Viewing profile — bill_mon

This is getting off topic. Stating facts about the world is not discriminating. As an employer, I can choose not to hire stupid people.

The UN humans rights are not law in the USA. The first amendment says that the government can't make laws about religion. In the USA, people are free to have whatever religion they…

Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. You can be religious without any gods. An atheist can be religious.

Treading carefully is probably our best bet, but it's very difficult and error prone. There are no militant atheists, in any reasonable sense of the word. If mentioning facts about…

I can agree. But this means that we can never talk about anything other than specific, technical issues at work. We can never reveal any opinion or outside fact about anything. I s…

> So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion…

> what makes you think so? Because that's how language works. You don't call somebody a neanderthal to imply he has great hair.

Toxicity is a serious thing. We label toxic chemicals with labels and warnings because they're dangerous. Serious business. When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we b…

Now you're inventing more personality for Mr X. He doesn't like Microsoft and doesn't hide it. He thinks Santa Claus is for children and doesn't hide it. He's not the problem here.…

Toxic means dangerous.

> Take Mr. X, who is outraged by Microsoft's behavior and refuses to buy Microsoft's products, tells other people about his problems with Microsoft, and tells everyone to use FOSS …

> How do you respectful tell someone you think they are mistaken? How about "you're mistaken"? The problem is with "You don't know what you're talking about, but I do, so let me an…

Good points. I'm not so sure benefit of the doubt must be earned. More like, any participant in a discussion forum must show it when answering, and do proper research before asking…

I disagree, I see it as saying "you don't know what you really want, but I can read your mind". It's disrespectful and not giving the benefit of the doubt.

This article is hidden behind a cookie wall, pressing "Agree and Continue" does nothing. Edit: tried opening in firejail and enableing javascript, this gave some kind of infinite l…

I find both to be correct.

> Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word. If my intent is irrelevant, why bring it up? And this is exactly what we're talking about: Is using the …

No, intent is in my head only. When I say something, I know the intent, you guess at the intent when you listen.

That would take a mind reader. You're simply guessing at intent, we all do. But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.

> I’m saying that the word carries intent. No, you're saying that you know the intent.

> Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? We can construct any bar we'd like. You seem to completely dismiss concern for the bar being too low, wh…

> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true. You're saying that the intent matters, but what we'r…

Remote viewing works or it doesn't. How do you propose we find out which it is? Do you have an opinion on what 2+3 equals?

There are conflicting reports about every little thing. I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism th…

The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. Wikipedia also tells me that "The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report co…