Hey, I wasted 15 years of my life believing before I realized that I had, to a large extent, pulled the wool over my own eyes. It became a question of intellectual integrity.
I'm reminded of the story of how Abraham Lincoln had to argue a case one way in the morning, and the exact opposite way in the afternoon. He won the morning trial, and the judge said "You know you're going to lose this afternoon's case." Abe said "Not at all - I'm going to argue that you were wrong in your decision."
We can argue, but when it comes down to it, its not the arguments that will carry the day. Its the lack of integrity that the bible espouses. David was a man after God's own heart - yeah, right. He had a loyal soldier killed so he could have the guys' wife. Solomon - 300 wives and 700 concubines - sounds like one of those cults we hear so much about. Look at how they treated their enemies - god encouraged them to either kill them all, or kill the men, and rape the women (do you think they went voluntarily to be their wives, after their husbands were slaughtered?). Invoking the new testament doesn't cover up these injustices. This is the god that jesus supposedly wants to reconcile you with. I have no wish to be reconciled with anyone who could order such things.
Even free-market capitalistic societies are subject to the regulations that the voters choose to put in. Don't like it that consumers can vote to reign in money-crazed corporations - move to Soviet Russia. Good luck getting that time machine to work...
Easier than that - just kill them, dig out the chip, and, with their chip in your pocket so that you are now "them", kill a bunch of other people, dig out their chips, and empty their bank accounts.
Then put the original chip in a nice pie and send it to your worst enemy. Watch him get blasted away on the evening news.
(okay, its a bit exaggerated today.... but in 10 years?)
"So what about all the violent images on the web? I suppose there's no point in trying to protect kids from that either?"
1. They see a lot more violence, a lot more realistically portrayed, on TV. TV has been around a LOT longer. The motivation of people arguing for net censorship is self-serving and hypocritical, because they don't want to deprive themselves of their TV violence.
2. Your argument is a fallacy - it posits an either-or situation, which is not the case here.
3. Kids are more likely to find porn on the net than violence. Porn isn't as harmful. Lets face it - would you rather kids imitate 2 people having sex like they see on the net, or 2 people killing each other, like they see on TV?
If "the need for a punishing god was abolished" is ruled out by the bible itself.
- - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" (Numbers 23:19)
So, God does not change his mind. Except when he does. So its impossible to avoid the conclusion that the bible is wrong abut the essential nature of god.
Besides, the Bible states the God is the creator of everything, including evil. (Isaiah. 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38). So why the reluctance to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all evil, God himself?
Fear? The cracking of a belief system that people have invested too much in psychologically, socially, and economically, so that, when they are finally bereft of the idea of God, they will panic and go "My god, why have you foresaken me?" and flee right back into the mire of superstitious beliefs? Because that's what a lot of people do, when faced with the conclusion that the bible is just a book, and god is not within its pages. They go into denial.
riiight... teach the kids to be good little sheeples now.
Heck, the kids cell phones probably have more data storage than they're given on this "service". All they need to trade files is a transfer cable (which mine came with).
We'll have to stop with the "In Soviet Russia computer monitors YOU!" jokes.
Schizophrenics will finally be able to say "See - it IS watching me!"
Of course, since they're more sensitive to IR than to visible wavelengths, you can defeat them by pointing a heat lamp at them. You'll still be able to see the picture, but "they" won't be able to see you.
"But pretty much every computer on a private network is monitored, This isn't really a new "feature" so much as a continuation of existing procedure."
It depends on where you work. We don't monitor anything where I work - anyone stupid enough to try that would be caught out quickly enough. Its expected that people (both men and women) will hit a few porn sites every now and then. Big deal... just don't download tons of porn all at once and swallow up all the bandwidth while everyone else is trying to work.
Not only that - its part of the job description for some of them. They're expected to keep on top of the latest trends and technologies, and the porn industry has always been THE first mover.
Exactly what does the school hope to accomplish by monitoring? Talk to a teacher. They'll tell you about kids in grades 2, 3 coming up to them and telling them about the pictures of penises on mommy's computer, or boobies on daddy's computer, and the parents will complain about how they can't keep their kids away from the porn sites.
The battle to keep the kids eyes safe from the sight of T and A, while letting them watch 17,000 murders and violent crimes on TV before they're 18, was always pointless, except to those who'd rather make war, not love, and the religious right, who need an enemy so they can fleece the flock for more $$$ to "promote family values." Funny how those "family values" don't go after violence on TV.
Why? Because its, ummm, because... ummm I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for the children.
And because it works with the TUBES over the internet.
Of course, if the kids DID encrypt their files before uploading, they'd have all those snoopy people wanting to know what sort of terr'rist crap they were into.
