Christians who point to Leviticus are typically those who do hold to sola Scriptura and these are, as I mentioned, a minority of Christians both in the US.
I disagree. Protestants are more common than Catholics in the US, and evangelicals are a large proportion of them. If you actually ask them why they are opposed to homosexuality, they will overwhelmingly say "the bible says so". That's relying on scripture.
The majority of Christian bodies that oppose homosexual acts do so on the basis of something other than the passage in Leviticus, such as Holy Tradition
Holy Tradition is a Catholic concept, who are a minority in the US. Eastern orthodox even moreso. Besides, what is that holy tradition based on, if not the Bible?
The point is atheists shouldn't ever be organizing as being atheists. It should not be a defining characteristic.
It *shouldn't* be, but we kind of have to. Theists are organizing as theists to push a theistic agenda. Even if you want a theism neutral public forum, atheists have to push back or resign ourselves to ever encroaching theism.
People think he's insulting because he's a total dick when he talks about religion
In what way? If you concede that his arguments are correct, how could they be delivered in a less dickish way? Can you provide examples?
There are lots of folks who can critizise religion without being jerks about it.
Such as? Can they do this without avoiding sensitive topics, which are likely to be the theists greatest vulnerability? Give me some samples to read.
At least for me, it's not Dawkin's ideas that people are offended by, but how he expresses them.
Again, how can the same arguments be expressed in a non-offensive way? If it's correct that e.g. God is just a fairy tale, and it's offensive to compare God to the Tooth Fairy, how do you make the same point in a non-offensive manner?
The vast majority of Christians on earth do not hold to the principle of sola Scriptura and therefore your attempt to dissuade them by pointing to Bible verses taken out of any established hemeneutical tradition is horribly misguided
If they get to point to Leviticus and say that homosexuality is evil, then I get to point at Leviticus and say that consumption of shellfish is evil, cheeseburgers are evil, and mixing two fibers in one fabric is evil.
What you are saying is that only one side gets to use scripture to support their argument. That's clearly bullshit.
They have etablished their views many years ago and don't listen to any conflicting facts. At least as long there are no real problems that is affecting them due to the views.
It's worse than that. They'll avoid reevaluating their views even if there are critical problems that affect them entirely because of their problematic views. See any Republican voter who is not in the top 0.1% income bracket for examples.
Calling theists "ignorant" is indeed insulting when said theists are well-educated (even in evolution, which I learned as an accepted fact - in Catholic school), and quite well aware of your arguments.
He didn't actually do that, did he? He said creationists were ignorant (or stupid or crazy). You're deliberately twisting his words to make him seem more insulting than he actually is. That's far more insulting than anything Dawkins has said.
Are you ignorant of the difference between theism and creationism?
The idea that pieces of software and one way communication videos can compete with responsive human beings and solely provide first world education is laughable.
Reading the damn textbook can provide a better education than any teacher I've had.
The "network transparency" objection is a red herring, and it's getting rather tiresome.
Guarantee that every Wayland app will work at least as well across the network as X11 apps do today and we'll shut the hell up.
First, we don't have network transparency now
Funny, I use it every day. NX is a big help, and I agree that X's network transparency isn't ideal. But that's no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Second, Wayland is specifically designed to be a local API, basically a front-end for KMS, DRI2, and the input subsystem. It does not define a rendering protocol, either local or remote.
Then how can you guarantee that every Wayland app will be compatible with whatever remote rendering protocol becomes standard, if any?
in practice it's likely to require more bandwidth and have more latency issues than simply rendering the window remotely and streaming the result to the local display as compressed video.
Do you have data to back that up?
I would love to be convinced that Wayland will provide superior network transparency to X11. But it doesn't seem like the Wayland developers take network transparency seriously.
Also, I'm very glad that Wayland is implementing an X compatibility layer.
This is not an adequate solution by any stretch of the imagination. If Wayland succeeds, future apps will be built on Wayland directly, and not be able to take advantage of the X11 layer. If network transparency is not an inherent feature of Wayland -- that is if we can't expect every Wayland app to support it, just by the fact that it's Wayland (the way we can with X today) -- it's a huge step backwards.
Sorry, no, network transperancy is not an important feature anymore.
Fuck you. The internet is a bigger part of our lives today than it has ever been, and you think network transparency is unimportant? What the fuck is wrong with you?
That's great and all, but why do we have to lose network transparency? Nothing you said requires losing network transparency, and nothing you said is worth trading network transparency for.
That doesn't count as another console generation. It was just their previous generation home computer packaged in a gigantic case and given shitty non-centering joysticks.
The 7800 counts as another generation, but it was released after the NES.
The Atari 2600 was released in 1977. The next console generation didn't occur until the release of the NES in 1985. That's 8 years. Atari actually didn't stop selling the 2600 until 1992.
decriminalization leads to easier access. easier access leads to more addicts, more damaged lives
Prohibition destroys more lives through the encouragement of violence than it saves through deterring addiction. If it even deters addiction. Anyone who wants drugs can get them today.
now, for a substance like alcohol, the prohibition effects are worse than the abuse of and addiction to the substance
but for something like cocaine, heroin, and meth, addiction is so much more potent, that the prohibition effects are less of damage on society
This is where you're wrong. Alcohol is as powerfully addicting as any other known drugs. Hell, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.
so this rules out nicotine, because you can still have a job/ relationship while on this substance
As you can with many substances. e.g. Dr. William Halsted cofounded Johns Hopkins while maintaining himself on morphine. With opiates in particular, it's not the addiction that's terribly harmful, it's the drug seeking behavior that takes over your life.
i just don't understand opinions about drug policy that belittle, ignore, excuse, or otherwise write off the meaning of addiction in the equation
Slashdot Mirror
Christians who point to Leviticus are typically those who do hold to sola Scriptura and these are, as I mentioned, a minority of Christians both in the US .
I disagree. Protestants are more common than Catholics in the US, and evangelicals are a large proportion of them. If you actually ask them why they are opposed to homosexuality, they will overwhelmingly say "the bible says so". That's relying on scripture.
The majority of Christian bodies that oppose homosexual acts do so on the basis of something other than the passage in Leviticus, such as Holy Tradition
Holy Tradition is a Catholic concept, who are a minority in the US. Eastern orthodox even moreso. Besides, what is that holy tradition based on, if not the Bible?
The point is atheists shouldn't ever be organizing as being atheists. It should not be a defining characteristic.
It *shouldn't* be, but we kind of have to. Theists are organizing as theists to push a theistic agenda. Even if you want a theism neutral public forum, atheists have to push back or resign ourselves to ever encroaching theism.
People think he's insulting because he's a total dick when he talks about religion
In what way? If you concede that his arguments are correct, how could they be delivered in a less dickish way? Can you provide examples?
There are lots of folks who can critizise religion without being jerks about it.
Such as? Can they do this without avoiding sensitive topics, which are likely to be the theists greatest vulnerability? Give me some samples to read.
At least for me, it's not Dawkin's ideas that people are offended by, but how he expresses them.
Again, how can the same arguments be expressed in a non-offensive way? If it's correct that e.g. God is just a fairy tale, and it's offensive to compare God to the Tooth Fairy, how do you make the same point in a non-offensive manner?
The vast majority of Christians on earth do not hold to the principle of sola Scriptura and therefore your attempt to dissuade them by pointing to Bible verses taken out of any established hemeneutical tradition is horribly misguided
If they get to point to Leviticus and say that homosexuality is evil, then I get to point at Leviticus and say that consumption of shellfish is evil, cheeseburgers are evil, and mixing two fibers in one fabric is evil.
What you are saying is that only one side gets to use scripture to support their argument. That's clearly bullshit.
They have etablished their views many years ago and don't listen to any conflicting facts. At least as long there are no real problems that is affecting them due to the views.
It's worse than that. They'll avoid reevaluating their views even if there are critical problems that affect them entirely because of their problematic views. See any Republican voter who is not in the top 0.1% income bracket for examples.
Calling theists "ignorant" is indeed insulting when said theists are well-educated (even in evolution, which I learned as an accepted fact - in Catholic school), and quite well aware of your arguments.
He didn't actually do that, did he? He said creationists were ignorant (or stupid or crazy). You're deliberately twisting his words to make him seem more insulting than he actually is. That's far more insulting than anything Dawkins has said.
Are you ignorant of the difference between theism and creationism?
Being right(which you cannot be always be)
If you cop to ignorance when you are actually ignorant, you almost never have to cop to being wrong.
