Today's Paper Latest stories Wally Hall Most commented Drivetime Mahatma Obits Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles + games
Comments by Whippersnapper
Contact Whippersnapper

Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Whippersnapper: I did not ignore the first amendment. In fact I mention it to point out that we do indeed give preferences like religion special status. Geesh, son, this is why Gitz's argument is so bad. Because he is saying we should NOT give civil rights status to preferences. He makes a list of criteria for what is a preference and that list perfectly fits religious preference. So my point, SINCE YOU MISSED IT, is that it is just wrong headed for Gitz to conclude we should not give civil rights status to preferences since we already do exactly that in the First Amendment. Boy, you would have to work really hard to miss my point and I honestly do not understand how you could miss my point. Unless you are one of those people who conclude that everyone else is an idiot. So do you get it now? Religion is given special status in the First Amendment. Religion is a preference by Gitz's own criteria. Therefore his conclusion that preferences should not be given special status is a poor conclusion. Because it already happens in the First Amendment. Maybe you fail to catch my drift because, like Gitz, you have such a profound bias you do not get it. The preferences you want to have status should, and the preferences you do not want to have should not. Anyway, his across the board conclusion that preferences do not deserve protection was not shared by the Founding Fathers. I dunno. I feel frustrated. The argument is SO OBVIOUS and YET YOU do NOT understand it. Amazing.

April 24, 2015 at 8:42 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Whippersnapper: Let me put the argument into just one sentence: Gitz's conclusion that we cannot give protective status to preferences is incorrect because we already do give protective status to religious preference. Far from ignoring the first amendment, it is the cornerstone of my objection to Gitz's article. We can chose what preferences we want to protect.

April 24, 2015 at 8:52 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

People can and so change their religious preferences so the fact that preferences can change does not exclude them from protection under the law whether no matter what legal mechanism we use. And it will happen. On the other hand, we should not force people to attend ceremonies and we should pass laws rather than leave it to judges.

April 24, 2015 at 11:23 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Civil rights protection includes things like not being able to deny jobs or housing to people based on their religion (a preference ) or their being married to a member of the opposite sex (a preference). So yes we can provide Gay couples with civil rights protections based on their choices or behavior. Though we should not force anyone to participate in a ceremony. Would we force someone to photograph a KKK rally?

April 24, 2015 at 4:49 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

I was wrong to lump all the conservatives on the board together and I stand corrected. Thanks for asking me to correct myself. I got carried away.

May 29, 2015 at 11:54 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Whiper:I am a scientist and I KNOW how that game is played. You also IGNORE the definitions in the BLUE BOX on that page. Those are the top definitions.

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science

: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

Believe me science does not happen in the library. I AM a scientist and I know how it id done. You are NOT a scientist. You just know some facts about science. This is VERY TIRESOME.

Again the arrogance of people thinking they know their job and their business and they also know someone else's job better than that person is ABSURD. You do not know anything that the experts in this field do not know. And your reviews is full of opinion and cherry-picked facts. You may turn out to be right. I cannot say you won't since we are talking about the future. Just dial back the arrogance. OK? Thanks. Take care and good bye. Geesh, you just cannot be civil to some people. They just keep beating away at the Nonsense Drum. Science does not happen in the library. And you are not as much of an expert as the experts. You are entitled to your OPINION as long as you realize it is OPINION. You do not see the future either... Right? You are willing to admit that much?

I am embarrassed for you that you have had so little exposure in life to people who are smart that you honestly think you know more about science that the world's top scientist. I have expressed your appreciation for information that you shared and your knowledge of some facts. But no where do you address the issue directly of how much of the climate change is due to human activity. No where. So give it a rest. OK. I am not taking a strong stand on this issue you will notice. I am just trying to get arrogant people to realize that they are not experts in an area where, as a matter of fact, they are NOT EXPERTS. Admit that much... but NO. Whip is a scientist and he does his science sitting on his rear-end in front of the computer.
LOOK IN THE BLUE BOX on the Merriam Webster site.

December 8, 2015 at 3:32 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Popsmith (CRAIG SMITH) says...

The state sales tax is still less than what you pay locally for most products that you order over the internet.

March 30, 2017 at 5:25 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper (WHIPPER SNAPPER) says...

Democrat Gazette - I have faithfully subscribed for almost 20 years. You kept jacking up the price and jacking up the price and offering less for more. I am done. I have cancelled my subscription. To all the other folks who commented from time to time - I will miss reading your insights (right or wrong). Goodbye.

October 1, 2018 at 9:19 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )