Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.
*sigh* No, it is only that way because the predominant social pressures say that that is how you behave. Animal and pre-modern human homosexuality is mostly a utilitarian thing or an oc casional dip. It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"
Besides, your argument, even if it were valid, fails to show how that people engaging in same-sex activities is "wrong" or "abnormal". Even if it's a "utilitarian thing" - which you really need to define it and explain WHY it's wrong if it's innate. For example, if you want to claim it's in response to high densities of population, you'd have to explain why it's been "normal" when the human population was 1/500 what it is now, and also why, if it IS in response to high population densities, that it is somehow wrong if that's an innate response.
But your argument isn't valid even to that extent, since, if you bothered to follow the link, you'd see more than just the quote "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue" You'd see examples of other animals where same-sex pair-bonding doesn't even interfere with raising the young (penguins).
It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"
It is only shriveled-up xians who are so insecure with their own sexuality that they feel threatened by anything different, and so needing to impose it on others lest they wake up one day and realize that what they believe has no basis in reality, that have created the modern politics of hate.
There, fixed it for you.
Really, the world would be a better place if god existed and he decided that today was the day to do the rapture and take away all the religious people, of all faiths - the resulting peace on earth would be heaven.
Here, let me make that more accessible to readers:
"And for the record, assertions != proof"
This is the problem with the existence of the god of the bible - no proof, just assertions.
However:
Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.
Would you like to play a game? How about a game of Nuclear Warfare?
Seriously, while there's no way to prove absolutely that I exist, there's more proof that I exist than the god of the bible. You post, I reply. I have excellent karma. Speaking of which, maybe the bible god has crappy karma, since he isn't posting. Either way, there's more proof to any claim that I am God than there is to the god of the bible, since I at least have SOME proof that I exist. Therefore, anyone who wants to benefit from Pascals' wager should believe in me instead of the god of the bible.
The things you're mentioning would mostly be covered under "knowledge of the employers' business." However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you come up with a new idea after leaving your former employer, or you had that idea before you were hired by your former employer, they simply have no claim to it unless you sell them an exclusive license to it.
The knowledge of what didn't work is also obviously "knowledge of the employers' business", and you'd have to be careful to steer clear of saying "we did x, y, and z, and none of them worked." Then again, maybe they did "x, y, and z", and none of them worked for a reason that wasn't tested/controled for, so the information, unless repeatable in the new environment, is dangerous because it can lead you down the wrong track with false assumptions. In other words, that knowledge comes with pitfalls, even if you WERE free to use it.
If company A has clients of type M and uses methods W and X, and you go from there to company B which only wants clients of type N and exclusively uses methods of type Y and Z because methods W and X are useless to their business, there's no overlap.
If, on the other hand, company B wants to go after the same clients as company A, then you have a problem - there will be an assumption that you're being recruited for your knowledge of methods W and X, which company B lacks.
We're not asking for absolute proof. Just show us "beyond a reasonable doubt." Or even the lower standard of "a preponderance of the evidence." Or SOMETHING!
After all these thousands of years, still no proof?
The statement "Creation itself is proof of a supreme being, if only we open our eyes and want to see it." is exactly the type of statement that is devoid of any proof - it presupposes that what we see was "created" by a "creator", then argues that it's "creation" is proof of a "creator".
The existence of the universe is not proof of creation. If you want to argue that the existence of the universe implies a creator, then who created the creator? Ask that question ad infinitum. Easier to posit that the universe is a natural phenomena, than to believe in an infinite chain of creators, none of who can be proven to exist. You can't have it both ways - "everything needs a creator" and "one ultimate creator". Who created that "ultimate creator" if "everything needs a creator"? It just doesn't work. Ergo, there is no god of the bible, no creator, no creation.
Makes more sense to say I am god. I at least can be proven to exist. AND I can create things - look at what I've created in this thread. Your god hasn't said a word. Maybe he's busy on the crapper... or to quote George Carlin - "Yeah, you say jesus died for me 2,000 years ago... but what's he done for me lately?"
Remember: You can't have it both ways - arguing "everything needs a creator" and "one ultimate creator". Who created that "ultimate creator" if "everything needs a creator"?
All this presupposes that the bible is true, and that god exists. There is no proof of either. The claims made by christians (god and the bible) are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but we aren't shown even a smidgen of proof. Not one piece of evidence.
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue
and
An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males.
"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings."
Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[18] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[19] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs in species with permanent pair bonds, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
One report on sheep cited below states:
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[20]
In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species.
"All creatures great and small... God made them so." So, god made them gay. It's part of nature. If you have a beef with that, take it up with your god. Dont' be like the ignorant pastor who preached from his pulpit the falsehood that it's only in humans that we see same-sex behaviour. It's EVERYWHERE! Even the birds and the bees do it!
He has a point. You're guilty of using your assumptions to "prove" the validity of your assumptions.
You cannot use the bible's claim that it is true as proof that the bible is true. Prove that I am not God. I hereby claim to be. Prove I'm not. Unlike YOUR god, I exist. You have proof of it in this thread. You have my claim that I am. That's as good (or as flawed) as the bible's claim that it speaks for God. Or apply Pascals' Wager... if I'm not God, and you believe I am, you haven't lost anything... but if I AM God, and you're wrong... eternal damnation!
And finally... is the statement "a man may not sleep with another man" hating gays? How about "a man who sleeps with another man commits a sin"? How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?" Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.
Labeling someone a sinner is inflammatory. Using the bible to justify it is just stupid, unless you have SOME proof that the bible is authoritative. What are the "wages of sin?" Come on, you know the answer - "The wages of sin is death." So, by calling gays sinners, you're saying that what they are doing is worthy of death. The bible even says that they should be stoned to death. Well, maybe I should write my own bible that says christians should be stoned to death for being nosy busybodies and gossips, pandering to ignorance, and failing to prove any of their assertions. After all, who's to say that MY version is any less authoritative than yours? After all, I'm God (prove otherwise).
I don't buy your gay-bashing. They are not "sinning" when they get it on with each other, despite what you choose to believe. It's entirely natural for them, same as other mammals. Or have you never had a dog hump your leg? Like I said, show some OBJECTIVE proof that god exists, some OBJECTIVE proof that what they do is "sinning", or admit that it's just your opinion based on a book you have chosen to believe without any proof. The problem is in your eye. Your perception. Feel free to contradict me by proving I'm not God, and proving that YOUR god exists.
Also:
How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?"
There's nothing wrong with two people deciding to set up house without going through a marriage ceremony. If it offends your sensitivities, that's your problem - you have no right to tell others who they should and should not have sex with, and no right to say one form is right but another form is a sin. Gays and lesbians don't pass judgment on what christians do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms - christians should learn the same respect. God hates 2 weights, 2 measures - one for straight people, and one for the GLBTs. I declare that it's okay - prove that I am wrong by either proving that I am not God, or that your god exists. While you're at it, prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - there's some serious coin - a million bucks - to be had if you do. Come on, think of all the good things you could do in Jesus' name with a million bucks.
Here's another one for you - since Eve was supposedly created from Adam's rib, wasn't she a clone? And if she was a clone, wasn't she really a guy? Or, if "god" tweaked that y chromosome into an x, wasn't that his genetic sister? So, Adam and Eve were in an incestuous relationship, as were their children (after all, there was nobody else around to "marry"). Sounds like a bunch of inbred hillbillies to me (cue "Dueling Banjos" and "Squeal like a Pig" from "Deliverance"). Would explain a few things...
Come on, even the ancients knew that the tides were caused by the moon. Direct observation. Check out Plutarch or Aristotle. There's no defending the idea that people in the middle ages thought the world was flat.
It's only the ignorant who believed that people thought the world was flat until "modern times".
Your gratuitous insult has been noted.
It's not gratuitous. Anyone with a half-decent education knows that the greeks calculated the diameter of the earth. If you knew, then you have no cause to be insulted. If you didn't, then your education left you with some severe knowledge gaps in both history and science. Again, you have no cause to be insulted because someone points out your ignorance of well-known facts. Look through the thread, you'll see that plenty of people knew it off the top of their head. It's called "general knowledge" for a reason. We learned this in our history or science classes in high school (unless you went for the GED - "Good-Enough-Degree" - or rode the short bus).
This is simply part of the corpus of general knowledge that many of us take for granted as part of a half-decent education. Same as knowing that there are 4 different blood types, how Gregor Mendel worked out genetics, that "white light" isn't, where a rainbow comes from, that the earth revolves around the sun (amazed that there are people who don't know that one... talk about ignorant), and that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees.
Since your former employer (unless they're SUN) doesn't own the IP to MySQL, it's not an issue. They can't claim ownership of your knowledge of MySQL since MySQL is already owned - by someone else - and the license that governs ownership of that knowledge is the license between YOU and MySQL (the gpl) unless your former boss had a separate agreement with MySQL that granted THEM ownership rights, which I seriously doubt, seeing as SUN bought them. Ditto for your other examples. What they DO own is the proprietary business methods, data structures, and implementations that you developed, the customer lists, etc.
