I like this quote from Sam Harris... "I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
Huh? He didn't have to -- Jesus did that for him, when he was here. You know "love your neighbor as yourself", and all that?
Why do people still believe in Christianity? It is 2010.
Because it's a better message than anything else 2010 has to offer...
It will largely take care of the pedophile problem and the dwindling number willing to be priests in one shot.
It will? Can you cite statistics that show that single men are more likely to abuse than married men? 'Cause the bulk of statistical research says you're wrong -- the highest risk comes from within the family.
Oh -- and the ability to marry will raise the number of priests? This is why the available evidence shows that in mainline Protestant groups, there isn't a rush to ministry? Ministry isn't a booming career choice because unless you're Joel Osteen (who isn't so much a minister as a self-help and self-esteem guru), there's no money in it; ministry is about giving, not receiving lots of cash and career opportunities. And that has nothing to do with marital status.
Priests marrying wasn't disallowed all throughout church history anyway, it was political nonsense to do away with questions of inheritance.
Oh, you've been fed a real line... it's been part of the Church's history since at least the 300's... the early Church councils discuss celibacy / marriage of priests, and how it's the normative state for them.
The Catholic Church allows African priests to marry, did you know that?
It does not! If you think you have a reasonable argument, please provide a reference -- from a Church document -- showing that this is the case. Celibacy is the norm for all Catholic priests of the Latin rite. (Is it possible that you're asserting that one of the Eastern rites allows married priests?)
There is a logical connection between forced celibacy and abuse, but I am not aware of any statistical analysis having been done, nor of any correlation found between them.
Then there's no logical connection, just a conjecture in your mind, isn't there? Now, the place that there's a "logical connection", and lots of research, is sexual abuse of children within families. And you want priests to marry? Yeah, that'll help the problem all right -- replace one statistical group that's within the societal norm for sexual abuse and place it in the group at the statistically highest risk for sexual abuse of children...!
Allowing women to become priests and allowing priests to marry is not a solution to reinvigorate the Church or gain greater numbers of priests. Sure, there is considerable amount of social pressure to conform to these demands, but please note that many mainstream Protestant churches have taken exactly these measures... and not only are their numbers of ministers not increasing, but they're decreasing again, also!
The problem with ministerial life is that it's a life of giving, and not a life of receiving. In a society where everyone wants to be "Paris Hilton", there's little incentive to aspire to be Mother Teresa...
Check the statistics, and then please give up this old, tired argument for female or married priests...!
The logic is beautiful in it's simplicity. A big part of your job in both rolls is guiding people throgh normal problems of life. Rebellious kids, angry wife, miserable mother in law etc... The kind of thing a virgin priest would know nothing about and thus give pointless advice.
Yeah, you're right. Male ob/gyn's -- who're they kidding? Poseurs! Psychologists and psychiatrists who aren't themselves insane -- can't trust them! A divorce lawyer who hasn't already gotten screwed in a divorce proceeding? Not for me, no sir!
Get a grip -- priests are trained in pastoral theology; many are specialists in therapy. Their experience isn't first-hand -- just as most professionals' isn't -- it's from study and experience in dealing with people with problems.
Morality is a human invention and is not by any stretch objective. Sorry to burst your bubble.
So, human invention == not objective?
OK, let's try these:
Civil law is a human invention and is not by any stretch... hmm.. Computer Science is a human invention and is not by any... hmm... The scientific method is a human invention and is not... oh, dammit, forget it!
While we're on that path, god doesn't exist. Sorry.
God just called... He says that your assertion was an epic fail when Nietzsche tried it, so you might want to try again... while you still exist!;^)
Wow. This lie just keeps coming back, again and again. OK, let's try to understand what really happened:
The Vatican courts ("Roman Rota") took too long to decide cases, so a couple of types of really important cases were ordered to be handed over to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (not the "Holy Office", whatever that's supposed to be), since it was expected that they'd be able to act upon them more quickly. (Which, by the way, time has shown that they've been able to do, and more effectively, to boot.)
When they examined the order, and delineated the types of cases that had been given to the CDF, they concluded that one of them was the crime of sexual abuse of children.
In the context of this sort of crime, the Roman Rota had always sealed the proceedings, by definition. The English translation for the term for this sealing of the proceedings was the "pontifical secret".
When the CDF took over these cases, then, they noted that they, too, would seal the proceedings of these cases, due to the sensitivity of the information in them.
