Do you know what intolerance is? HINT: its NOT the same as disaproval.
the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered.
Really? Wikipedia had none of it, and rather expressed that there WAS no evidence, the entire thing is a mystery, and noone is entirely sure HOW homosexuality works psychologically.
You are allowed to disagree with the Pope, and you can still call yourself a Catholic if you like.
The formal cause of the reformation was whether or not the Pope / church tradition was authoritative; a Catholic who doesnt believe so may want to stop and ask in what way he isnt protestant.
Regardless, its not bigotry to think that homosexuality is wrong; bigotry would inciting hate or oppression on homosexuals. There is a massive difference, and I rather wish people who dont know what bigotry is would stop using the word. I may think homosexual acts are wrong, as I think lying is wrong; I have several very good friends who lie, and I am not a bigot for disliking their lies.
there are no two sides. unless by that you mean supporting someone's identity and denying them their identity
There is the side that recognizes that there is no reliable evidence that homosexuality is anything more than a preference / attraction brought on by a combination of several factors, environment and upbringing among them. Noone has given a good, solid, scientific, and defendable explanation as to its exact cause.
And society has generally recognized that supporting non-traditional families is a bad thing, which is one of the reasons that homosexuality has historically had very little acceptance (not that I agree with the historical treatment of homosexuals). Not all "identities' are helpful; some people are inclined to nymphomania, and most people would agree that restraint is a good idea in that case. Some people are inclined towards theft; again, society demands restraint. The same goes for a large number of personality traits. Heck, most people are inclined towards marital or sexual infidelity at some point in their life; would their S.O. not be justified in being hurt by it? Would that be considered "denying them their identity"?
Im sorry, its a terrible argument, and it needs to stop being dragged out. Not all elements that make up a person are helpful at all times, nor should any of them be indulged to their fullest-- not heterosexuality either. I do not understand why some people think homosexuality is different in this regard.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, or gender.
A whole bunch of people are demanding that they have a right not to be offended, and that Apple, a private entity, does not have the freedom to decide what to sell.... and theyre the SANE ones?
Noone actually knows the cause(s) of homosexuality-- there isnt a "homosexual" gene that has been identified AFAIK, and identical twins do not always end up of the same sexual preference, particularly when raised in different environments; most seem to agree that there are several factors involved.
All that being said, what is your rationale for your statement? These people apparently believe that at least SOME of the cause is environmental, that it is not simply innate, and that it is a psychological condition that can be addressed. You disagree, so do many people; but so far there hasnt been a shred of evidence to the contrary.
And yes, I would feel the same way regardless of the beliefs and ideologies being rejected. Freedom is freedom, regardless of one's beliefs.
But obviously not the freedom of corporations (or their heads) to strongly believe any one thing, or to deny service? I see, Jobs doesnt really deserve that freedom, does he?
This may not be something I agree with, but you really dont want to start going down that rabbit hole. It ends with less freedoms, not more.
How about a "cure" for being black? Or a "cure" for being a Christian?
Well, I already know there are people out there who believe in those things, so it doesnt really affect me to know that they know how to write apps.
and hate speech isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to ban, if you are going to ban anything.
If you actually read what the app is like and what the writer's website is like, it doesnt exactly scream "burn the homos", nor does it look anything like what one would call hate speech.
It takes some nerve to have a browser that works with 99% of the world, comes to your poorly implemented site and fails, and then say "its the browsers fault".
I wonder if the website coder has tried telling his boss that thats why a portion of internet users cant use their site? Think he would buy it?
CS Lewis has argued that taking moral advice from a man that you believe to have terrible ego issues and possibly insanity (claiming to be the Son of God, and as you dont believe in a God....) is probably not the best course of action.
You cant really take the Bible piecemeal like that; there are several inconvenient parts which strongly argue against doing so.
Thats not origin of rain in the sense that we were discussing. Any christian will agree that God "causes" all things; but that does not mean there are no physical causes, and the Bible doesnt attempt to explain its origins in the way that the Romans and Greeks did with their Gods (where eg Apollo/Helios themselves were the Sun, or a titan standing in the Ocean caused waves). It tends throughout to acknowledge that there are physical causes to such things, but that God rules over it all.
love thy neighbor
I never said it wasnt commanded; I said it wasnt the point. Anyone who tells you that the point of Christianity is to live a good life doesnt actually understand what Christianity is.
or states that the point is to live well with your neighbor?
2) Several places. In Matthew, Christ teaches that peace makers are blessed
I do not deny that it is taught that "loving your neighbor as yourself" is one of the commands of Christ; but he puts one command before it, and this I would call the "point": "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment..." Certainly there are certain ways to live as commanded in the Bible; but the POINT is not to live that way, the point is to honor God. Failing that and succeeding in personal "righteousness" is in the end utter failure, for as Paul stated "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:12).