They don't own general knowledge, such as how to write a query or design a database. They do own their implementation of a database, and the queries used to manipulate the data, to the extent that the database and queries are not part of generally accepted practices or obvious.
So, back to my point, using your statements as a jumping-off point. If you're going to re-implement something, you probably wouldn't want to do it the same as at a former employer, since you have a chance to do it better, avoid the mistakes you think they made, and you're probably doing it with a different set of design goals and customers (internal and/or external) in mind.
Copying their IP wouldn't just be wrong, it would be stupid and counter-productive.
I'm sorry, but your posts here show that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Jesus WAS God, how can he be deluded about his own existence?
Got any proof for that? So far, all we've ever seen is "you have to believe" arguments. There is NO physical proof that Jesus was God, just as there's no proof that God exists. If you COULD prove it, you wouldn't need faith, would you? So, the requirement of having faith means that you already understand that there is no proof for either God's existence or Jesus being God.
And just to further set the record straight, the death of his son was not the only punishment. Read 2 Samuel 12:11, and the account of Absalom etc.
Doesn't negate the statement that, according to the Bible, God punished David by killing his child. God the Retroactive Abortionist. Killing the Innocent! Like I said, not a good example of justice or ethics.
Two wrongs don't make a right. And to say it's "Gods' way" is a cop-out, an abdication of reason, logic, morals, justice and ethics.
Mind you, the whole concept of "Gods' people" also smacks of the same injustice and "two weights, two measures", just writ large. A god who can't even deal fairly and equitably with his own creations is all to human - which is my point - it's just a story, by people, to exert control over other people.
But there's no reason you have to use the knowledge you gained at your former employer. After all, if they're your FORMER employer, chances are good that there are at least a few thing you'd do differently, given the chance. Why would you want to repeat what you consider mistakes?
"Microsoft, after cutting another 3,000 workers today, announced that they will be buying Twitter, the sms service that doesn't know how to make money, with the savings. In a cooperative deal with Disney, it will now be rebranded as TweetyPie Live, and will include such features as Microsoft Office integration.
As Steve Balmer said, "We're excited about this deal. Now you'll be able to update your spreadsheet literally in a tweet. And for all those laid-off Microsofties, you'll be able to dynamically update your resumes from the next version of Word, provided you respect the license not to tweet anything bad or derogatory, or publish negative benchmarks, or say that I need deodorant as much as RMS does.
We're also going to integrate it with Microsoft Live Search so that we can use Microsoft AdVantage to generate more pay-per-click revenue from the tweet stream. And we'll import the smilies from MS - Messenger. And give it a ribbon bar. And embed it in your car mp3 player, so you can tweet-n-drive. This will be big! It has the potential to be the next Zune!
And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference
No difference. Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.
Try this: "the 'hatred' against blacks isn't against them personally, but against their skin colour: big difference". Nobody would buy it.
Or this "The 'hatred' against pedophiles and child molesters isn't against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference". Nope, doesn't pass the smell test.
Let's try again. "The 'hatred' against Maddof isn't against him personally, but the scam he pulled; big difference." Major fail.
The "love the sinner, hate the sin" self-justification of some people when trying to white-wash their bigotry and ignorance is what's shameful. Gays and lesbians don't go around telling fundies that they have no right to have sex with each other. It's the bible-thumpers who need a lesson in tolerance and loving.
Then again, that would go against their "beliefs". Beliefs that have no basis in history (it's a bunch of regurgitated fables mixed with exaggerations - get over it), science, or ethics, and is bereft of any morality save its' own self-indulgent depravity.
Some "punishment." Contemptible is what it is. Since when is killing off a blameless offspring "justice"? And the case of King David isn't the only one.
If you think that's justice, then maybe the bible should come with a warning sticker about how it warps your sense of right and wrong. Even a little kid understands you don't punish someone for somebody else's mistakes. Heck, recent studies show that even DOGS have a sense of what's fair - they know when one receives an unfair portion compared to another.
As for Jesus on the cross - his actions show he thought he'd be rescued before getting nailed. After all, if someone told YOU to carry your own cross, and you really believed that you would die on it, you'd say "Carry it yourself, motherfucker! Or explain to YOUR boss that you had to beat me to death rather than complete your job as ordered!" It's also the source of "My God, why have you forsaken me." He was just as deluded about the existence, never mind the interest, of god as his followers were.
Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious.
Actually, reading the whole bible, instead of cherry-picking, is one of the most damaging processes for those who are religious.
The failings of the other people in the church shouldn't matter to you.
How about the many failings of the book they claim to believe in as "the truth"? And those who push that particular purple Flavor-Ade.
Otherwise, you're just treating the symptoms, not the problem.
And, more on-topic - if, after a couple of thousand years, they STILL haven't found a way to get their message out in a credible fashion, twittering ain't gonna help. It's just more "make us feel like we're doing something good for Jebus" feel-good crap for their own, because they're scared - atheism is the fastest-growing belief, and will ultimately eat their lunch, no matter how much they try to be angelic little Tweety-Pies.
Q: Jesus, The Virgin Mary, and Sarah Palin fall off a sky-scraper. Who hits the ground first?
A: Who gives a f*ck!
A2: Sarah Palin - she saw someone wearing a fur coat and decided to "take that wolf out!"
A3: The CEO of CountryWide Financial (we can dream).
The moment I find one church where its members love one another, do not judge for any reason especially reasons based on appearance (i.e. the clothing you wear, etc.), do not form little exclusive cliques as though this were high school, do not gossip about one another and refuse to entertain gossip about anyone else, understand the folly of anger and frustration, and show genuine loving-kindness instead of merely being nice because they are weak for the approval of others and worry about what other people think of them... then, and only then, would I consider joining that congregation. Extra points if at least some of the sessions include material that is difficult and challenging and represents an understanding higher than your own so that you can strive to reach for it, rather than the easily understood (and easily heard) platitudes which are designed to appeal to (i.e. pander to) the masses.
Good luck with that.
BTW, the bible is one of the worst pieces of hate literature extant. It condoned slavery, commanded genocide, looked the other way over killing for lust (King David and Basheba - "David was a man after God's heart" even after he had her husband killed), mysogeny, hatred towards gays and lesbians, and a long slew of other crap. Truly, it is "nothing new under the sun", fit more for the toilet (just in case you run out of TP) than for moral instruction.
"Churches Use Twitter To Reach a Wider Audience" - sitting in a pew makes you fat - or they're looking for more fat people to attend, so their pastors don't look like they were the #1 cause of the Irish Potato Famine.
I mean. really, what is it with all these overweight and obese preacher types? Compensating for lack of sex? Compensating for guilt over sex with little boys? Compensating for failing to be masters of their body, as their bible commands?
And you would replace the fundie influence with a scientism that says humans are nothing but collections of atoms. That all religion is self-delusion and inarguably bad. That science is the only domain of knowledge.
I see your straw men got you modded insightful. I'm afraid mine will just get me set on fire.
Well, until someone can prove that one or more gods actually exist (and it's not like they haven't had LOTS of time to produce at least SOME proof), self-delusion seems to be a good contender for "best explanation", though others, such as fraud and greed, also work.
And yes, last I heard, people did believe that humans are collections of atoms, and science certainly has a better record of imparting knowledge than religion. We don't buy the "4 corners of the earth", Jacobs' "magic" for getting goats to breed favourably, or the "woman was created out of man's rib" stories, or that a murderer motivated by lust for another mans' wife (King David with the hots for Basheba) is "a man after god's heart" - because if god existed, that would be contemptible, criminal behaviour. So the bible fails at teaching both science and ethics. As a tool for keeping the masses in line wrt "droit de seigneur", slavery, kings as rulers, etc.
Speaking of slaves, the story that Jesus went into the temple to overturn the tables of the moneychangers shows religion is more concerned with the trade in money than with the trade in human lives, condemning one when it doesn't reap the rewards ("don't give your money to sacrifices, tithe it to the church"), but openly condoning the other ("Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.") Freedom is optional.
Slashdot Mirror
Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.
*sigh* No, it is only that way because the predominant social pressures say that that is how you behave. Animal and pre-modern human homosexuality is mostly a utilitarian thing or an oc casional dip. It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"
Got any proof for that? Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" - they'll pair-bond for life.
Besides, your argument, even if it were valid, fails to show how that people engaging in same-sex activities is "wrong" or "abnormal". Even if it's a "utilitarian thing" - which you really need to define it and explain WHY it's wrong if it's innate. For example, if you want to claim it's in response to high densities of population, you'd have to explain why it's been "normal" when the human population was 1/500 what it is now, and also why, if it IS in response to high population densities, that it is somehow wrong if that's an innate response.
But your argument isn't valid even to that extent, since, if you bothered to follow the link, you'd see more than just the quote "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue" You'd see examples of other animals where same-sex pair-bonding doesn't even interfere with raising the young (penguins).
