If you were unaware, there is a subculture of deaf people who want deafness recoginized as a normal variation of the human condition that should not be "treated" or "fixed" because it is perfectly normal. They are motiviated by the desire to perserve "deaf culture" in the face of modern medical techniques like coclear implants. This view is wrong. However I am not afraid of the people who hold this view. I'm not a deafophobic. Your strong desire to label me as hatful and irrational because I disagree with you says more about your rationality, tollerance, and biggotry than it does about mine.
Passing judgements on people is not our place, all things can be forgiven. But we need to continue making judgements as to right and wrong. When people stop making judgements as to right and wrong, society will colapse.
This is an opinion I see expressed a lot. There are some that are biggoted and intollerant of those they think are wrong, and there are those who have love for and wish to help those they think are wrong. There is a world of difference between tollerance and acceptance. It would have to hate someone to tell them everything they do is good and well when I believe it will hurt them in the long term. I tollerate it when they refuse to see the truth of the matter, but I don't accept it as being right.
uh... no again. clearly those are not the moral values I'm refering to. (those might be values, but they sure aren't moral) I clarified this in my other post in this thread.
We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
I think the problem people on right have, is the government's percieved endorsement of gay mariage as good and right. I personally feel the solution to this problem (since I believe it is not right, but don't want the government enforcing my views on others) is to get government out of the equation all together. Let the government issue cival unions for any couple, gays, traditional marriages, or two elderly siblings supporting each other. The issue of marriage is to be decided by the church. I will choose not to attend a church that sanctions gay marriage, or to recognize such marriages.
as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us
This is a biggoted statement. You'll find that evangelicals as a group have an average distribution of education and intelligence. I've not done any studies, but you shouldn't assume otherwise until you've done some studies.
What's wrong with protecting your children from views you believe to be dissenting from the truth, until they are old enough to develop the critical thinking skills to arrive at such a conclusion on their own?
My original argument was ambiguous. I clarified it. I didn't claim that all values that have been around a long time are correct. I was saying that a value that's been around a long time shouldn't be so easily discarded, and that just because something is new doesn't mean it's right or better.
I agree that being old, doesn't make something right. That's not what I was trying to point out. I was pointing out that just because something is a popularly held belief doesn't make it right either. You shouldn't fear someone who takes a popular notion and considers it criticly. Xenophobia, slavery, racism, religious intolerance, fear of witches are all examples of past popular notions that were wrong. Acceptance of all religions (big difference between tollerating something and accepting it as right), and the idea that homosexuality is a normal variation of the human condition, are current popularly held beliefs that are also wrong. I'm not afraid of homosexuals any more than I'm afraid of deaf people who want deafness recognized as a normal variation.
Ah... no. The parent post showed very little understanding of fundamentalist motivations and thought. It says that anyone who disagrees with the direction of popular culture must be motivated by fear and loathing. It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
So you're saying that since food is a necessity, no one should be allowed to have an incentive to develop more efficient food producing technologies? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Uh... what's wrong with that? Not limited by established traditional attitudes? What if those traditional attitudes are what sustains civilization, like, for instance, the traditional family structure. Tollerant of ideas and behaviors of others? I don't have a problem with that specifically, but too often those that claim to be liberals confuse tollerating something with accepting it as right and proper. I tollerate the fact that the divorce rate is 60%. I wouldn't want a law making divorce illegal, but that doesn't mean I accept it. I'll do what I can to improve it, like advise my friends to see a mariage counselor before getting a divorce.
Perhaps he meant those goals have been achieved *thus far*, meaning the US has been safe from terrorist attack since 9/11. The idea that we are safe forevermore is so outlandish that it likely didn't occur to him that anyone would think that's what he meant. I disagree with the man on many points, but I know enough not to think him stupid.
So what? There are tons of philanthropic organizations that would love be known as the organization that funded the cure for diabetes. Do you have any idea the kind of prestiege (and donations) that would bring them? Free market solutions win again!
I used to release all my stuff under the BSD license, but I've switched to MIT's. It's clearer, more succinct, and explicitly spells out that there is no implied warranty that the software is noninfringing. If you get sued by SCO for using my code, I'm not liable.
Actually creationism isn't a scientifically sound theory. Before you turn me off, I believe in creationism. I believe the literal creation account in Genisis. Macroevolution is also not a sound scientific theory. They both fail the test for qualifying as scientific because neither is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabilityfalsifi able. They make no predictions testable through experimentation that could potentialy prove them false. The fact that they are un-scientific however in no way makes them invalid. They are philosopies, not scientific theories.
I agree. Bush is not the kind of man who is able to compromise what he thinks is right in an effort to please as many people as possible. I disagree with many of his policies, but I have to repect him for not wavering on what he thinks is right even when other people don't like it.