If the security is as poor as one system I got into a few years ago (3 attempts to get the default new user password, 1 to get the current school admin password - it was too easy to call it "hacking")...
Gee, I guess you didn't RTFA. There is no integration for grading, etc., yet. As for submitting assignments, the teacher has a 1-gig allotment.
The way to take this system out quickly is for a bunch of kids to all start spreading stories about one or two teachers using the chat function. You know its going to happen. A few kids will post that "Mr. Brown" keeps asking them to spend extra time with him after school doing research and
they all ended up getting drunk and high
he kept trying to "touch" them
gee, his penis looks funny!!!
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Teachers suspended, careers ruined, lawsuits against the schools for providing the means.
Because the whole purpose of it is to spy on the kids... duh! They even admit its one of the big "features."
Get kids used to it now, and they'll vote for it later. Same as the idea behind setting up the Hitler Youth (hey, its not a Godwin if its an appropriate reference:-).
Whoever proposed this is a dickhead. If the kids are smart, they'll bring bootable thumb drives with a bootable copy of peanut linux or some other mini-distro on it.
If you feel that someone being gay or lesbian or bi is wrong, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you're not entitled to impose that opinion on others. The biggest problem gays and lesbians run into isn't their sexuality, but how others treat them.
On the other hand, as I pointed out elsewhere in this this thread, part of the hormonal balance in utero, that also controls the development and structure of the BSTc (which governs gender identity) is controlled by the fetus' genes expressing themselves, which causes the fetus' gonads to release hormones at specific times. It is the fetus' genes that cause a person to be a transexual, to have a brain structure that, at least in part, is of the opposite sex. Again, their biggest problem isn't how they see themselves, but how others treat them.
For all those involved, who they are is right for them. For some, its probably a hormonal/developmental situation, for others its literally in their genes. Why label it as sin? Why try to "correct" it by trying to eliminate it, when the people who are most concerned don't have a problem with it?
Would you want to prevent gays and lesbians from being who they are? Would you want to prevent transexuals from becoming who they should have been? (The two are completely separate questions, btu - transexualism has nothing to do with mating habits).
1. Nobody had a clue about quantum physics or string theory when the bible was written. Incidently, quantum physics removes the need for a "creator." (and on that topic, if everything needs a creator, who created the creator???)
2. The bible does not teach that we have an infinty of chances. Quite the contrary, it indicates that past a certain point, forget it. Once you're dead, there are no more chances. And even in life, there are no infinities of chances. There is no portion of the bible that, in context, supports such a notion. To the contrary, it advises that the time for repentence is now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3. You missed the third option - there is no god. This removes the dilemma. one of the other 2 options, as you accidently point out, result in a god who is not consistent, and certainly not one who you would choose to follow; the other not only allows bad shit to happen, but exploits it for his own ends. Evil is as evil does...
4. As George Carlin said - "Yeah, yeah, I know, he died for my sins 2000 years ago... but what has he done for me LATELY?" Now, this whole "salvation schtick" assumes that there is a god, that he has the right and power to judge me, and that if I say "no", that I am punished. Having been through it, I'll take my chances as an atheist. Certainly there's nothing in scripture that I fand compelling, since I found the book to not only have too many contradictions, but also some major moral flaws - the first being God ordering the killing of 200,000, including children. This is not right, I found it disturbing the first time I came across it (and it didn't get better with every battle where Israel was commanded to either put the enemies to the sword, or utterly destroy them, or rape their women - "take them as their wives"). Anyone doing that today would be charged with either war crimes or crimes against humanity.
5. If your kid is playing russian roulette with a gun, you take the gun away. If children are without sin, or otherwise are not under judgment, then it is wrong for them to be allowed to suffer for even one instant; that god, whose very presence is incompatible with wrong allows such an injustice shows that, if god existed, he's not so high and mighty and clean and clear of purpose, and certainly not all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing. An all-powerful god would have a way of resolving such ncompatibilities. Think of it as the anthropomorphic principle as applied to disproving the existence of god. Because we can conceive of, as well as see, manifest injustice, there cannot be a god.
The real point was that, unlike the church, rational people were ready to modify their views when presented with conflicting evidence. Galieleo proved that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. The church, rather than look at the message, attacked the messenger.
Its not about where the "center of the universe" really was, but about people whose self-interest in keeping people ignorant of the truth, and what they did to try to pervert the advance of human knowledge because it threatened their way of life.
"I already presented it - to the cashier who gave it to me."
All this does is alienate honest shoppers, same as those "Shoplifting is a crime. Shoplifters will be blah blah blah blah "
What, like people don't know stealing is a crime? That somehow, if you don't post a notice that its illegal to shoplift, that people will suddenly go all SCO on you and say "Well, your honor, they didn't have a sign that said it was against the law to steal their sh*t."
If they posted a sign saying they have a right to search your anal cavity with a cattle prod, would you agree that they have that right?
The law is clear that terms that go against public order, are illegal, or unconscionable, are to be ignored.
As for the whole "searching your bags" thing, they reserve the "right", but its not a right that they have. All they can do is ask to search your bags, and if you refuse, let you leave, unless its VERY blatant that a crime is being committed. They can't detain you by force, unless they want to go the "citizen's arrest" route - with all the potential liability that involves (yes, I've done the "citizen's arrest" thing once at a public protest, had lots of witnessess, detained the person until the police came and took over, but you had darned well be sure you're in the right). They can call the police, who have the right to stop you. If it turns out the complaint was wrong, the proper thing is for everyone to apologize, not be dickheads about it.
If the person checking the receipt at the exit were making the highligher do its thing, you'd be right.
Its the cashier that does it, so there's nothing to prevent you "recycling" the same receipt with a crooked cashier.
And why is everyone so afraid to say its WalMart that does this, that they found it doesn't work, that a group of cashiers took them for hundreds of thousands while that system was in place, and they've pretty much abandonned the practice, at least where I am...
"You have to admit that the Bible is pretty unreadable; I've tried three times to go cover to cover and only once manage to get past genesis (the first chapter)."
I've read it cover to cover about 20 times. My excuse at the time was that I was a believer... but each time reading it, there were more contradictions, as well as more stuff that I realized was just plain wrong, and no amount of apologetics could change that and still maintain any degree of intellectual honesty.
The final straw was realizing that our own flawed human laws were in many ways more just and merciful than those of the god of the bible. Even if I were still convinced that god existed, I would refuse to follow, simply because the god of the bible is ultimately a cheap wally-world knockoff, not worthy of respect. Better to be an atheist, and reject the whole premise of the existence of any god.
Glad you're enjoying it and realize that its all in good fun:-) Some people take it WAY to seriously. Then again, some people need to get a life [./ducks:-) ]
Seriously, how do you reconcile the concept of a loving god with one who actively punishes his creations for eternity? Even parents only use punishment with the hope of saving their kids from future pain.
When we condemn someone to jail for life, we limit it to 25 years. We still hold out some hope. Plus, we don't want to demean ourselves by sinking to the same level.
If you take the view that I, an atheist, am a flawed person, full of sin and rebellion against god, how does it then appear that I have more of a sense of morality and justice than god? To say "I made you, and I can and will torture you forever because I made you" is no more right than to say that you can torture a cat to death because you own it.
Certainly we are worth as much as a dead cat.
If god existed, then he/she/it would have the power to prevent this sort of wrong. By allowing it, god would be an enabler, and just as guilty of sin as the person actually committing the sin. Even our flawed laws recognize the injustice of someone standling idly by doing nothing when they could act to save a life.
Then there's the question of mercy. "I will have mercy on those who I chose to show mercy." The quality that defines mercy is that you show it to those you would rather not. Otherwise, its just a selfish indulgence - doing your own thing, expressing your own will. But no, there is no mercy for those who are condemned, not in god's heaven and hell.
So, we end up either with an imperfect, unworthy god who is not just or merciful, or no god. Better no god than a god who is so flawed that we have to demean ourselves to follow it.
After all, if YOU were god, wouldn't you DO something? Isn't the whole world full of pain, suffering, injustice? And those poor souls who are condemned to hell by rejecting God - no mercy, but rather, revenge? God can't turn the other cheek?
The god of the bible, ultimately, is a cheap walmart knockoff. A real god could do better.
"I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures?
"
You can't have it both ways... saying that a person who seeks treatment for gender identity dysphora is "giving in to temptation", and claiming that the church would not recommend against medical procedures.
As for the "you were given a gender" bit being black and white - you mistake gender and biological sex. Gender is what's between the ears, sex is what's between the legs. Most of the time, the two match; sometimes they don't. People don't "choose" to be mismatched any more than they "choose" to be straight, or gay, or lesbian, or like chocolate and hate spinach. Its just the way they are.
Your gender identity is controlled by a region of the brain called the BTSc. Its development is controlled by how the fetus' genes express themselves in the first 3 months of development. For example, in a Male-to-Female transexual, the fetus' genes are programmed not to order the gonads to release sufficient testosterone to masculinize the BTSc, and the result is that the child is born with a male anatomy, but a female gender identity. Their true gender identity begins to assert itself as time goes on, despite intense cross-gender socialization (I say cross-gender, because the childs' true gender identity is female, not male, even though their anatomical sex is male).