It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"
It is only shriveled-up xians who are so insecure with their own sexuality that they feel threatened by anything different, and so needing to impose it on others lest they wake up one day and realize that what they believe has no basis in reality, that have created the modern politics of hate.
There, fixed it for you.
Really, the world would be a better place if god existed and he decided that today was the day to do the rapture and take away all the religious people, of all faiths - the resulting peace on earth would be heaven.
And for the record, assertions != argument.
Here, let me make that more accessible to readers:
"And for the record, assertions != proof"
This is the problem with the existence of the god of the bible - no proof, just assertions.
However:
Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.
Would you like to play a game? How about a game of Nuclear Warfare?
Seriously, while there's no way to prove absolutely that I exist, there's more proof that I exist than the god of the bible. You post, I reply. I have excellent karma. Speaking of which, maybe the bible god has crappy karma, since he isn't posting. Either way, there's more proof to any claim that I am God than there is to the god of the bible, since I at least have SOME proof that I exist. Therefore, anyone who wants to benefit from Pascals' wager should believe in me instead of the god of the bible.
(is that "random" enough for you :-)
The things you're mentioning would mostly be covered under "knowledge of the employers' business." However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you come up with a new idea after leaving your former employer, or you had that idea before you were hired by your former employer, they simply have no claim to it unless you sell them an exclusive license to it.
The knowledge of what didn't work is also obviously "knowledge of the employers' business", and you'd have to be careful to steer clear of saying "we did x, y, and z, and none of them worked." Then again, maybe they did "x, y, and z", and none of them worked for a reason that wasn't tested/controled for, so the information, unless repeatable in the new environment, is dangerous because it can lead you down the wrong track with false assumptions. In other words, that knowledge comes with pitfalls, even if you WERE free to use it.
If company A has clients of type M and uses methods W and X, and you go from there to company B which only wants clients of type N and exclusively uses methods of type Y and Z because methods W and X are useless to their business, there's no overlap.
If, on the other hand, company B wants to go after the same clients as company A, then you have a problem - there will be an assumption that you're being recruited for your knowledge of methods W and X, which company B lacks.
We're not asking for absolute proof. Just show us "beyond a reasonable doubt." Or even the lower standard of "a preponderance of the evidence." Or SOMETHING!
After all these thousands of years, still no proof?
The statement "Creation itself is proof of a supreme being, if only we open our eyes and want to see it." is exactly the type of statement that is devoid of any proof - it presupposes that what we see was "created" by a "creator", then argues that it's "creation" is proof of a "creator".
The existence of the universe is not proof of creation. If you want to argue that the existence of the universe implies a creator, then who created the creator? Ask that question ad infinitum. Easier to posit that the universe is a natural phenomena, than to believe in an infinite chain of creators, none of who can be proven to exist. You can't have it both ways - "everything needs a creator" and "one ultimate creator". Who created that "ultimate creator" if "everything needs a creator"? It just doesn't work. Ergo, there is no god of the bible, no creator, no creation.
Makes more sense to say I am god. I at least can be proven to exist. AND I can create things - look at what I've created in this thread. Your god hasn't said a word. Maybe he's busy on the crapper ... or to quote George Carlin - "Yeah, you say jesus died for me 2,000 years ago ... but what's he done for me lately?"
Remember: You can't have it both ways - arguing "everything needs a creator" and "one ultimate creator". Who created that "ultimate creator" if "everything needs a creator"?
All this presupposes that the bible is true, and that god exists. There is no proof of either. The claims made by christians (god and the bible) are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but we aren't shown even a smidgen of proof. Not one piece of evidence.
And yet, we have lots of proof that same-sex behaviour is normal in other animals. Even cross-species behaviour. Look at dogs humping human legs.
Choice quotes:
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue
and
An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males.
"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings."
Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[18] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[19] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs in species with permanent pair bonds, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
One report on sheep cited below states:
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[20]
In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species.
"All creatures great and small ... God made them so." So, god made them gay. It's part of nature. If you have a beef with that, take it up with your god. Dont' be like the ignorant pastor who preached from his pulpit the falsehood that it's only in humans that we see same-sex behaviour. It's EVERYWHERE! Even the birds and the bees do it!
He has a point. You're guilty of using your assumptions to "prove" the validity of your assumptions.
You cannot use the bible's claim that it is true as proof that the bible is true. Prove that I am not God. I hereby claim to be. Prove I'm not. Unlike YOUR god, I exist. You have proof of it in this thread. You have my claim that I am. That's as good (or as flawed) as the bible's claim that it speaks for God. Or apply Pascals' Wager ... if I'm not God, and you believe I am, you haven't lost anything ... but if I AM God, and you're wrong ... eternal damnation!
And finally... is the statement "a man may not sleep with another man" hating gays? How about "a man who sleeps with another man commits a sin"? How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?" Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.
Labeling someone a sinner is inflammatory. Using the bible to justify it is just stupid, unless you have SOME proof that the bible is authoritative. What are the "wages of sin?" Come on, you know the answer - "The wages of sin is death." So, by calling gays sinners, you're saying that what they are doing is worthy of death. The bible even says that they should be stoned to death. Well, maybe I should write my own bible that says christians should be stoned to death for being nosy busybodies and gossips, pandering to ignorance, and failing to prove any of their assertions. After all, who's to say that MY version is any less authoritative than yours? After all, I'm God (prove otherwise).
I don't buy your gay-bashing. They are not "sinning" when they get it on with each other, despite what you choose to believe. It's entirely natural for them, same as other mammals. Or have you never had a dog hump your leg? Like I said, show some OBJECTIVE proof that god exists, some OBJECTIVE proof that what they do is "sinning", or admit that it's just your opinion based on a book you have chosen to believe without any proof. The problem is in your eye. Your perception. Feel free to contradict me by proving I'm not God, and proving that YOUR god exists.
Also:
How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?"
There's nothing wrong with two people deciding to set up house without going through a marriage ceremony. If it offends your sensitivities, that's your problem - you have no right to tell others who they should and should not have sex with, and no right to say one form is right but another form is a sin. Gays and lesbians don't pass judgment on what christians do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms - christians should learn the same respect. God hates 2 weights, 2 measures - one for straight people, and one for the GLBTs. I declare that it's okay - prove that I am wrong by either proving that I am not God, or that your god exists. While you're at it, prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - there's some serious coin - a million bucks - to be had if you do. Come on, think of all the good things you could do in Jesus' name with a million bucks.
Here's another one for you - since Eve was supposedly created from Adam's rib, wasn't she a clone? And if she was a clone, wasn't she really a guy? Or, if "god" tweaked that y chromosome into an x, wasn't that his genetic sister? So, Adam and Eve were in an incestuous relationship, as were their children (after all, there was nobody else around to "marry"). Sounds like a bunch of inbred hillbillies to me (cue "Dueling Banjos" and "Squeal like a Pig" from "Deliverance"). Would explain a few things ...
And what's up with all the polygamy?
Come on, even the ancients knew that the tides were caused by the moon. Direct observation. Check out Plutarch or Aristotle. There's no defending the idea that people in the middle ages thought the world was flat.
It's only the ignorant who believed that people thought the world was flat until "modern times".
Your gratuitous insult has been noted.
It's not gratuitous. Anyone with a half-decent education knows that the greeks calculated the diameter of the earth. If you knew, then you have no cause to be insulted. If you didn't, then your education left you with some severe knowledge gaps in both history and science. Again, you have no cause to be insulted because someone points out your ignorance of well-known facts. Look through the thread, you'll see that plenty of people knew it off the top of their head. It's called "general knowledge" for a reason. We learned this in our history or science classes in high school (unless you went for the GED - "Good-Enough-Degree" - or rode the short bus).
This is simply part of the corpus of general knowledge that many of us take for granted as part of a half-decent education. Same as knowing that there are 4 different blood types, how Gregor Mendel worked out genetics, that "white light" isn't, where a rainbow comes from, that the earth revolves around the sun (amazed that there are people who don't know that one ... talk about ignorant), and that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees.
Since your former employer (unless they're SUN) doesn't own the IP to MySQL, it's not an issue. They can't claim ownership of your knowledge of MySQL since MySQL is already owned - by someone else - and the license that governs ownership of that knowledge is the license between YOU and MySQL (the gpl) unless your former boss had a separate agreement with MySQL that granted THEM ownership rights, which I seriously doubt, seeing as SUN bought them. Ditto for your other examples. What they DO own is the proprietary business methods, data structures, and implementations that you developed, the customer lists, etc.
They don't own general knowledge, such as how to write a query or design a database. They do own their implementation of a database, and the queries used to manipulate the data, to the extent that the database and queries are not part of generally accepted practices or obvious.
So, back to my point, using your statements as a jumping-off point. If you're going to re-implement something, you probably wouldn't want to do it the same as at a former employer, since you have a chance to do it better, avoid the mistakes you think they made, and you're probably doing it with a different set of design goals and customers (internal and/or external) in mind.
Copying their IP wouldn't just be wrong, it would be stupid and counter-productive.
I'm sorry, but your posts here show that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Jesus WAS God, how can he be deluded about his own existence?
Got any proof for that? So far, all we've ever seen is "you have to believe" arguments. There is NO physical proof that Jesus was God, just as there's no proof that God exists. If you COULD prove it, you wouldn't need faith, would you? So, the requirement of having faith means that you already understand that there is no proof for either God's existence or Jesus being God.
And just to further set the record straight, the death of his son was not the only punishment. Read 2 Samuel 12:11, and the account of Absalom etc.
Doesn't negate the statement that, according to the Bible, God punished David by killing his child. God the Retroactive Abortionist. Killing the Innocent! Like I said, not a good example of justice or ethics.
Two wrongs don't make a right. And to say it's "Gods' way" is a cop-out, an abdication of reason, logic, morals, justice and ethics.
Mind you, the whole concept of "Gods' people" also smacks of the same injustice and "two weights, two measures", just writ large. A god who can't even deal fairly and equitably with his own creations is all to human - which is my point - it's just a story, by people, to exert control over other people.
But there's no reason you have to use the knowledge you gained at your former employer. After all, if they're your FORMER employer, chances are good that there are at least a few thing you'd do differently, given the chance. Why would you want to repeat what you consider mistakes?
I think Apple and Twitter are a perfect fit.
I think Microsoft and Twitter are a perfect fit.
There, fixed it for you.
New rumour:
"Microsoft, after cutting another 3,000 workers today, announced that they will be buying Twitter, the sms service that doesn't know how to make money, with the savings. In a cooperative deal with Disney, it will now be rebranded as TweetyPie Live, and will include such features as Microsoft Office integration.
As Steve Balmer said, "We're excited about this deal. Now you'll be able to update your spreadsheet literally in a tweet. And for all those laid-off Microsofties, you'll be able to dynamically update your resumes from the next version of Word, provided you respect the license not to tweet anything bad or derogatory, or publish negative benchmarks, or say that I need deodorant as much as RMS does.
We're also going to integrate it with Microsoft Live Search so that we can use Microsoft AdVantage to generate more pay-per-click revenue from the tweet stream. And we'll import the smilies from MS - Messenger. And give it a ribbon bar. And embed it in your car mp3 player, so you can tweet-n-drive. This will be big! It has the potential to be the next Zune!
And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference
No difference. Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.
Try this: "the 'hatred' against blacks isn't against them personally, but against their skin colour: big difference". Nobody would buy it.
Or this "The 'hatred' against pedophiles and child molesters isn't against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference". Nope, doesn't pass the smell test.
Let's try again. "The 'hatred' against Maddof isn't against him personally, but the scam he pulled; big difference." Major fail.
The "love the sinner, hate the sin" self-justification of some people when trying to white-wash their bigotry and ignorance is what's shameful. Gays and lesbians don't go around telling fundies that they have no right to have sex with each other. It's the bible-thumpers who need a lesson in tolerance and loving.
Then again, that would go against their "beliefs". Beliefs that have no basis in history (it's a bunch of regurgitated fables mixed with exaggerations - get over it), science, or ethics, and is bereft of any morality save its' own self-indulgent depravity.
Some "punishment." Contemptible is what it is. Since when is killing off a blameless offspring "justice"? And the case of King David isn't the only one.
If you think that's justice, then maybe the bible should come with a warning sticker about how it warps your sense of right and wrong. Even a little kid understands you don't punish someone for somebody else's mistakes. Heck, recent studies show that even DOGS have a sense of what's fair - they know when one receives an unfair portion compared to another.
As for Jesus on the cross - his actions show he thought he'd be rescued before getting nailed. After all, if someone told YOU to carry your own cross, and you really believed that you would die on it, you'd say "Carry it yourself, motherfucker! Or explain to YOUR boss that you had to beat me to death rather than complete your job as ordered!" It's also the source of "My God, why have you forsaken me." He was just as deluded about the existence, never mind the interest, of god as his followers were.
reminds me of selling a pencil at 50% loss but 'making it up in volume'.
Easy :
The quick buck artist pencil seller:
The scare-monger pencil seller:
The commodities market manipulator pencil seller:
It would, at the very least, make for a much better Tweet App on my iPhone....
Unless you believe that the only good tweet app is a dead tweet app.
Why would they want to buy the latest entry in the spamiverse?