I still don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that having more people vote is somehow better than less. Everyone seems to think it's some kind of huge problem that so few people vote. I think it's great that people who can't be bothered to form an opinion one way or the other stay out of it. In fact I wish I was the only person that voted. The more votes there are, the less mine counts. How exactly are more votes good for me again? Do you guys all *like* having other people make decisions for you?
:) Wow, that's quite a list. Shall I start going through them one by one? Yes, God's word is a constant and no we're not in deep shit. Most of these verses are taken out of context, and about halfway down your start paraphrasing incorrectly. If are willfully looking to misunderstand God's word then I can't help you. Yes, everyone who has sinned, including myself, are deserving of death. The wages of sin is death. Always has been, always will be. Fortunately that debt has been paid if we are willing accept it.
I'll just pick out two here that stand out:
Happiness is smashing your little children with rocks. Ps.137:9
Israel has been taken captive by the Babylonians and David is lamenting their plight. He's simply saying how much better it would be for his children to be dead then to be tourtered as slaves.
Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own. Dt.17:2-7
You're completely misreading this one. This is about administering justice to evil-doers, not about religious intollerance. This is about Israel dealing with their own people, not foreigners.
The others in this list are similarly misrepresented.
I agree that there is symbolism and allegory, however it's pretty clear which is which, just as it is when you or I use it in everday speech. In many places, such as in the book of Daniel or the parable of the sower and the seed, there will be a vision or parable which contains symbolism, which is then followed with an explanation in literal terms. You can't just take some part you don't like and say, oh it's not literal so I don't have to worry about it. Not if you belive the bible is truly the word of God anyway. Read it for what it is rather than trying to twist it or fit to your pre-conceived views or what happens to be popular opinion at the moment. Cultural and societal norms are in constant flux, shifting sands. God's word is a constant. It is a rock. 150 years ago slavery was popularly accepted as an economic necessity, did that make it right? (extreme example, but illustrates the point)
Cash will always be around if there is a demand for it. Imagine a culture of Christians unwilling to get the mark. Initially they can trade amongst each other. The most marketable good will become the defacto currency like Vodka in that later days of the soviet union, or american cigarettes in immediate post-war Berlin. There of course will be plenty of marked people who will take a risk and illegally resell their goods with a markup into the non-marked underground economy. As long as the Christians continue to produce things of value to others, they'll be able to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
links?
If you were unaware, there is a subculture of deaf people who want deafness recoginized as a normal variation of the human condition that should not be "treated" or "fixed" because it is perfectly normal. They are motiviated by the desire to perserve "deaf culture" in the face of modern medical techniques like coclear implants. This view is wrong. However I am not afraid of the people who hold this view. I'm not a deafophobic. Your strong desire to label me as hatful and irrational because I disagree with you says more about your rationality, tollerance, and biggotry than it does about mine.
Passing judgements on people is not our place, all things can be forgiven. But we need to continue making judgements as to right and wrong. When people stop making judgements as to right and wrong, society will colapse.
This is an opinion I see expressed a lot. There are some that are biggoted and intollerant of those they think are wrong, and there are those who have love for and wish to help those they think are wrong. There is a world of difference between tollerance and acceptance. It would have to hate someone to tell them everything they do is good and well when I believe it will hurt them in the long term. I tollerate it when they refuse to see the truth of the matter, but I don't accept it as being right.
uh... no again. clearly those are not the moral values I'm refering to. (those might be values, but they sure aren't moral) I clarified this in my other post in this thread.
We're talking about adults who want to make a legal, emotional, and, perhaps, spiritual commitment to their relationship.
I think the problem people on right have, is the government's percieved endorsement of gay mariage as good and right. I personally feel the solution to this problem (since I believe it is not right, but don't want the government enforcing my views on others) is to get government out of the equation all together. Let the government issue cival unions for any couple, gays, traditional marriages, or two elderly siblings supporting each other. The issue of marriage is to be decided by the church. I will choose not to attend a church that sanctions gay marriage, or to recognize such marriages.
as a group, evangelicals are some of the least educated among us
This is a biggoted statement. You'll find that evangelicals as a group have an average distribution of education and intelligence. I've not done any studies, but you shouldn't assume otherwise until you've done some studies.
What's wrong with protecting your children from views you believe to be dissenting from the truth, until they are old enough to develop the critical thinking skills to arrive at such a conclusion on their own?
My original argument was ambiguous. I clarified it. I didn't claim that all values that have been around a long time are correct. I was saying that a value that's been around a long time shouldn't be so easily discarded, and that just because something is new doesn't mean it's right or better.
I agree that being old, doesn't make something right. That's not what I was trying to point out. I was pointing out that just because something is a popularly held belief doesn't make it right either. You shouldn't fear someone who takes a popular notion and considers it criticly. Xenophobia, slavery, racism, religious intolerance, fear of witches are all examples of past popular notions that were wrong. Acceptance of all religions (big difference between tollerating something and accepting it as right), and the idea that homosexuality is a normal variation of the human condition, are current popularly held beliefs that are also wrong. I'm not afraid of homosexuals any more than I'm afraid of deaf people who want deafness recognized as a normal variation.