Forcing them to "fit into" a social scenario where they must deny who they really are is cruel. Religious groups that go around trying to "save" transexuals from "the error of their sin" are mean-spirited. Or do you believe that someone would actually WANT to have to tell their friends and family "I'm getting a sex change."
Modifying the brain is not only impossible - it would be unethical as well, since that would involve changing who they are. So doctors do what they can - they change the body to match the mind.
You can argue that its the body that counts, and not the mind, but you won't get far. If we were to transplant your brain into another body, you would still be you, right?
The same argument goes for same-sex behavior. Its inate, and as long as nobody gets hurt, there is nothing wrong with it. Calling it a sin reveals a lack of understanding of biology, as well as a need to impose your will on others despite the evidence. This is not rational behavior.
I didn't "misread the situation." The fact that the earth not the center of the universe led to the downfall of religion. It no longer can exert the same force it used to - people look at the bible now and say "its a fairy tale." And they're right - its not fact, despite what the church was claiming.
You want to believe in fairy tales, that's your right. You don't have a right to ask the rest of us to bear any of the cost, by shifting taxes to non-believers through tax-exempt status; you do not have the right to try to proselytize any more than anyone else who is trying to sell a fraud through false advertising, and you do not have the right to claim that "god" ordered anything, when "god" has already been proven to be a sham. The easiest proof - look at how many different "gods" there are. A real god wouldn't tolerate that sort of confusion, if only for the harmful effects it would have on those he supposedly loves.
In any rational society, there would be no need to ban religion outright - nobody would believe it. Forget the history of the church - just read the whole bible - its full of all sorts of garbage and contradictions. Don't bother arguing otherwise unless you have actually read it cover to cover, several times.
People who say they believe the bible, but have never read it, are fools twice over.
Its an inborn trait caused by exposure to testosterone in utero. We can tell the amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in the first trimester - it also affects the 2D:4D ratio (the ratio between the index and ring fingers). This has a direct effect on how people's brains develop. There's nothing more "wrong" with it than there is with any other natural development. Its part of who we, as mammals, are.
In other words, its a part of nature, and all-natural. And it exists for many, many mammals, not just humans. Ever have a dog hump your leg? They don't care what sex, or what species... So when a preacher gets up and says same-sex activity is wrong and unnatural, he's full of shit, wilfully ignorant because he just has to look at nature - its everywhere. And anyone else who parrots the same line has given up their critical judgment and bought into a lie.
In 1664 Alexander VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and ``all books which affirm the motion of the earth'' a papal bull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful. This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally, decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of ``all books teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun.''
If you read the rest, you'll see that the pope was pronouncing on the inerrancy of the bible. It was a question of church doctrine, not a question of whether science was right or wrong, but of whether Catholics were required, as an article of faith, to believe the bible against the mounting tide of scientific evidence. Both the bible and the pope were wrong. the various popes weren't making their pronouncements about something as men talking about the weather, but as popes, in the name of the church, setting doctrinal standards for the church that were to be universally binding on the faithful.
The doctrine of papal inerrancy certainly was understood to apply to such statements, despite attempts later on to wiggle out of it, when it was proven beyond all doubt that both the bible and the popes were wrong.
Did you choose to be gay or straight or lesbian or bi? The concept of a straight person "choosing" to be straight is laughable. Ask them, and they'll say "I was born that way." Same for gays and lesbians.
Next you'll be saying that transexuals "choose" to be transexual, rather than that the formation of their brains was governed by the natal hormonal environment.
Here's one for you - do people choose to be Christians? If so, then God is not all-powerful and sovereign. If not, then why blame people for something that isn't their fault, since they had no say in the matter. Or is god a god of injustice? If so, who would want to follow him? Worship an unjust god? Non, merci.
If there is no predestination, you choose to believe or disbelieve, and the pope is just window dressing. Or there is predestination, in which case who needs the pope anyway, since its all predestined?
The only resolution that works is "God doesn't exist, so the concept of a pope is meaningless." And the same can be applied to other choices that the church claims to pronounce on, including sexuality.
So, bottom line - instead of debating predestination, get down to a concrete instance; since the church is so preoccupied in regulating people's sexuality, is your church going to say that a transexual can't marry someone of their former sex? Or does that make the couple gay? Or that their former spouse cannot divorce them, and vice versa? Or is the church going to practice medecine without a license by advising people not to seek medical treatment that has been proven to be safe and effective? Enquiring minds want to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I wasted 15 years of my life believing before I realized that I had, to a large extent, pulled the wool over my own eyes. It became a question of intellectual integrity.