There's a lot more to teaching than being on a stage and talking at people. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, selling something, or both.
What exactly is it? In nearly two decades of schooling, I'm not sure I saw it once.
The idea that pieces of software and one way communication videos can compete with responsive human beings and solely provide first world education is laughable.
Reading the damn textbook can provide a better education than any teacher I've had.
There's as much evidence that censorship is bad for children as there is that "adult" and "mature" themes are. That is, none.
You do realize that "Keep America American" has been a Klan motto since the aforementioned 1920s, right?
I'd pay to play with a PDP-7. If no one else does, hey that's more computer time for me.
hardly anyone displays just an app any more
I do.
And I'm sure VNC will work with Wayland.
Yeah, a desktop in a desktop. That's not a hackish workaround or anything.
The "network transparency" objection is a red herring, and it's getting rather tiresome.
Guarantee that every Wayland app will work at least as well across the network as X11 apps do today and we'll shut the hell up.
First, we don't have network transparency now
Funny, I use it every day. NX is a big help, and I agree that X's network transparency isn't ideal. But that's no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Second, Wayland is specifically designed to be a local API, basically a front-end for KMS, DRI2, and the input subsystem. It does not define a rendering protocol, either local or remote.
Then how can you guarantee that every Wayland app will be compatible with whatever remote rendering protocol becomes standard, if any?
in practice it's likely to require more bandwidth and have more latency issues than simply rendering the window remotely and streaming the result to the local display as compressed video.
Do you have data to back that up?
I would love to be convinced that Wayland will provide superior network transparency to X11. But it doesn't seem like the Wayland developers take network transparency seriously.
I run things like R on a server with much more memory than my workstation and have it display over X forwarding.
Also, I'm very glad that Wayland is implementing an X compatibility layer.
This is not an adequate solution by any stretch of the imagination. If Wayland succeeds, future apps will be built on Wayland directly, and not be able to take advantage of the X11 layer. If network transparency is not an inherent feature of Wayland -- that is if we can't expect every Wayland app to support it, just by the fact that it's Wayland (the way we can with X today) -- it's a huge step backwards.
Sorry, no, network transperancy is not an important feature anymore.
Fuck you. The internet is a bigger part of our lives today than it has ever been, and you think network transparency is unimportant? What the fuck is wrong with you?
That's great and all, but why do we have to lose network transparency? Nothing you said requires losing network transparency, and nothing you said is worth trading network transparency for.
That doesn't count as another console generation. It was just their previous generation home computer packaged in a gigantic case and given shitty non-centering joysticks.
The 7800 counts as another generation, but it was released after the NES.
And what exactly does it say? That I can tell when people are full of shit?
I would instruct all influential Atheists to model Michio Kaku.
And become shameless self promoters?
Like your lives like Mother Teresa who instructed people "to find your own Calcutta".
By inflicting your cult of suffering upon the helpless and hopeless?
The Atari 2600 was released in 1977. The next console generation didn't occur until the release of the NES in 1985. That's 8 years. Atari actually didn't stop selling the 2600 until 1992.
decriminalization leads to easier access. easier access leads to more addicts, more damaged lives
Prohibition destroys more lives through the encouragement of violence than it saves through deterring addiction. If it even deters addiction. Anyone who wants drugs can get them today.
now, for a substance like alcohol, the prohibition effects are worse than the abuse of and addiction to the substance
but for something like cocaine, heroin, and meth, addiction is so much more potent, that the prohibition effects are less of damage on society
This is where you're wrong. Alcohol is as powerfully addicting as any other known drugs. Hell, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.
so this rules out nicotine, because you can still have a job/ relationship while on this substance
As you can with many substances. e.g. Dr. William Halsted cofounded Johns Hopkins while maintaining himself on morphine. With opiates in particular, it's not the addiction that's terribly harmful, it's the drug seeking behavior that takes over your life.
i just don't understand opinions about drug policy that belittle, ignore, excuse, or otherwise write off the meaning of addiction in the equation
The only person who's ignoring anything is you.
OK, lets assume that the routers are rooted.
Call router rooter, that's the name. And security goes down the drain!
Ok if you live in a swing state Choosing Democrat or Republican has more power.
Only if you believe there's a real difference.