This is exactly the same as when cases are sealed here in the U.S.! They aren't burying these cases, or dismissing them, or hiding the names of the accused, or the results of the case, just sealing the proceedings themselves. Someone took a look at the Latin (which, btw, is available on line at the Vatican's website), mis-translated and mis-understood it, and came up with this wild and inflammatory explanation.
According to TFA, the pope never discusses internet transparency! The writer comes to the Vatican, hoping to hear a bit about the state of the scandal. A speaker who precedes the pope meniots that "this is the time for truth, transparency, and credibility."
When the pope speaks, according to the author, he makes no mention of transparency -- on the net or otherwise. Rather, he simply notes the four points that kdawson has mashed together in a way that implies causation -- which the pope's comments never address. The pope simply stated that:
new media point to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum
the "digital divide" between haves and have-nots is opened further
tensions among and within nations are increased
dangers of intellectual and moral relativism are increased, leading to multiple forms of degradation and humiliation and the pollution of the spirit
Nowhere does the pope say that transparency leads to these things; rather, he's discussing the effects of the new media and forms of communication.
Why did they start designing copy machines to have long term storage, and to keep a copy of everything ever copied?
The news report is being sensationalist, and leading you to believe that it's keeping the data. Listen to the report again: they use a forensic program to get at the files. In other words, unless you tell the device to save the image, it's deleted. (The catch is that "deleted" means "entry deleted", not "file wiped off the drive".)
In other words, companies aren't wiping the hard drives of leased copiers. (Then again, are companies wiping the drives of leased PCs? Of PCs they owned, then threw away?)
Sun rises in east. Water is wet. Files that aren't wiped are able to be recovered from hard disks. Yawn...
But above all, the option of a stylus --- we're no longer Pythagoras reduced to drawing figures in the sand w/ our fingers --- people are the tool using animal, let's provide the most natural possible tool for drawing, writing and calculating.
William
I'm just not seeing it -- what does a stylus buy you, that you can't get just using your finger(s)?
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
Publishers declining to publish works that make them uncomfortable, despite whether or not it would sell, is censorship.
A government body stopping such is unconstitutional censorship, but other kinds can and do exist.
When you deny access due to content arbitrarily, and without using any reasonable standard, that is a form of censorship - whether or not it is conducted by a government body.
Your definition is untenable -- according to you, any expression of choice in selection of content is censorship; that just doesn't cut it. In a free market, content creators have the right to create (or decline to create) content; distributors have the right to distribute (or decline to distribute) content products; and consumers have the right to buy (or decline to buy) products. Period.
It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
No, Apple is not a media organization -- it does not create consumable content. It distributes it, much like the corner magazine stand. If your local magazine vendor chooses not to stock your favorite magazine, you can stand up and holler "censorship!" all you like... or you can simply vote with your wallet and take your business elsewhere.
Nah... religion replies "You created me out of the longings of your heart; if you hadn't existed, neither would religion. Thanks for playing; please try again!"
Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."
Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work?
OK... I'm not sure I agree with the guy, but the knee-jerk reactions here are getting a bit ridiculous. Tell ya what -- if I provide a few reasonable assertions, and provide at least one case where his line of thought holds, will you promise not to let you dearly-held convictions get in the way of taking a statement and at least attempting to see if it holds?
Here goes: 1) You agree that there's the possibility that sex ed "promotes the sexualization... of our children". In other words, kids who are taught sex ed are more alive to the thought of having sex while in H.S.
2) Kids who are taught how to use a condom think that they know how to use one -- and that they'll not only use one, but properly, in a sexual situation.
3) It's not unreasonable to think that, given a course in sex ed, kids will even more unreasonably conclude that "everyone's doing it, and so should i".
Alright. Here's where you try to give the benefit of the doubt:
1) You're a senior guy; hot freshman girl shows up on campus. Either you're 18 now, or you are in the spring or after graduation, and you try to tap that shit. She's been taught sex ed, so she thinks not only that it's incredibly cool that an older guy wants her, but that she's got it all covered, now that she knows how to use a condom. Statutory rape == assault.
2) You're a guy/girl with a crush on a teacher. You figure that, since you know how to have sex safely, you can seriously flirt with your teacher, since after all, no one will ever find out. Assault.
3) You're a guy who's become sexually active earlier (or become more sexually active) due to the sex ed you've received. You project your experience on your date, and assume she's gonna put out. She doesn't want to, but you don't see that coming. You force yourself on her. Date rape == Assault.
