how does anyone other than the woman and her doctor have any standing in this issue? Here's an analogy. Suppose you have a very rare blood type. Someone with that same blood type is in danger at a hospital; and your blood donation would definitely save his life. Would you let the government force you to donate blood to save this life? Even if it endangered your own life?

XorNot 11y ago
A more apt analogy would be denying the removal of a dangerous tumor because the government was interested in studying it. Because thus is essentially the only situation under which third trimester abortions happen in the first place.

dang 11y ago

> Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. > I recommend becoming informed and making a rational decision about such things instead of lying to yourself. Please don't insult the person you're talking to. Doing so breaks our rule about civility. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html