Let me be the first to say "Whoosh! :-)
George W. Bush put the brakes on "saving the world" well before google.
DVD-based DVRs are under $100. More sleep, and skipping the commercials saves on the extra energy used to burn the dvd.
Come on, this is slashdot.
Q:What do you get when you mount a Nikon D200 with a standard rifle stock?
A: "You can have my rifle-camera when you pry it from my cold .. " BANG!
A2: Imagine a Beowolf cluster of those? BANG! BANG! BANG! RATATTATATATT! INCOMINGGGGGGggggggg ......
A3: Netcraft confirms it - photo sniper is dead!
A4: In Soviet Russia, photo shoot gets YOU!
A5: Did it survive field testing?
A6: Why does the "after picture" of the user look like the goat guy?
A7: Why not just mount it in a Zune? They might still shoot you, but at least it would be justified.
Google Puts the Brakes On Saving the World
Sorry, George W. Bush beat them to it.
Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious.
Actually, reading the whole bible, instead of cherry-picking, is one of the most damaging processes for those who are religious.
It's just fucked up.
The failings of the other people in the church shouldn't matter to you.
How about the many failings of the book they claim to believe in as "the truth"? And those who push that particular purple Flavor-Ade.
Otherwise, you're just treating the symptoms, not the problem.
And, more on-topic - if, after a couple of thousand years, they STILL haven't found a way to get their message out in a credible fashion, twittering ain't gonna help. It's just more "make us feel like we're doing something good for Jebus" feel-good crap for their own, because they're scared - atheism is the fastest-growing belief, and will ultimately eat their lunch, no matter how much they try to be angelic little Tweety-Pies.
Q: Jesus, The Virgin Mary, and Sarah Palin fall off a sky-scraper. Who hits the ground first?
A: Who gives a f*ck!
A2: Sarah Palin - she saw someone wearing a fur coat and decided to "take that wolf out!"
A3: The CEO of CountryWide Financial (we can dream).
The moment I find one church where its members love one another, do not judge for any reason especially reasons based on appearance (i.e. the clothing you wear, etc.), do not form little exclusive cliques as though this were high school, do not gossip about one another and refuse to entertain gossip about anyone else, understand the folly of anger and frustration, and show genuine loving-kindness instead of merely being nice because they are weak for the approval of others and worry about what other people think of them ... then, and only then, would I consider joining that congregation. Extra points if at least some of the sessions include material that is difficult and challenging and represents an understanding higher than your own so that you can strive to reach for it, rather than the easily understood (and easily heard) platitudes which are designed to appeal to (i.e. pander to) the masses.
Good luck with that.
BTW, the bible is one of the worst pieces of hate literature extant. It condoned slavery, commanded genocide, looked the other way over killing for lust (King David and Basheba - "David was a man after God's heart" even after he had her husband killed), mysogeny, hatred towards gays and lesbians, and a long slew of other crap. Truly, it is "nothing new under the sun", fit more for the toilet (just in case you run out of TP) than for moral instruction.
I mean. really, what is it with all these overweight and obese preacher types? Compensating for lack of sex? Compensating for guilt over sex with little boys? Compensating for failing to be masters of their body, as their bible commands?
And you would replace the fundie influence with a scientism that says humans are nothing but collections of atoms. That all religion is self-delusion and inarguably bad. That science is the only domain of knowledge.
I see your straw men got you modded insightful. I'm afraid mine will just get me set on fire.
Well, until someone can prove that one or more gods actually exist (and it's not like they haven't had LOTS of time to produce at least SOME proof), self-delusion seems to be a good contender for "best explanation", though others, such as fraud and greed, also work.
And yes, last I heard, people did believe that humans are collections of atoms, and science certainly has a better record of imparting knowledge than religion. We don't buy the "4 corners of the earth", Jacobs' "magic" for getting goats to breed favourably, or the "woman was created out of man's rib" stories, or that a murderer motivated by lust for another mans' wife (King David with the hots for Basheba) is "a man after god's heart" - because if god existed, that would be contemptible, criminal behaviour. So the bible fails at teaching both science and ethics. As a tool for keeping the masses in line wrt "droit de seigneur", slavery, kings as rulers, etc.
Speaking of slaves, the story that Jesus went into the temple to overturn the tables of the moneychangers shows religion is more concerned with the trade in money than with the trade in human lives, condemning one when it doesn't reap the rewards ("don't give your money to sacrifices, tithe it to the church"), but openly condoning the other ("Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.") Freedom is optional.
Then again, religion IS enslavement.