This week's book giveaway is in the Reactive Progamming forum.
We're giving away four copies of Reactive Streams in Java: Concurrency with RxJava, Reactor, and Akka Streams and have Adam Davis on-line!
See this thread for details.
Win a copy of Reactive Streams in Java: Concurrency with RxJava, Reactor, and Akka Streams this week in the Reactive Progamming forum!

Ahmed Bin S

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Oct 25, 2015
UK
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
6
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
47
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
56
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Ahmed Bin S

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

This begs the question: Will gay bakers have to accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? I don’t think LGBT people should be forced to promote anti-gay messages.


Such slurs would be hate speech, no? That seems like an important distinction.



I think what Peter means by slurs is anything that is anti-homosexuality.

So, saying "gay marriage is wrong" counts as a slur.

Is saying "gay marriage is wrong" hate speech? No, it might be a bigoted statement, but freedom of speech allows us to be bigots.

Now consider a religious person who thinks gay marriage is wrong. If they go to a bakery owned by gays, and say they want a cake that says gay marriage is wrong, should the bakery be forced to bake such a cake? I don't believe they should - they shouldn't be able to say they don't want to bake a cake for this person, but they should be able to say they do not want to write a slogan they think is wrong. Similarly, a Christian bakery should also have the right to refuse to print slogans they think are wrong, even if we disagree with their decision.


2 years ago

Henry Wong wrote:
and the rattlesnakes noticed the commotion.  There are quite a few dead cows in that previous topic now for that topic to continue.  

So, here is a restart... this is an interesting topic, so feel free to discuss again. However, please remember that this topic is in the rattlesnake pit. Please keep your cows from venturing to close to the rattlesnakes. And my condolences to those who lost cows in the previous topic.

Henry



Actually, from what I can see, only one person lost cows. Two.

Another person lost no cows.

My cows are now asking for justice - they believe all cows are created equal, they do not accept that some cows are more equal than other cows.

I have raised this matter privately by email with a couple of the moderators - I did not send it by PM to any moderator as that is available for all moderators to see, and I don't think that is appropriate. Hopefully I will be able to have an honest debate with them regarding that topic, and what exactly happened. Failing to achieve that, I will contact the owner of this site and ask him for a resolution - he was very honest the last time I contacted him regarding this.

Thank you.
2 years ago

Maneesh Godbole wrote:

I don't see whats the point of posting a link which is about Indians who cannot vote in US anyway.



By your logic, you should also not see the point of Tim's comment about Trump being against the offshoring of American work because those Indians affected by it are Indians who cannot vote in the US anyway,
2 years ago

Maneesh Godbole wrote:

Tim Holloway wrote:
Um, Maneesh, you do realize that one of Trump's main campaign planks was basically shutting down the offshoring of American work, don't you?



Yup. Had heard/read about it. Dont think it will happen.
iPhones made in China. Dont see Apple changing it because Trump tells them to.
India is a HUGE market. 128 crore people. Ford, Chevorlet, Lee, Levis, Coke, Pepsi. Dont see them changing because Trump says so.

At the end of the day Money is king. Trump is a bu$ine$$man.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37787347
2 years ago

Tim Cooke wrote:

Jan de Boer wrote:Stop with this nonsense calling people who do not agree with you stupid.


I did nothing of the sort. I simply relayed an observation and posed the question of whether my observation was representative of a broader pattern. You are also quite right to pose the opposite question of how prevalent that pattern is throughout the Clinton voters.



I didn't read it as Jan saying that to you! I think he was making a general point.
2 years ago
So people actually knew that Sanders fared MUCH better than Clinton in head to head with Trump, because a lot of the white working class who would never vote for Clinton would be happy to vote for Sanders.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/

And therefore, the sensible choice was, that Sanders should have been chosen as the nominee.

But the Democrat establishment spent months mocking Sanders and his supporters, because that's how establishment operates - mock people who are outside your circle.