3) Jesus did not condemn those emphasising personal righteousness
I should have been more clear-- he went after legalists who focused so much on the law of God that they twisted it into a bizarre parody of itself, to the point where you could swear upon the Lord's temple rather than on the Lord to give yourself leeway to violate your oath (after all, its just his temple), or you could refuse to support your aging parents by declaring your resources "korban". In otherwords they were pursuing "righteousness" and losing sight of the purpose.
Jesus came down hard on them at several points because of this, and after most of those times you get a sidenote that the religious leaders began seeking ways to kill him.
Don't get me wrong, I am not asking you to believe any part of the Bible
Well, thats only accurate if none of them are true. I could just as easily argue that theres no point seeking a secular, materialist explanation for the origin of matter. You would of course object "but it DOES have a materialist origin"-- but aren't you begging the question?
Might as well approach any new theory, or anyone who disagrees with you the same way-- "your opinions and arguments are invalid because they are wrong". Great, but you generally are expected to back up such assertions.
If I had modpoints, I would mod you up-- not because I agree with you but because you have given more thought to this than "how can I troll religious folk?"
Creationism merely relocates the problem; one could ask if God created all of this then what are God's origins, or if there was never a time when God did not exist how does one even begin to comprehend that or really understand what that means?
Well, as I see it, THAT particular mindbender will be there whether you espouse secular or supernatural origins. If the Big Bang was just a ball of stuff, where did that stuff come from? (Stephen Hawking speculated recently that it just 'popped into existence' "due to gravity"; but that doesnt really solve the problem) If it was always there, then presumably this cycle of Bang-Crunch has already run on for an eternity, and should have run out of the necessary energy to continue rebounding between states.; and once again you have a situation where you must ask "what does that mean that there was time before said ball".
Its really a question of attribution (God, or some as-of-yet unnamed cause); the questions about "what does eternity look like" and "what is time before time" remain, either way.
(If some non-armchair physicist can correct any errors in my above assumptions, I would be appreciative.)
to explain the (at the time) unexplainable and to provide the ability to live 'nicely' with your neighbor
What part of the new testament tries to explain the origin of rain again, or states that the point is to live well with your neighbor? I seem to remember Jesus specifically going after those who placed too much emphasis on personal righteousness and rebuking them-- to the point where they desired his death.
The problem with today's armchair religious historians is that they make assertions such as these which fly in the face reality.
Creationist means that they believe in a creator. Youll note parent spoke of a creator in his description; his point was that there can be several causes for things-- a direct, physically observable cause, and a super-natural cause.
I also like the way "Scientist has found evidence that may give clues" has turned into a rant about how it proves that religious types are wrong. Who's making unscientific assertions, again?
My understanding was that the browser's job was to render code as required by standards, and the sites responsibility was to not suck and implement those standards.
Its not that you can't design build and sell a 99% AC supply, its just you can't do so and survive in this weird confuseopoly market where the only thing that matters is price
Lets see if it really makes sense to get that 99% AC supply, since you think its such a brilliant idea.
My Core2Duo system w/ graphics card chews up a whopping 225 watts under full load (measured with wattmeter), with an 80% efficiency PSU. That means the PSU is wasting an astonishing 225 *.20 = 45 watts. The kWh rate here is around $0.062 after generation and distribution. That means per month, it costs me about 8.37 cents for having such an inefficient PSU. I purchased it about 5 years ago (June 2006 I believe), and it has run for the most part 24/7-- we will assume full load and constant operation. This means over the past 5 years, I have spent 5*12 * 0.0837 = $5.02 on electricity for said PSU.
Now for the kicker, this fine Antec PSU cost around $50. Show me your 99% efficient AC PSU for $55-- not even taking into account this was 5 years ago, or that actual average load is likely to be closer to 160watts.
In no sense does it make sense to spend what would likely be several hundred dollars, and a boatload more emissions, on manufacturing a PSU with such high performances, to save a measly $5 and around 15kWh per year.
How is that going to change the fact that particles as we understand them are 3 dimensional constructs, that electron orbitals are 3 dimensional, and that all of those concepts break down in one dimension? In one dimension, you cant even have electron orbitals.... or electrons, as those too have volume (AFAIK).
Slashdot Mirror
Or people who realize that human overpopulation is the root cause of almost every catastrophe
Rather bold statement. Current catastrophies involve an earthquake, a tsunami, several uprisings over tyranny, several wars over politics.....
Not seeing the overpopulation thing, most of it seems to be that people like killing and oppressing others.
Do you know what intolerance is? HINT: its NOT the same as disaproval.
the vast majority of evidence on the topic supports the statement that homosexuality in a person cannot be altered.
Really? Wikipedia had none of it, and rather expressed that there WAS no evidence, the entire thing is a mystery, and noone is entirely sure HOW homosexuality works psychologically.
Do be so kind as to link your massive evidence.
You are allowed to disagree with the Pope, and you can still call yourself a Catholic if you like.
The formal cause of the reformation was whether or not the Pope / church tradition was authoritative; a Catholic who doesnt believe so may want to stop and ask in what way he isnt protestant.
Regardless, its not bigotry to think that homosexuality is wrong; bigotry would inciting hate or oppression on homosexuals. There is a massive difference, and I rather wish people who dont know what bigotry is would stop using the word. I may think homosexual acts are wrong, as I think lying is wrong; I have several very good friends who lie, and I am not a bigot for disliking their lies.
there are no two sides. unless by that you mean supporting someone's identity and denying them their identity
There is the side that recognizes that there is no reliable evidence that homosexuality is anything more than a preference / attraction brought on by a combination of several factors, environment and upbringing among them. Noone has given a good, solid, scientific, and defendable explanation as to its exact cause.
And society has generally recognized that supporting non-traditional families is a bad thing, which is one of the reasons that homosexuality has historically had very little acceptance (not that I agree with the historical treatment of homosexuals). Not all "identities' are helpful; some people are inclined to nymphomania, and most people would agree that restraint is a good idea in that case. Some people are inclined towards theft; again, society demands restraint. The same goes for a large number of personality traits. Heck, most people are inclined towards marital or sexual infidelity at some point in their life; would their S.O. not be justified in being hurt by it? Would that be considered "denying them their identity"?
Im sorry, its a terrible argument, and it needs to stop being dragged out. Not all elements that make up a person are helpful at all times, nor should any of them be indulged to their fullest-- not heterosexuality either. I do not understand why some people think homosexuality is different in this regard.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, or gender.
(source)
Wait, how come that more accurately applies to you than GP? Is this what we call irony?
A whole bunch of people are demanding that they have a right not to be offended, and that Apple, a private entity, does not have the freedom to decide what to sell.... and theyre the SANE ones?
I like what you did there.
no app will "cure" him, ever
Noone actually knows the cause(s) of homosexuality-- there isnt a "homosexual" gene that has been identified AFAIK, and identical twins do not always end up of the same sexual preference, particularly when raised in different environments; most seem to agree that there are several factors involved.
All that being said, what is your rationale for your statement? These people apparently believe that at least SOME of the cause is environmental, that it is not simply innate, and that it is a psychological condition that can be addressed. You disagree, so do many people; but so far there hasnt been a shred of evidence to the contrary.
And yes, I would feel the same way regardless of the beliefs and ideologies being rejected. Freedom is freedom, regardless of one's beliefs.
But obviously not the freedom of corporations (or their heads) to strongly believe any one thing, or to deny service? I see, Jobs doesnt really deserve that freedom, does he?
This may not be something I agree with, but you really dont want to start going down that rabbit hole. It ends with less freedoms, not more.
How about a "cure" for being black? Or a "cure" for being a Christian?
Well, I already know there are people out there who believe in those things, so it doesnt really affect me to know that they know how to write apps.
and hate speech isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to ban, if you are going to ban anything.
If you actually read what the app is like and what the writer's website is like, it doesnt exactly scream "burn the homos", nor does it look anything like what one would call hate speech.
Yea, my mistake, was off by a factor of 24....
Even so, youre not going to find an ATX PSU with 99% efficiency for 5.02*24=$120 more than i spent on my 80% efficient one.
It takes some nerve to have a browser that works with 99% of the world, comes to your poorly implemented site and fails, and then say "its the browsers fault".
I wonder if the website coder has tried telling his boss that thats why a portion of internet users cant use their site? Think he would buy it?
CS Lewis has argued that taking moral advice from a man that you believe to have terrible ego issues and possibly insanity (claiming to be the Son of God, and as you dont believe in a God....) is probably not the best course of action.
You cant really take the Bible piecemeal like that; there are several inconvenient parts which strongly argue against doing so.
Origin of rain
Thats not origin of rain in the sense that we were discussing. Any christian will agree that God "causes" all things; but that does not mean there are no physical causes, and the Bible doesnt attempt to explain its origins in the way that the Romans and Greeks did with their Gods (where eg Apollo/Helios themselves were the Sun, or a titan standing in the Ocean caused waves). It tends throughout to acknowledge that there are physical causes to such things, but that God rules over it all.
love thy neighbor
I never said it wasnt commanded; I said it wasnt the point. Anyone who tells you that the point of Christianity is to live a good life doesnt actually understand what Christianity is.
or states that the point is to live well with your neighbor?
2) Several places. In Matthew, Christ teaches that peace makers are blessed
I do not deny that it is taught that "loving your neighbor as yourself" is one of the commands of Christ; but he puts one command before it, and this I would call the "point": "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment..."
Certainly there are certain ways to live as commanded in the Bible; but the POINT is not to live that way, the point is to honor God. Failing that and succeeding in personal "righteousness" is in the end utter failure, for as Paul stated "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:12).
3) Jesus did not condemn those emphasising personal righteousness
I should have been more clear-- he went after legalists who focused so much on the law of God that they twisted it into a bizarre parody of itself, to the point where you could swear upon the Lord's temple rather than on the Lord to give yourself leeway to violate your oath (after all, its just his temple), or you could refuse to support your aging parents by declaring your resources "korban". In otherwords they were pursuing "righteousness" and losing sight of the purpose.
Jesus came down hard on them at several points because of this, and after most of those times you get a sidenote that the religious leaders began seeking ways to kill him.
Don't get me wrong, I am not asking you to believe any part of the Bible
Well, I do.
Why do you think Jesus was crucified by all of the leaders of the 1st century Jewish temple? For doing miracles and preaching righteous living?
Well, thats only accurate if none of them are true. I could just as easily argue that theres no point seeking a secular, materialist explanation for the origin of matter. You would of course object "but it DOES have a materialist origin"-- but aren't you begging the question?
Might as well approach any new theory, or anyone who disagrees with you the same way-- "your opinions and arguments are invalid because they are wrong". Great, but you generally are expected to back up such assertions.
If I had modpoints, I would mod you up-- not because I agree with you but because you have given more thought to this than "how can I troll religious folk?"
Creationism merely relocates the problem; one could ask if God created all of this then what are God's origins, or if there was never a time when God did not exist how does one even begin to comprehend that or really understand what that means?
Well, as I see it, THAT particular mindbender will be there whether you espouse secular or supernatural origins. If the Big Bang was just a ball of stuff, where did that stuff come from? (Stephen Hawking speculated recently that it just 'popped into existence' "due to gravity"; but that doesnt really solve the problem) If it was always there, then presumably this cycle of Bang-Crunch has already run on for an eternity, and should have run out of the necessary energy to continue rebounding between states.; and once again you have a situation where you must ask "what does that mean that there was time before said ball".
Its really a question of attribution (God, or some as-of-yet unnamed cause); the questions about "what does eternity look like" and "what is time before time" remain, either way.
(If some non-armchair physicist can correct any errors in my above assumptions, I would be appreciative.)
to explain the (at the time) unexplainable and to provide the ability to live 'nicely' with your neighbor
What part of the new testament tries to explain the origin of rain again, or states that the point is to live well with your neighbor? I seem to remember Jesus specifically going after those who placed too much emphasis on personal righteousness and rebuking them-- to the point where they desired his death.
The problem with today's armchair religious historians is that they make assertions such as these which fly in the face reality.
Creationist means that they believe in a creator. Youll note parent spoke of a creator in his description; his point was that there can be several causes for things-- a direct, physically observable cause, and a super-natural cause.
I also like the way "Scientist has found evidence that may give clues" has turned into a rant about how it proves that religious types are wrong. Who's making unscientific assertions, again?
My understanding was that the browser's job was to render code as required by standards, and the sites responsibility was to not suck and implement those standards.
Guess where the failure here is?
Half as much of the energy that was emitted as heat before, is now emitted as heat. That is, if there was 20% waste before, it is now 10%.
It wont be noticeable.
Its not that you can't design build and sell a 99% AC supply, its just you can't do so and survive in this weird confuseopoly market where the only thing that matters is price
Lets see if it really makes sense to get that 99% AC supply, since you think its such a brilliant idea.
My Core2Duo system w/ graphics card chews up a whopping 225 watts under full load (measured with wattmeter), with an 80% efficiency PSU. That means the PSU is wasting an astonishing 225 * .20 = 45 watts. The kWh rate here is around $0.062 after generation and distribution. That means per month, it costs me about 8.37 cents for having such an inefficient PSU. I purchased it about 5 years ago (June 2006 I believe), and it has run for the most part 24/7-- we will assume full load and constant operation. This means over the past 5 years, I have spent 5*12 * 0.0837 = $5.02 on electricity for said PSU.
Now for the kicker, this fine Antec PSU cost around $50. Show me your 99% efficient AC PSU for $55-- not even taking into account this was 5 years ago, or that actual average load is likely to be closer to 160watts.
In no sense does it make sense to spend what would likely be several hundred dollars, and a boatload more emissions, on manufacturing a PSU with such high performances, to save a measly $5 and around 15kWh per year.
Huh? Why would you not have motion with one dimension?
Because I wasnt thinking clearly this morning and screwed up.
How is that going to change the fact that particles as we understand them are 3 dimensional constructs, that electron orbitals are 3 dimensional, and that all of those concepts break down in one dimension? In one dimension, you cant even have electron orbitals.... or electrons, as those too have volume (AFAIK).