Indeed. Yeah, it would be cool to jet set, but that's a lifestyle choice. When I moved here from the midwest(Kansas, to be precise), I moved directly to the East Bay. The commute sucked(until I got a gig closer), but you don't HAVE to burn 6 figures every year to live here.
Of course. Each cat has a heart name, a face name and a tail name. The heart name was given at birth by the mother. An example would be Fritti. A face name is given at the first Meeting they attend. An example would be Tailchaser. The tail name is more mysterious. Every cat is born with one, but it must be discovered. Not all cats discover their tail names.
Nre'fa-o
cause she's trying to get a reaction from society at large and people shouldn't react to hearsay like a crime was committed.
React how? Did she out the person? No. Is there a lynch mob currently headed their way? No. Is there some pending litigation which is now based on hearsay? Again, no.
What is happening is that people are discussing HR policies and Uber policies in particular. They are talking about sexism and inappropriate conduct in the workplace. They are talking about hardening systems against vulnerabilities which can be used to enable that sexism. This would protect everyone involved. But apparently we are in the discovery phase of a trial and such discussion are verboten.
But hey I'm crazy
I don't think you are crazy. I think you feel threatened. You might spend some quality time asking yourself why this is so.
She gave the evidence to HR. Why would you expect that it appear in her post?
The issue here is the obvious vulnerability in people's minds that causes them to believe and advocate for anything they feel like believing without any objectivity or rationality
Indeed. I would point to you and s.petry as fine examples of this. I hope she and others in her position read this and, in the future, just go ahead and post all of the pertinent details to social media. Forget bringing allegations privately to HR. That's what you are advocating for, right?
After Ellen Pao, UNLV, Duke LaCrosse, and countless false police reports (resulting in legal action) about discrimination I'm waiting for evidence. Chat logs, screen shots, and email logs should be enough to prove the case. TFA reports no such evidence.
So, you post this, but don't bother to read the actual account?
From the actual account:
It was clear that he was trying to get me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported him to HR.
I know, I know, they cleverly hid it behind the first link in the story.
a not insignificant number of the actual protestors are paid, too, about $25 via craigslist,
Care to show some actual examples of said ads with people answering them?
I marched in a local Women's March. No one I knew was being paid, or had been approached about being paid. I certainly wasn't. There were thousands of people there. There was ZERO indication of anyone paying for protests. Instead, you have a diverse group of people with individual concerns(ranging from pro-choice beliefs to local Native American tribes showing solidarity with the pipeline protesters, and pretty much everything in between). No one was confused about their message. No one was rioting, either. But I suppose people protesting against Republican policies doesn't fit the "Trump gets mandate from American People" meme.
I doubt very much you are allowed to do your or gas, electrical or plumbing.
When I bought my first house, it was a fixer upper($1000 house with a nice lot right out of high school == win). I redid the gas, electrical and plumbing. And the roof, the drywall, the windows, the doors, a new water heater, flooring, a new central heat & air system, etc.
I had to have it inspected(like the leak test for the gas lines), but I did it all myself. The only part that ever caused a problem was some old wiring that I didn't replace in the stand alone garage.
So, yeah, in most places, you can do all of that yourself.
If I could get WoW or Skyrim running effortlessly on my Linux box, Apple and Microsoft could both fuck right off.
From Vanilla to MoP, I was able to run WoW just fine under Wine. And that was on a triple core AMD system with a shitty Nvidia card. Did something change since then?
They seek from the Bible inspiration, a cultural identity, etc., but not doctrine.
Well, I hate to tell you, but the vast majority of Christians would consider you to be a heretic at best. And the same would happen at any given point in the history of Christianity. Your version might be more intellectually palatable, but don't imagine for a moment that it represents a majority.
No, it just puts him in the same philosophical camp as most of the civilized world, in that you should be punished for deliberately insulting someone.
I'm not sure what "civilized world" you live in, but I have no expectation of being just in striking someone for an insult, regardless of the context. When I encounter ideas and opinions I dislike, I attack them with ideas and words, not fists and weapons.
This puts him in the same philosophical camp as the terrorists he denounced. He just argues for a slightly lower degree of violence in response to another's expression.