Ah... no. The parent post showed very little understanding of fundamentalist motivations and thought. It says that anyone who disagrees with the direction of popular culture must be motivated by fear and loathing. It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
So you're saying that since food is a necessity, no one should be allowed to have an incentive to develop more efficient food producing technologies? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.
should have put up a bush cheney sign in the yard... that'd stop the door to door canvasers anyway.
Uh... what's wrong with that? Not limited by established traditional attitudes? What if those traditional attitudes are what sustains civilization, like, for instance, the traditional family structure. Tollerant of ideas and behaviors of others? I don't have a problem with that specifically, but too often those that claim to be liberals confuse tollerating something with accepting it as right and proper. I tollerate the fact that the divorce rate is 60%. I wouldn't want a law making divorce illegal, but that doesn't mean I accept it. I'll do what I can to improve it, like advise my friends to see a mariage counselor before getting a divorce.
No it was more like a quarter. Scroll down to WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?
Perhaps he meant those goals have been achieved *thus far*, meaning the US has been safe from terrorist attack since 9/11. The idea that we are safe forevermore is so outlandish that it likely didn't occur to him that anyone would think that's what he meant. I disagree with the man on many points, but I know enough not to think him stupid.
So what? There are tons of philanthropic organizations that would love be known as the organization that funded the cure for diabetes. Do you have any idea the kind of prestiege (and donations) that would bring them? Free market solutions win again!
I used to release all my stuff under the BSD license, but I've switched to MIT's. It's clearer, more succinct, and explicitly spells out that there is no implied warranty that the software is noninfringing. If you get sued by SCO for using my code, I'm not liable.
Actually creationism isn't a scientifically sound theory. Before you turn me off, I believe in creationism. I believe the literal creation account in Genisis. Macroevolution is also not a sound scientific theory. They both fail the test for qualifying as scientific because neither is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabilityfalsifi able. They make no predictions testable through experimentation that could potentialy prove them false. The fact that they are un-scientific however in no way makes them invalid. They are philosopies, not scientific theories.
If you read the gospels, you'll find not one reference in praise of intelligence.
I agree. Bush is not the kind of man who is able to compromise what he thinks is right in an effort to please as many people as possible. I disagree with many of his policies, but I have to repect him for not wavering on what he thinks is right even when other people don't like it.
I still don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that having more people vote is somehow better than less. Everyone seems to think it's some kind of huge problem that so few people vote. I think it's great that people who can't be bothered to form an opinion one way or the other stay out of it. In fact I wish I was the only person that voted. The more votes there are, the less mine counts. How exactly are more votes good for me again? Do you guys all *like* having other people make decisions for you?
:) Wow, that's quite a list. Shall I start going through them one by one? Yes, God's word is a constant and no we're not in deep shit. Most of these verses are taken out of context, and about halfway down your start paraphrasing incorrectly. If are willfully looking to misunderstand God's word then I can't help you. Yes, everyone who has sinned, including myself, are deserving of death. The wages of sin is death. Always has been, always will be. Fortunately that debt has been paid if we are willing accept it.
I'll just pick out two here that stand out:
Happiness is smashing your little children with rocks.
Ps.137:9
Israel has been taken captive by the Babylonians and David is lamenting their plight. He's simply saying how much better it would be for his children to be dead then to be tourtered as slaves.
Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own.
Dt.17:2-7
You're completely misreading this one. This is about administering justice to evil-doers, not about religious intollerance. This is about Israel dealing with their own people, not foreigners.
The others in this list are similarly misrepresented.
I agree that there is symbolism and allegory, however it's pretty clear which is which, just as it is when you or I use it in everday speech. In many places, such as in the book of Daniel or the parable of the sower and the seed, there will be a vision or parable which contains symbolism, which is then followed with an explanation in literal terms. You can't just take some part you don't like and say, oh it's not literal so I don't have to worry about it. Not if you belive the bible is truly the word of God anyway. Read it for what it is rather than trying to twist it or fit to your pre-conceived views or what happens to be popular opinion at the moment. Cultural and societal norms are in constant flux, shifting sands. God's word is a constant. It is a rock. 150 years ago slavery was popularly accepted as an economic necessity, did that make it right? (extreme example, but illustrates the point)
Cash will always be around if there is a demand for it. Imagine a culture of Christians unwilling to get the mark. Initially they can trade amongst each other. The most marketable good will become the defacto currency like Vodka in that later days of the soviet union, or american cigarettes in immediate post-war Berlin. There of course will be plenty of marked people who will take a risk and illegally resell their goods with a markup into the non-marked underground economy. As long as the Christians continue to produce things of value to others, they'll be able to survive.