I'm reminded of the story of how Abraham Lincoln had to argue a case one way in the morning, and the exact opposite way in the afternoon. He won the morning trial, and the judge said "You know you're going to lose this afternoon's case." Abe said "Not at all - I'm going to argue that you were wrong in your decision."
We can argue, but when it comes down to it, its not the arguments that will carry the day. Its the lack of integrity that the bible espouses. David was a man after God's own heart - yeah, right. He had a loyal soldier killed so he could have the guys' wife. Solomon - 300 wives and 700 concubines - sounds like one of those cults we hear so much about. Look at how they treated their enemies - god encouraged them to either kill them all, or kill the men, and rape the women (do you think they went voluntarily to be their wives, after their husbands were slaughtered?). Invoking the new testament doesn't cover up these injustices. This is the god that jesus supposedly wants to reconcile you with. I have no wish to be reconciled with anyone who could order such things.
Flee while you can :-)
Even free-market capitalistic societies are subject to the regulations that the voters choose to put in. Don't like it that consumers can vote to reign in money-crazed corporations - move to Soviet Russia. Good luck getting that time machine to work ...
Easier than that - just kill them, dig out the chip, and, with their chip in your pocket so that you are now "them", kill a bunch of other people, dig out their chips, and empty their bank accounts.
Then put the original chip in a nice pie and send it to your worst enemy. Watch him get blasted away on the evening news.
(okay, its a bit exaggerated today .... but in 10 years?)
"So what about all the violent images on the web? I suppose there's no point in trying to protect kids from that either?"
1. They see a lot more violence, a lot more realistically portrayed, on TV. TV has been around a LOT longer. The motivation of people arguing for net censorship is self-serving and hypocritical, because they don't want to deprive themselves of their TV violence.
2. Your argument is a fallacy - it posits an either-or situation, which is not the case here.
3. Kids are more likely to find porn on the net than violence. Porn isn't as harmful. Lets face it - would you rather kids imitate 2 people having sex like they see on the net, or 2 people killing each other, like they see on TV?
If "the need for a punishing god was abolished" is ruled out by the bible itself.
- - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" (Numbers 23:19)
So, God does not change his mind. Except when he does. So its impossible to avoid the conclusion that the bible is wrong abut the essential nature of god.
Besides, the Bible states the God is the creator of everything, including evil. (Isaiah. 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38). So why the reluctance to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all evil, God himself?
Fear? The cracking of a belief system that people have invested too much in psychologically, socially, and economically, so that, when they are finally bereft of the idea of God, they will panic and go "My god, why have you foresaken me?" and flee right back into the mire of superstitious beliefs? Because that's what a lot of people do, when faced with the conclusion that the bible is just a book, and god is not within its pages. They go into denial.
riiight ... teach the kids to be good little sheeples now.
Heck, the kids cell phones probably have more data storage than they're given on this "service". All they need to trade files is a transfer cable (which mine came with).
We'll have to stop with the "In Soviet Russia computer monitors YOU!" jokes.
Schizophrenics will finally be able to say "See - it IS watching me!"
Of course, since they're more sensitive to IR than to visible wavelengths, you can defeat them by pointing a heat lamp at them. You'll still be able to see the picture, but "they" won't be able to see you.
"But pretty much every computer on a private network is monitored, This isn't really a new "feature" so much as a continuation of existing procedure."
It depends on where you work. We don't monitor anything where I work - anyone stupid enough to try that would be caught out quickly enough. Its expected that people (both men and women) will hit a few porn sites every now and then. Big deal ... just don't download tons of porn all at once and swallow up all the bandwidth while everyone else is trying to work.
Not only that - its part of the job description for some of them. They're expected to keep on top of the latest trends and technologies, and the porn industry has always been THE first mover.
Exactly what does the school hope to accomplish by monitoring? Talk to a teacher. They'll tell you about kids in grades 2, 3 coming up to them and telling them about the pictures of penises on mommy's computer, or boobies on daddy's computer, and the parents will complain about how they can't keep their kids away from the porn sites.
The battle to keep the kids eyes safe from the sight of T and A, while letting them watch 17,000 murders and violent crimes on TV before they're 18, was always pointless, except to those who'd rather make war, not love, and the religious right, who need an enemy so they can fleece the flock for more $$$ to "promote family values." Funny how those "family values" don't go after violence on TV.
Why? Because its, ummm, because ... ummm I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for the children.
And because it works with the TUBES over the internet.
Of course, if the kids DID encrypt their files before uploading, they'd have all those snoopy people wanting to know what sort of terr'rist crap they were into.
If the security is as poor as one system I got into a few years ago (3 attempts to get the default new user password, 1 to get the current school admin password - it was too easy to call it "hacking") ...
- p0wn teacher's account
- Upload shit like this or this
- PROFIT!
No system is safe from a large group of intelligent, motivated monkeys.Gee, I guess you didn't RTFA. There is no integration for grading, etc., yet. As for submitting assignments, the teacher has a 1-gig allotment.
The way to take this system out quickly is for a bunch of kids to all start spreading stories about one or two teachers using the chat function. You know its going to happen. A few kids will post that "Mr. Brown" keeps asking them to spend extra time with him after school doing research and
- they all ended up getting drunk and high
- he kept trying to "touch" them
- gee, his penis looks funny!!!
Rinse, lather, repeat.Teachers suspended, careers ruined, lawsuits against the schools for providing the means.
Because the whole purpose of it is to spy on the kids ... duh! They even admit its one of the big "features."
Get kids used to it now, and they'll vote for it later. Same as the idea behind setting up the Hitler Youth (hey, its not a Godwin if its an appropriate reference :-).
Whoever proposed this is a dickhead. If the kids are smart, they'll bring bootable thumb drives with a bootable copy of peanut linux or some other mini-distro on it.
If you feel that someone being gay or lesbian or bi is wrong, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you're not entitled to impose that opinion on others. The biggest problem gays and lesbians run into isn't their sexuality, but how others treat them.
On the other hand, as I pointed out elsewhere in this this thread, part of the hormonal balance in utero, that also controls the development and structure of the BSTc (which governs gender identity) is controlled by the fetus' genes expressing themselves, which causes the fetus' gonads to release hormones at specific times. It is the fetus' genes that cause a person to be a transexual, to have a brain structure that, at least in part, is of the opposite sex. Again, their biggest problem isn't how they see themselves, but how others treat them.
For all those involved, who they are is right for them. For some, its probably a hormonal/developmental situation, for others its literally in their genes. Why label it as sin? Why try to "correct" it by trying to eliminate it, when the people who are most concerned don't have a problem with it?
Would you want to prevent gays and lesbians from being who they are? Would you want to prevent transexuals from becoming who they should have been? (The two are completely separate questions, btu - transexualism has nothing to do with mating habits).
1. Nobody had a clue about quantum physics or string theory when the bible was written. Incidently, quantum physics removes the need for a "creator." (and on that topic, if everything needs a creator, who created the creator???)
2. The bible does not teach that we have an infinty of chances. Quite the contrary, it indicates that past a certain point, forget it. Once you're dead, there are no more chances. And even in life, there are no infinities of chances. There is no portion of the bible that, in context, supports such a notion. To the contrary, it advises that the time for repentence is now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3. You missed the third option - there is no god. This removes the dilemma. one of the other 2 options, as you accidently point out, result in a god who is not consistent, and certainly not one who you would choose to follow; the other not only allows bad shit to happen, but exploits it for his own ends. Evil is as evil does ...
4. As George Carlin said - "Yeah, yeah, I know, he died for my sins 2000 years ago ... but what has he done for me LATELY?" Now, this whole "salvation schtick" assumes that there is a god, that he has the right and power to judge me, and that if I say "no", that I am punished. Having been through it, I'll take my chances as an atheist. Certainly there's nothing in scripture that I fand compelling, since I found the book to not only have too many contradictions, but also some major moral flaws - the first being God ordering the killing of 200,000, including children. This is not right, I found it disturbing the first time I came across it (and it didn't get better with every battle where Israel was commanded to either put the enemies to the sword, or utterly destroy them, or rape their women - "take them as their wives"). Anyone doing that today would be charged with either war crimes or crimes against humanity.
5. If your kid is playing russian roulette with a gun, you take the gun away. If children are without sin, or otherwise are not under judgment, then it is wrong for them to be allowed to suffer for even one instant; that god, whose very presence is incompatible with wrong allows such an injustice shows that, if god existed, he's not so high and mighty and clean and clear of purpose, and certainly not all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing. An all-powerful god would have a way of resolving such ncompatibilities. Think of it as the anthropomorphic principle as applied to disproving the existence of god. Because we can conceive of, as well as see, manifest injustice, there cannot be a god.
The real point was that, unlike the church, rational people were ready to modify their views when presented with conflicting evidence. Galieleo proved that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. The church, rather than look at the message, attacked the messenger.
Its not about where the "center of the universe" really was, but about people whose self-interest in keeping people ignorant of the truth, and what they did to try to pervert the advance of human knowledge because it threatened their way of life.
"I already presented it - to the cashier who gave it to me."
All this does is alienate honest shoppers, same as those "Shoplifting is a crime. Shoplifters will be blah blah blah blah "
What, like people don't know stealing is a crime? That somehow, if you don't post a notice that its illegal to shoplift, that people will suddenly go all SCO on you and say "Well, your honor, they didn't have a sign that said it was against the law to steal their sh*t."
The cop screwed up.
"It depends on the posted terms of entry."
Just because the post it doesn't mean its legal.
If they posted a sign saying they have a right to search your anal cavity with a cattle prod, would you agree that they have that right?
The law is clear that terms that go against public order, are illegal, or unconscionable, are to be ignored.
As for the whole "searching your bags" thing, they reserve the "right", but its not a right that they have. All they can do is ask to search your bags, and if you refuse, let you leave, unless its VERY blatant that a crime is being committed. They can't detain you by force, unless they want to go the "citizen's arrest" route - with all the potential liability that involves (yes, I've done the "citizen's arrest" thing once at a public protest, had lots of witnessess, detained the person until the police came and took over, but you had darned well be sure you're in the right). They can call the police, who have the right to stop you. If it turns out the complaint was wrong, the proper thing is for everyone to apologize, not be dickheads about it.
If the person checking the receipt at the exit were making the highligher do its thing, you'd be right.
Its the cashier that does it, so there's nothing to prevent you "recycling" the same receipt with a crooked cashier.
And why is everyone so afraid to say its WalMart that does this, that they found it doesn't work, that a group of cashiers took them for hundreds of thousands while that system was in place, and they've pretty much abandonned the practice, at least where I am ...
"You have to admit that the Bible is pretty unreadable; I've tried three times to go cover to cover and only once manage to get past genesis (the first chapter)."
I've read it cover to cover about 20 times. My excuse at the time was that I was a believer ... but each time reading it, there were more contradictions, as well as more stuff that I realized was just plain wrong, and no amount of apologetics could change that and still maintain any degree of intellectual honesty.
The final straw was realizing that our own flawed human laws were in many ways more just and merciful than those of the god of the bible. Even if I were still convinced that god existed, I would refuse to follow, simply because the god of the bible is ultimately a cheap wally-world knockoff, not worthy of respect. Better to be an atheist, and reject the whole premise of the existence of any god.
Glad you're enjoying it and realize that its all in good fun :-) Some people take it WAY to seriously. Then again, some people need to get a life [./ducks :-) ]
Seriously, how do you reconcile the concept of a loving god with one who actively punishes his creations for eternity? Even parents only use punishment with the hope of saving their kids from future pain.
When we condemn someone to jail for life, we limit it to 25 years. We still hold out some hope. Plus, we don't want to demean ourselves by sinking to the same level.
If you take the view that I, an atheist, am a flawed person, full of sin and rebellion against god, how does it then appear that I have more of a sense of morality and justice than god? To say "I made you, and I can and will torture you forever because I made you" is no more right than to say that you can torture a cat to death because you own it.
Certainly we are worth as much as a dead cat.
If god existed, then he/she/it would have the power to prevent this sort of wrong. By allowing it, god would be an enabler, and just as guilty of sin as the person actually committing the sin. Even our flawed laws recognize the injustice of someone standling idly by doing nothing when they could act to save a life.
Then there's the question of mercy. "I will have mercy on those who I chose to show mercy." The quality that defines mercy is that you show it to those you would rather not. Otherwise, its just a selfish indulgence - doing your own thing, expressing your own will. But no, there is no mercy for those who are condemned, not in god's heaven and hell.
So, we end up either with an imperfect, unworthy god who is not just or merciful, or no god. Better no god than a god who is so flawed that we have to demean ourselves to follow it.
After all, if YOU were god, wouldn't you DO something? Isn't the whole world full of pain, suffering, injustice? And those poor souls who are condemned to hell by rejecting God - no mercy, but rather, revenge? God can't turn the other cheek?
The god of the bible, ultimately, is a cheap walmart knockoff. A real god could do better.
Your turn :-)
"I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? "
You can't have it both ways ... saying that a person who seeks treatment for gender identity dysphora is "giving in to temptation", and claiming that the church would not recommend against medical procedures.
As for the "you were given a gender" bit being black and white - you mistake gender and biological sex. Gender is what's between the ears, sex is what's between the legs. Most of the time, the two match; sometimes they don't. People don't "choose" to be mismatched any more than they "choose" to be straight, or gay, or lesbian, or like chocolate and hate spinach. Its just the way they are.
Your gender identity is controlled by a region of the brain called the BTSc. Its development is controlled by how the fetus' genes express themselves in the first 3 months of development. For example, in a Male-to-Female transexual, the fetus' genes are programmed not to order the gonads to release sufficient testosterone to masculinize the BTSc, and the result is that the child is born with a male anatomy, but a female gender identity. Their true gender identity begins to assert itself as time goes on, despite intense cross-gender socialization (I say cross-gender, because the childs' true gender identity is female, not male, even though their anatomical sex is male).