Would it really feel emotions? Pain, rage, joy, fear, ennui? Or is it just mimicking them?
Why should we assume that anything is "really" feeling emotions? What is the difference between "really feeling" something and "mimicking feeling" something? You have a lot of assumptions flying there.
If we had some objective means of determining the morality of something, we could have a scientific theory of ethics and morals.
And if the Catholic church made no formal claims about anything physical, this would be a valid critique. It is not. The church makes claims about evolutionary history(see Humani Generis, the Catechism, etc), miracles(see virtually any beatification process), mental illness(see any "possession" case), decay(see the silliness about incorruptible bodies), etc. This is ignoring such silliness as transubstantiation("this process is physical, but can't be detected pretty much by meaningless distinctions about substance and accident").
The Catholic church clearly uses the scientific method when it comes to natural events.
And you miss the point. The church STARTS by asserting that a whole host of events, both historical and on-going, are not natural events. Those events are ignored in terms of the scientific method.
And they often only pay lip service to claims of scientific evaluation. It doesn't take much digging around in the miracle claims for beatification, things like eucharistic miracles and the ever present Marian visitations(just for a few random examples) to see that a lot of "evidence" is just hand-waving over dubious claims.
You use the scientific method when you want to prove or disprove natural events or processes. I don't see why you'd use it to determine if X belief is heretical to Catholicism.
Hmm, all of those papal encyclicals, catechisms and other teachings are obviously out of date, then, since they often make claims about physical processes which are very much in the area of scientific investigation. You should mention this to your bishop, so he can pass it on.
They use it when studying the stars, biology, etc.
Ah, that's why they have jettisoned the idea of a single couple as the genesis of the whole human race as it's scientifically untenable. Oh, wait, they didn't. That's defined in Humani Generis:
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
So, no, a basic fact of human evolution is ignored because of its theological implications. That's not a scientific viewpoint.
Granted they may not be AS thorough and not seek to find a natural explanation for one of those events once they've exhausted what modern science can tell us.
They don't even go that far. Hell, they've even regressed in modern times, since JPII gutted the office of the Promotor fide(better known as the Devil's Advocate). It wasn't rigorous before; now it's a rubber stamp. And don't get me started on exorcisms.
I was a Catholic and active in apologetics for many years. This nonsense was a large part of what made believing in that church an untenable position.
The RCC likes to pretend that it accepts evolution. But it puts restrictions on the events(such as insisting on a single couple being the start of the human race) in such ways that it is really incompatible with science. It's just a dodge.
Miracles aren't magic, they are occurrences with incredibly low probabilities
Well, you should explain to all of your miracle-believing friends that they are completely wrong.
The bible doesn't contradict science, although many religious people unfortunately do.
By your own logic, the bible is riddled with errors, as it supposedly documents MANY impossible, not improbable, events. It takes an almost completely figurative reading of the bible to come up with the idea that it's not contradicting science.
It's only useful as an argument against specific Christians who have previously invoked the Old Testament and I don't consider "The Bible says..." to be invoking the Old Testament.
In other words, it's only useful against the vast majority of Christianst. If you've studied Christianity and haven't realized that, you might want to dig a bit deeper.
The Catholic Church canonized a Bible to contain many of their beliefs.
Yup, it's a tight bit of circular logic that apologists like Keating attempt to ignore by making silly claims about a "lawful spiral" and other such nonsense.
Oh, you mean the modern scientific method that the Catholic Church basically wrote the book on how to do?
That's some specious reasoning, there. Of course Catholics were involved with the development of science. But it certainly wasn't a church function.
That being said, I think that the OP was not being clear. It is not that the pope doesn't accept the scientific method and reasoning in general. It's just that he uses compartmentalized thinking to avoid applying those principles to certain cherished beliefs. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is fairly common, even among those who understand science and skepticism, and it's not limited to religious thought.
Of course, that's going to require you to actually put fourth a little effort: Read the Bible.
Been there, done that. It's a fairy tale with no more validity than any other religion. Special pleading for your favorite deity is a fallacy. Waving hands and whispering "mystery" is silly.
I didn't. I said that Christianity was instrumental in creating the cultural climate which enabled Hitler to scapegoat the Jews by tapping into existing prejudice. The fact that he also abused others has zero bearing on these facts.
Hitler's religion had nothing to do with his goals or implementation.
Yeah, it's not like he was drawing upon a richhistory of persecution against the Jews. This doesn't sound the least bit familiar to you in this context?
The penalties for Jews accused of defiling hosts were severe. Many Jews, after accusations and torture, "confessed" to abusing hosts, and the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews in the community, as happened in Beelitz in 1243, in Prague in 1389, and in many German cities, according to Ocker's writings in the Harvard Theological Review. According to William Nichol in Christian Antisemitism, "over 100 instances of the charge have been recorded, in many cases leading to massacres."
Hitler's attempt to scapegoat the Jews was primed for success by European Christian society.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Yeah, it would be cool to jet set, but that's a lifestyle choice. When I moved here from the midwest(Kansas, to be precise), I moved directly to the East Bay. The commute sucked(until I got a gig closer), but you don't HAVE to burn 6 figures every year to live here.
Of course. Each cat has a heart name, a face name and a tail name. The heart name was given at birth by the mother. An example would be Fritti. A face name is given at the first Meeting they attend. An example would be Tailchaser. The tail name is more mysterious. Every cat is born with one, but it must be discovered. Not all cats discover their tail names.
Nre'fa-o
It's perfectly reasonable for us, who haven't seen these screenshots, to withhold judgement until either we see them or she wins the court case.
And since no one is asking you to do this at all, your reply seems to be completely misplaced.
cause she's trying to get a reaction from society at large and people shouldn't react to hearsay like a crime was committed.
React how? Did she out the person? No. Is there a lynch mob currently headed their way? No. Is there some pending litigation which is now based on hearsay? Again, no.
What is happening is that people are discussing HR policies and Uber policies in particular. They are talking about sexism and inappropriate conduct in the workplace. They are talking about hardening systems against vulnerabilities which can be used to enable that sexism. This would protect everyone involved. But apparently we are in the discovery phase of a trial and such discussion are verboten.
But hey I'm crazy
I don't think you are crazy. I think you feel threatened. You might spend some quality time asking yourself why this is so.
Saying you have evidence IS NOT EVIDENCE
She gave the evidence to HR. Why would you expect that it appear in her post?
The issue here is the obvious vulnerability in people's minds that causes them to believe and advocate for anything they feel like believing without any objectivity or rationality
Indeed. I would point to you and s.petry as fine examples of this. I hope she and others in her position read this and, in the future, just go ahead and post all of the pertinent details to social media. Forget bringing allegations privately to HR. That's what you are advocating for, right?
After Ellen Pao, UNLV, Duke LaCrosse, and countless false police reports (resulting in legal action) about discrimination I'm waiting for evidence. Chat logs, screen shots, and email logs should be enough to prove the case. TFA reports no such evidence.
So, you post this, but don't bother to read the actual account?
From the actual account:
It was clear that he was trying to get me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported him to HR.
I know, I know, they cleverly hid it behind the first link in the story.
a not insignificant number of the actual protestors are paid, too, about $25 via craigslist,
Care to show some actual examples of said ads with people answering them?
I marched in a local Women's March. No one I knew was being paid, or had been approached about being paid. I certainly wasn't. There were thousands of people there. There was ZERO indication of anyone paying for protests. Instead, you have a diverse group of people with individual concerns(ranging from pro-choice beliefs to local Native American tribes showing solidarity with the pipeline protesters, and pretty much everything in between). No one was confused about their message. No one was rioting, either. But I suppose people protesting against Republican policies doesn't fit the "Trump gets mandate from American People" meme.
I doubt very much you are allowed to do your or gas, electrical or plumbing.
When I bought my first house, it was a fixer upper($1000 house with a nice lot right out of high school == win). I redid the gas, electrical and plumbing. And the roof, the drywall, the windows, the doors, a new water heater, flooring, a new central heat & air system, etc.
I had to have it inspected(like the leak test for the gas lines), but I did it all myself. The only part that ever caused a problem was some old wiring that I didn't replace in the stand alone garage.
So, yeah, in most places, you can do all of that yourself.
If I could get WoW or Skyrim running effortlessly on my Linux box, Apple and Microsoft could both fuck right off.
