- Apr 3, 2016
Usually the new post is about some new development and should be discussed separately. The old conversation may be relevant as historical reference, but the new discussion is not exactly a continuation as much as a sequel or commentary. The people that participated in the original are no longer around, things may have changed and wounds from heated arguments may have healed that should not be torn open. Moreover, when an old topic is gravedug, some people don't notice the timestamps and reply to the "latest" posts without reading through the whole thing resulting in repeated arguments and all kinds of noise.Why not, if it's directly targeted at the topic? WAY better than creating a new topic for it.
Locking this would make no sense at all.
CC0 isn't really a license, it's a waiver of rights with a builtin license fallback. In some countries like Germany the fallback part is the only thing that matters because public domain can only be achieved by being dead for a long time - the WTFPL directly addresses this case (and it came first).wasn't C0 designed for this sort of thing?
As not a christian (not that religion has anything to do with licenses of this sort...) I object to people telling me I can't do what I want (or trying to have laws reflect their religious beliefs).As a Christian, I object to that license. It sounds too much like "Do what thy wilst".
there are quite a few things people will tell you not to do, that might offend you. but perhaps creating a law about keeping religion to oneself is equally offensive...As not a christian (not that religion has anything to do with licenses of this sort...) I object to people telling me I can't do what I want (or trying to have laws reflect their religious beliefs).
Yeah, well how about you respect my freedom!
Stop bumping old threads.
Who asked for such a law?
You mean like sharia, right?..., but it's not bad to let your values (religious beliefs) influence the laws you want to put in effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_&_Security_Acti think it's bad to force your own values (or religious beliefs) on others, but it's not bad to let your values (religious beliefs) influence the laws you want to put in effect. just try not to be too upset if you don't get your way if you're in the minority.
If you forced them, you'd be violent, but at least not abusive. They tend to be at least the latter, since their own, their familie's and their congregation's children are at their mercy when it comes to being thought. And since most so-called "believers" rather aredoesn't mean i can force them to give up their beliefs. wouldn't that make me as "bad" as them?
I'm all for respectful dialogues, well-thought reasoning and mutually trying to understand the other side. But, have you yet to recognize, that there seems to be a subconscious defence mechanism at play triggered by sound reasoning and when activated making the host blind to reason and feeling utterly offended? Thus effectively meaning you can't argue with them? Yes, there are those who know that they don't know, but just belief, but those are halfway sane, so, low priority and I'm not that concerned with them right now.doesn't mean i can't argue with them, either. but that's what's necessary: a respectful dialogue. (from all sides.)
I didn't say anybody should abandon their laws. I attacked your statement about theocracy not being a bad thing with an ugly example.i'm not going to vote for sharia law, but it doesn't make sense to tell a predominantly muslim country to abandon it either. but it'd sure be nice to give women the vote...
this sounds like the sort of rhetoric you'd hear from a fanatical religious person (just put in e.g. "the great Satan" for "religion"), or someone like Hitler on his quest to eradicate the Jews. anti-religion can become a fanatical "religion", too.To me a religion is a virus, and when attacking religious beliefs makes a carrier uncomfortable that's called fever. Now, let's cure the world.
In the case of Nazi's you seem to be strongly anti Nazi just because you grew up in a bubble that was opposed to Nazism (but still strongly embraces their gedankten). Just like a vietnamese kid is still anti-american due to the clusterbombs that still cripple kids that wander off the paths (or that collect them for selling the metal).Who asked for such a law?
But still, did you never want someone to stop spreading nonsense? Like nazis, capitalists, creationist, FOX, Kim Jong-un, classmates, ...
You mean like sharia, right?