Forcing them to "fit into" a social scenario where they must deny who they really are is cruel. Religious groups that go around trying to "save" transexuals from "the error of their sin" are mean-spirited. Or do you believe that someone would actually WANT to have to tell their friends and family "I'm getting a sex change."
Modifying the brain is not only impossible - it would be unethical as well, since that would involve changing who they are. So doctors do what they can - they change the body to match the mind.
You can argue that its the body that counts, and not the mind, but you won't get far. If we were to transplant your brain into another body, you would still be you, right?
The same argument goes for same-sex behavior. Its inate, and as long as nobody gets hurt, there is nothing wrong with it. Calling it a sin reveals a lack of understanding of biology, as well as a need to impose your will on others despite the evidence. This is not rational behavior.
I didn't "misread the situation." The fact that the earth not the center of the universe led to the downfall of religion. It no longer can exert the same force it used to - people look at the bible now and say "its a fairy tale." And they're right - its not fact, despite what the church was claiming.
You want to believe in fairy tales, that's your right. You don't have a right to ask the rest of us to bear any of the cost, by shifting taxes to non-believers through tax-exempt status; you do not have the right to try to proselytize any more than anyone else who is trying to sell a fraud through false advertising, and you do not have the right to claim that "god" ordered anything, when "god" has already been proven to be a sham. The easiest proof - look at how many different "gods" there are. A real god wouldn't tolerate that sort of confusion, if only for the harmful effects it would have on those he supposedly loves.
In any rational society, there would be no need to ban religion outright - nobody would believe it. Forget the history of the church - just read the whole bible - its full of all sorts of garbage and contradictions. Don't bother arguing otherwise unless you have actually read it cover to cover, several times.
People who say they believe the bible, but have never read it, are fools twice over.
Its an inborn trait caused by exposure to testosterone in utero. We can tell the amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in the first trimester - it also affects the 2D:4D ratio (the ratio between the index and ring fingers). This has a direct effect on how people's brains develop. There's nothing more "wrong" with it than there is with any other natural development. Its part of who we, as mammals, are.
In other words, its a part of nature, and all-natural. And it exists for many, many mammals, not just humans. Ever have a dog hump your leg? They don't care what sex, or what species ... So when a preacher gets up and says same-sex activity is wrong and unnatural, he's full of shit, wilfully ignorant because he just has to look at nature - its everywhere. And anyone else who parrots the same line has given up their critical judgment and bought into a lie.
Or have you never seen a male dog?
Easy. I've already indirectly referred to it, but you can read more yourself. http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astrono my/retreat.html
If you read the rest, you'll see that the pope was pronouncing on the inerrancy of the bible. It was a question of church doctrine, not a question of whether science was right or wrong, but of whether Catholics were required, as an article of faith, to believe the bible against the mounting tide of scientific evidence. Both the bible and the pope were wrong. the various popes weren't making their pronouncements about something as men talking about the weather, but as popes, in the name of the church, setting doctrinal standards for the church that were to be universally binding on the faithful.The doctrine of papal inerrancy certainly was understood to apply to such statements, despite attempts later on to wiggle out of it, when it was proven beyond all doubt that both the bible and the popes were wrong.
Did you choose to be gay or straight or lesbian or bi? The concept of a straight person "choosing" to be straight is laughable. Ask them, and they'll say "I was born that way." Same for gays and lesbians.
Next you'll be saying that transexuals "choose" to be transexual, rather than that the formation of their brains was governed by the natal hormonal environment.
Here's one for you - do people choose to be Christians? If so, then God is not all-powerful and sovereign. If not, then why blame people for something that isn't their fault, since they had no say in the matter. Or is god a god of injustice? If so, who would want to follow him? Worship an unjust god? Non, merci.
If there is no predestination, you choose to believe or disbelieve, and the pope is just window dressing. Or there is predestination, in which case who needs the pope anyway, since its all predestined?
The only resolution that works is "God doesn't exist, so the concept of a pope is meaningless." And the same can be applied to other choices that the church claims to pronounce on, including sexuality.
So, bottom line - instead of debating predestination, get down to a concrete instance; since the church is so preoccupied in regulating people's sexuality, is your church going to say that a transexual can't marry someone of their former sex? Or does that make the couple gay? Or that their former spouse cannot divorce them, and vice versa? Or is the church going to practice medecine without a license by advising people not to seek medical treatment that has been proven to be safe and effective? Enquiring minds want to know.