It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Public health and public safety have nothing to do with your personal belief. Which is why you will be vaccinated regardless. Newborns will be screened for metabolic disease regardless. You will be ticketed for speeding regardless. And your kids will receive certain information at school regardless.
Because while YOU may be a responsible parent, there is a significant number of IRRESPONSIBLE parents. The idea is that the government must ensure that this information is made available to everyone because kids contracting HIV, Hepatitis B/C or gonorrhea, for example, are a PUBLIC HEALTH risk.
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
vaccination HIV, Hepatitis, or gonorrhea contraction. the latter represents risks inherent in voluntary behavior, while the former is prevents the risk of contraction through casual contact. Since we're talking voluntary behavior, personal belief systems which address voluntary behavior are relevant.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
straw man argument. yes, some kids will have sex, regardless the state of sex ed. However, if you teach kids how to use condoms, do you really think that less kids will attempt sex? That's as silly as the "they shouldn't have sex anyway" meme!
Now, let's look at your line of thought: American educators are going to be able to teach kids how to properly use contraception, in a way that they'll remember in the heat of the moment, and be able to recall from memory. Shit... most kids can't read, and they've been taught reading since first grade!
No, I think it's a reasonable line of thought to suggest that sex ed will raise awareness about sexual intercourse, lead to increased peer pressure ("everyone's doing it -- why do you think they taught us how to use a rubber?"), and increased numbers of kids will have sex before they're emotionally ready for it.
He isn't liable to pay the amount of the court's decision -- just the costs of discovery for one motion to compel.
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense...
And I was just waiting for that sign, well hidden somewhere in the article, that this is just some beta concept that will stay as such forever.
And then I found the photo of two guys with shitloads of cables attached to their faces.
There's a huge difference between "cellphones convert mouth movements into speech" and "Guy with shitloads of cables on his face tracks the movements of his mouth muscles using 4 unix servers running a processor intensive application with an accuracy of 25%"
Yeah, you're right. We've never gone from a situation where we've had shitloads of hardware and cables, and been able to reduce that down to mobile devices. What were those researchers thinking? Dolts!
(p.s., can you give a link to the "shitloads of face cables" story? Thanks!)
Self-taught folks tend to have less in their toolkits -- when all you've learned is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Then, when trying to do something different, they try to take their hammer and "invent" a screwdriver out of it.
kids right out of school aren't ready to take practical problems and successfully solve them -- that work ethic tends to take a year or two to get down (and rightly so, since CS programs aren't I.T.-drone-cookie-cutter factories), but at least they know enough about the landscape to recognize what tools to use.
Slashdot Mirror
I like this quote from Sam Harris... "I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
Huh? He didn't have to -- Jesus did that for him, when he was here. You know "love your neighbor as yourself", and all that?
Why do people still believe in Christianity? It is 2010.
Because it's a better message than anything else 2010 has to offer...
It will largely take care of the pedophile problem and the dwindling number willing to be priests in one shot.
It will? Can you cite statistics that show that single men are more likely to abuse than married men? 'Cause the bulk of statistical research says you're wrong -- the highest risk comes from within the family.
Oh -- and the ability to marry will raise the number of priests? This is why the available evidence shows that in mainline Protestant groups, there isn't a rush to ministry? Ministry isn't a booming career choice because unless you're Joel Osteen (who isn't so much a minister as a self-help and self-esteem guru), there's no money in it; ministry is about giving, not receiving lots of cash and career opportunities. And that has nothing to do with marital status.
Priests marrying wasn't disallowed all throughout church history anyway, it was political nonsense to do away with questions of inheritance.
Oh, you've been fed a real line... it's been part of the Church's history since at least the 300's... the early Church councils discuss celibacy / marriage of priests, and how it's the normative state for them.
The Catholic Church allows African priests to marry, did you know that?
It does not! If you think you have a reasonable argument, please provide a reference -- from a Church document -- showing that this is the case. Celibacy is the norm for all Catholic priests of the Latin rite. (Is it possible that you're asserting that one of the Eastern rites allows married priests?)
There is a logical connection between forced celibacy and abuse, but I am not aware of any statistical analysis having been done, nor of any correlation found between them.
Then there's no logical connection, just a conjecture in your mind, isn't there? Now, the place that there's a "logical connection", and lots of research, is sexual abuse of children within families. And you want priests to marry? Yeah, that'll help the problem all right -- replace one statistical group that's within the societal norm for sexual abuse and place it in the group at the statistically highest risk for sexual abuse of children...!