And now, instead of acknowledging their own fault, they are going around trying to blame everyone but themselves - Russia, FBI, liberal journalists who criticise Clinton, blacks for not coming out in huge numbers, white working class for being so "stupid" ... I guess it's always easier to blame others for your own fault.

2 years ago

Ahmed Bin S wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681



So Peter Tatchell basically says the exact thing I was saying. I am glad he said it, because when a Muslim says it people can dismiss it as "ah, but that's because you're from a Muslim background", but when he, as a gay rights campaigner says it, the actual argument has to be addressed.



Ashers Bakery’s defeat is no win for the LGBT community – it sets a dangerous and authoritarian precedent
Discrimination against LGBT people is wrong and is rightly unlawful. But in a democratic society, people should be able to discriminate against ideas they disagree with

PETER TATCHELL

The Appeal Court in Belfast today ruled that a local Christian-run business, Ashers Bakery, acted unlawfully when it refused to decorate a cake with a political pro-gay marriage message.

This verdict is a defeat for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers can be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage against their wishes, it also implies that gay bakers could be forced by law to decorate cakes with homophobic slogans.

It seems the judges have decided that businesses cannot lawfully refuse a customer’s request to propagate a message, even if it is sexist, xenophobic or anti-gay and even if the business owners have a conscientious objection to it.

Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea they oppose.

Ashers did not discriminate against the customer, Gareth Lee, because he was gay. They objected to the message he wanted on the cake: “Support gay marriage.”

Discrimination against LGBT people is wrong and is rightly unlawful. But in a democratic society, people should be able to discriminate against ideas they disagree with. I am saddened that the court did not reach the same conclusion.

This judgment opens a can of worms. It means that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be required to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial. It could also encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakers and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim opinions.

What the court has decided sets a dangerous, authoritarian precedent that is open to serious abuse.

Discrimination against people should be illegal but not discrimination against ideas and opinions.

Like most gay and equality campaigners, I initially condemned Ashers over its refusal to produce a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan for Gareth Lee.

I supported his legal claim against Ashers and the subsequent verdict, which last year found the bakery guilty of discrimination.

First, Ashers had falsely advertised their services, saying they were willing to decorate their cakes with any message that a customer wanted. They did not say there were any limits on the designs or wording.

Second, I feared that Ashers’ actions could open the floodgates to a revival of sectarian loyalist-republican discrimination and discrimination against women, LGBTs and other minorities – and their points of view.

But I later changed my mind. Much as I wish to defend the LGBT community, I also want to defend other important human rights, such as freedom of conscience, expression and religion.

While Christian bed and breakfast owners and civil partnership registrars were clearly wrong to deny service to gay people, this case is different. It is about the refusal to facilitate an idea – namely, support for same-sex marriage.

The equality laws are intended to protect people against discrimination. A business providing a public service has a legal duty to do so without discrimination based on race, gender, faith, sexuality and so on.

The court has erred by ruling that Gareth was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.

It argued that Ashers “would not have objected to a cake carrying the message ‘Support Heterosexual Marriage’ or indeed ‘Support Marriage’.”

The judges determined that by refusing to provide a cake with different, pro-gay marriage wording, Ashers had treated the customer differently and less favourably, contrary to the law.

They went on to say: “We accept that it was the use of the word ‘gay’ in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled. The reason the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly this was direct discrimination.”

However, Gareth’s cake request was not turned down because he was gay but because of the message he wanted on the cake. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order or that their refusal to decorate the cake with the message he wanted was an act of discrimination against his sexuality.

The judges concluded that service providers are required by law to facilitate any lawful message, even if they have a conscientious objection to it.

This begs the question: Will gay bakers have to accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? I don’t think LGBT people should be forced to promote anti-gay messages.

It is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be always unlawful but not discrimination against ideas and opinions.

2 years ago
Well I hope saying to the moderators they are wrong doesn't fall under this very loosely defined, very subjective thing called "not being nice", because when I get some time I will post a post showing that saying there is only one rule at this forum that covers all rules people need to abide by at CodeRanch is factually incorrect!
3 years ago

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:But I don't like that the FAQ takes you to a whole list of Wiki articles. I think there should be an easily accessible "Rules"


There's only one rule: be nice .

I get what you mean though - forum conventions or something.



So I keep hearing there is only one rule, but in reality, there isn't, is there?

For example, there's the rule that you shouldn't hijack someone's thread.
Or the rule that if you cross-post at another forum, you should make it clear on Coderanch.

Failure to do any of the above would result in some sort of action by the moderators, so I am not sure why I keep hearing there is only one rule.
3 years ago

Paul Clapham wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:Thirdly, if this is really such a big issue, then the moderators should state in the rules that subject lines should not be something like "need help in Java assignment". and then enforce it whenever they can.



Actually the moderators do try to enforce the idea of Use A Meaningful Subject Line in cases when it's necessary. Although it's not really one of the forum rules, just a polite suggestion. There's only one rule. And as somebody already said (it was you actually), most of the subject lines are meaningful.



Fair enough!

But I don't like that the FAQ takes you to a whole list of Wiki articles. I think there should be an easily accessible "Rules" or whatever you want to call it on the main page that summaries the dos and donts of this forum.
3 years ago
First of all, the overwhelming majority of posts have relevant subject lines. So if you want to look for posts about Generics by subject line, you will find the majority of them.

Secondly, learning involves doing hard work yourself. If you can't be bothered searching for keywords, then you should remember the times when people actually had to spend time going to the library, and realise just how lucky you are in this day and age.

Thirdly, if this is really such a big issue, then the moderators should state in the rules that subject lines should not be something like "need help in Java assignment". and then enforce it whenever they can.

Personally, I don't see this as s big issue at all.
3 years ago

Daniel Cox wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:It ends up affecting this person, but not others, so I don't see why others should get upset about it.


It does end up affecting others. We are all here to learn and if I log in looking to learn about generics and someone asks a generics question but with a subject line that suggests String concatenation, I'll end up ignoring the thread because I want to learn about generics; not String concatenation. This affects me because I could have learnt something useful about generics but I haven't due to a non-descriptive subject line.



Do a search on generics. It will return posts where the body mentions generics.
3 years ago

Daniel Cox wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:Personally, I don't see the problem if someone doesn't put a proper subject line on an online forum.


A subject is the one thing that entices users of a forum to read a post and so it is advisable to make it as descriptive as possible.



That's the whole point. If someone is stuck and needs a question answered, then it is in their best interest to put a good subject line. If they don't, then less people will read it, and their question might not get answered as quickly. It ends up affecting this person, but not others, so I don't see why others should get upset about it.

In Meaningless Drivel, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have meaningless subject lines such as "I predict".
3 years ago

Brian Tkatch wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:If I understand correctly, BT is saying that subject line should be before message body when displaying it, but after message body when writing it, as it is likely to be more accurately descriptive if done this way.


Yes, that is correct. Though truthfully, i thought that was obvious. Thank you for explaining it.



Mr Bear found your suggestion bizarre. I see nothing bizarre about it so I thought he might have read it very quickly and not understood exactly what you were saying - I know when I am busy and scan-read something,
sometimes I misunderstand it. That isn't to say it isn't bizarre and he is wrong if he thinks it is, there are no rights or wrongs here, but I was clarifying in case someone did misunderstand it.

Personally, I don't see the problem if someone doesn't put a proper subject line on an online forum. In emails, yes, because you will usually have to read emails as they are addressed to you and you might have to do something in response to what the email says, but in an online forum there is no obligation on you to read the post so if you see someone has posted a subject line as "I predict", I see no problem because you don't have to read that post and the OP should be able to post however they want to.
3 years ago