Allowing women to become priests and allowing priests to marry is not a solution to reinvigorate the Church or gain greater numbers of priests. Sure, there is considerable amount of social pressure to conform to these demands, but please note that many mainstream Protestant churches have taken exactly these measures... and not only are their numbers of ministers not increasing, but they're decreasing again, also!
The problem with ministerial life is that it's a life of giving, and not a life of receiving. In a society where everyone wants to be "Paris Hilton", there's little incentive to aspire to be Mother Teresa...
Check the statistics, and then please give up this old, tired argument for female or married priests...!
The logic is beautiful in it's simplicity. A big part of your job in both rolls is guiding people throgh normal problems of life. Rebellious kids, angry wife, miserable mother in law etc... The kind of thing a virgin priest would know nothing about and thus give pointless advice.
Yeah, you're right. Male ob/gyn's -- who're they kidding? Poseurs! Psychologists and psychiatrists who aren't themselves insane -- can't trust them! A divorce lawyer who hasn't already gotten screwed in a divorce proceeding? Not for me, no sir!
Get a grip -- priests are trained in pastoral theology; many are specialists in therapy. Their experience isn't first-hand -- just as most professionals' isn't -- it's from study and experience in dealing with people with problems.
Morality is a human invention and is not by any stretch objective. Sorry to burst your bubble.
So, human invention == not objective?
OK, let's try these:
Civil law is a human invention and is not by any stretch... hmm.. ... oh, dammit, forget it!
Computer Science is a human invention and is not by any... hmm...
The scientific method is a human invention and is not
While we're on that path, god doesn't exist. Sorry.
God just called... He says that your assertion was an epic fail when Nietzsche tried it, so you might want to try again... while you still exist! ;^)
Wow. This lie just keeps coming back, again and again. OK, let's try to understand what really happened:
According to TFA, the pope never discusses internet transparency! The writer comes to the Vatican, hoping to hear a bit about the state of the scandal. A speaker who precedes the pope meniots that "this is the time for truth, transparency, and credibility."
When the pope speaks, according to the author, he makes no mention of transparency -- on the net or otherwise. Rather, he simply notes the four points that kdawson has mashed together in a way that implies causation -- which the pope's comments never address. The pope simply stated that:
Nowhere does the pope say that transparency leads to these things; rather, he's discussing the effects of the new media and forms of communication.
Why did they start designing copy machines to have long term storage, and to keep a copy of everything ever copied?
The news report is being sensationalist, and leading you to believe that it's keeping the data. Listen to the report again: they use a forensic program to get at the files. In other words, unless you tell the device to save the image, it's deleted. (The catch is that "deleted" means "entry deleted", not "file wiped off the drive".)
In other words, companies aren't wiping the hard drives of leased copiers. (Then again, are companies wiping the drives of leased PCs? Of PCs they owned, then threw away?)
Sun rises in east. Water is wet. Files that aren't wiped are able to be recovered from hard disks. Yawn...
But above all, the option of a stylus --- we're no longer Pythagoras reduced to drawing figures in the sand w/ our fingers --- people are the tool using animal, let's provide the most natural possible tool for drawing, writing and calculating.
William
I'm just not seeing it -- what does a stylus buy you, that you can't get just using your finger(s)?
"Wii so horny".
Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.
Publishers declining to publish works that make them uncomfortable, despite whether or not it would sell, is censorship.
A government body stopping such is unconstitutional censorship, but other kinds can and do exist.
When you deny access due to content arbitrarily, and without using any reasonable standard, that is a form of censorship - whether or not it is conducted by a government body.
Your definition is untenable -- according to you, any expression of choice in selection of content is censorship; that just doesn't cut it. In a free market, content creators have the right to create (or decline to create) content; distributors have the right to distribute (or decline to distribute) content products; and consumers have the right to buy (or decline to buy) products. Period.
It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
No, Apple is not a media organization -- it does not create consumable content. It distributes it, much like the corner magazine stand. If your local magazine vendor chooses not to stock your favorite magazine, you can stand up and holler "censorship!" all you like ... or you can simply vote with your wallet and take your business elsewhere.
Nah... religion replies "You created me out of the longings of your heart; if you hadn't existed, neither would religion. Thanks for playing; please try again!"
Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."
Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work?
OK... I'm not sure I agree with the guy, but the knee-jerk reactions here are getting a bit ridiculous. Tell ya what -- if I provide a few reasonable assertions, and provide at least one case where his line of thought holds, will you promise not to let you dearly-held convictions get in the way of taking a statement and at least attempting to see if it holds?
Here goes: ... of our children". In other words, kids who are taught sex ed are more alive to the thought of having sex while in H.S.
1) You agree that there's the possibility that sex ed "promotes the sexualization
2) Kids who are taught how to use a condom think that they know how to use one -- and that they'll not only use one, but properly, in a sexual situation.
3) It's not unreasonable to think that, given a course in sex ed, kids will even more unreasonably conclude that "everyone's doing it, and so should i".
Alright. Here's where you try to give the benefit of the doubt:
1) You're a senior guy; hot freshman girl shows up on campus. Either you're 18 now, or you are in the spring or after graduation, and you try to tap that shit. She's been taught sex ed, so she thinks not only that it's incredibly cool that an older guy wants her, but that she's got it all covered, now that she knows how to use a condom. Statutory rape == assault.
2) You're a guy/girl with a crush on a teacher. You figure that, since you know how to have sex safely, you can seriously flirt with your teacher, since after all, no one will ever find out. Assault.
3) You're a guy who's become sexually active earlier (or become more sexually active) due to the sex ed you've received. You project your experience on your date, and assume she's gonna put out. She doesn't want to, but you don't see that coming. You force yourself on her. Date rape == Assault.
Not reasonable?
using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.
Interesting, that line. Folks who hold the opposing position would say that's exactly what advocates of sex ed programs do to their kids... ;^)
It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Public health and public safety have nothing to do with your personal belief. Which is why you will be vaccinated regardless. Newborns will be screened for metabolic disease regardless. You will be ticketed for speeding regardless. And your kids will receive certain information at school regardless.
Because while YOU may be a responsible parent, there is a significant number of IRRESPONSIBLE parents. The idea is that the government must ensure that this information is made available to everyone because kids contracting HIV, Hepatitis B/C or gonorrhea, for example, are a PUBLIC HEALTH risk.
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
vaccination HIV, Hepatitis, or gonorrhea contraction. the latter represents risks inherent in voluntary behavior, while the former is prevents the risk of contraction through casual contact. Since we're talking voluntary behavior, personal belief systems which address voluntary behavior are relevant.
This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense.
LOL! And providing "how to use a rubber" class doesn't "promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense"? Riiiight....
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
straw man argument. yes, some kids will have sex, regardless the state of sex ed. However, if you teach kids how to use condoms, do you really think that less kids will attempt sex? That's as silly as the "they shouldn't have sex anyway" meme!
Now, let's look at your line of thought: American educators are going to be able to teach kids how to properly use contraception, in a way that they'll remember in the heat of the moment, and be able to recall from memory. Shit ... most kids can't read, and they've been taught reading since first grade!
No, I think it's a reasonable line of thought to suggest that sex ed will raise awareness about sexual intercourse, lead to increased peer pressure ("everyone's doing it -- why do you think they taught us how to use a rubber?"), and increased numbers of kids will have sex before they're emotionally ready for it.
Man > Nature... Take that religion!
LOL... I think religion would answer, "when you've created something from nothing, rather than simply measure something accurately, give us a call."
sigh... I got nothin'...
He isn't liable to pay the amount of the court's decision -- just the costs of discovery for one motion to compel.
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense...
And I was just waiting for that sign, well hidden somewhere in the article, that this is just some beta concept that will stay as such forever.
And then I found the photo of two guys with shitloads of cables attached to their faces.
There's a huge difference between "cellphones convert mouth movements into speech" and "Guy with shitloads of cables on his face tracks the movements of his mouth muscles using 4 unix servers running a processor intensive application with an accuracy of 25%"
Yeah, you're right. We've never gone from a situation where we've had shitloads of hardware and cables, and been able to reduce that down to mobile devices. What were those researchers thinking? Dolts!
(p.s., can you give a link to the "shitloads of face cables" story? Thanks!)
Evolution = "Change over time" ?!?!?!?!
I think you're confusing "evolution" with "entropy"...
Self-taught folks tend to have less in their toolkits -- when all you've learned is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Then, when trying to do something different, they try to take their hammer and "invent" a screwdriver out of it.
kids right out of school aren't ready to take practical problems and successfully solve them -- that work ethic tends to take a year or two to get down (and rightly so, since CS programs aren't I.T.-drone-cookie-cutter factories), but at least they know enough about the landscape to recognize what tools to use.