From Vanilla to MoP, I was able to run WoW just fine under Wine. And that was on a triple core AMD system with a shitty Nvidia card. Did something change since then?
They seek from the Bible inspiration, a cultural identity, etc., but not doctrine.
Well, I hate to tell you, but the vast majority of Christians would consider you to be a heretic at best. And the same would happen at any given point in the history of Christianity. Your version might be more intellectually palatable, but don't imagine for a moment that it represents a majority.
It seems to me that several devices from the Garage VR days would predate this patent.
No, it just puts him in the same philosophical camp as most of the civilized world, in that you should be punished for deliberately insulting someone.
I'm not sure what "civilized world" you live in, but I have no expectation of being just in striking someone for an insult, regardless of the context. When I encounter ideas and opinions I dislike, I attack them with ideas and words, not fists and weapons.
This puts him in the same philosophical camp as the terrorists he denounced. He just argues for a slightly lower degree of violence in response to another's expression.
Would it really feel emotions? Pain, rage, joy, fear, ennui? Or is it just mimicking them?
Why should we assume that anything is "really" feeling emotions? What is the difference between "really feeling" something and "mimicking feeling" something? You have a lot of assumptions flying there.
Call me when you can show biological free will. I haven't yet seen it positively demonstrated in carbon, let alone silicon.
If we had some objective means of determining the morality of something, we could have a scientific theory of ethics and morals.
And if the Catholic church made no formal claims about anything physical, this would be a valid critique. It is not. The church makes claims about evolutionary history(see Humani Generis, the Catechism, etc), miracles(see virtually any beatification process), mental illness(see any "possession" case), decay(see the silliness about incorruptible bodies), etc. This is ignoring such silliness as transubstantiation("this process is physical, but can't be detected pretty much by meaningless distinctions about substance and accident").
The Catholic church clearly uses the scientific method when it comes to natural events.
And you miss the point. The church STARTS by asserting that a whole host of events, both historical and on-going, are not natural events. Those events are ignored in terms of the scientific method.
And they often only pay lip service to claims of scientific evaluation. It doesn't take much digging around in the miracle claims for beatification, things like eucharistic miracles and the ever present Marian visitations(just for a few random examples) to see that a lot of "evidence" is just hand-waving over dubious claims.
You use the scientific method when you want to prove or disprove natural events or processes. I don't see why you'd use it to determine if X belief is heretical to Catholicism.
Hmm, all of those papal encyclicals, catechisms and other teachings are obviously out of date, then, since they often make claims about physical processes which are very much in the area of scientific investigation. You should mention this to your bishop, so he can pass it on.
They use it when studying the stars, biology, etc.
Ah, that's why they have jettisoned the idea of a single couple as the genesis of the whole human race as it's scientifically untenable. Oh, wait, they didn't. That's defined in Humani Generis:
So, no, a basic fact of human evolution is ignored because of its theological implications. That's not a scientific viewpoint.
Granted they may not be AS thorough and not seek to find a natural explanation for one of those events once they've exhausted what modern science can tell us.
They don't even go that far. Hell, they've even regressed in modern times, since JPII gutted the office of the Promotor fide(better known as the Devil's Advocate). It wasn't rigorous before; now it's a rubber stamp. And don't get me started on exorcisms.
I was a Catholic and active in apologetics for many years. This nonsense was a large part of what made believing in that church an untenable position.
I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine
The RCC likes to pretend that it accepts evolution. But it puts restrictions on the events(such as insisting on a single couple being the start of the human race) in such ways that it is really incompatible with science. It's just a dodge.
Miracles aren't magic, they are occurrences with incredibly low probabilities
Well, you should explain to all of your miracle-believing friends that they are completely wrong.
The bible doesn't contradict science, although many religious people unfortunately do.
By your own logic, the bible is riddled with errors, as it supposedly documents MANY impossible, not improbable, events. It takes an almost completely figurative reading of the bible to come up with the idea that it's not contradicting science.
It's only useful as an argument against specific Christians who have previously invoked the Old Testament and I don't consider "The Bible says..." to be invoking the Old Testament.
In other words, it's only useful against the vast majority of Christianst. If you've studied Christianity and haven't realized that, you might want to dig a bit deeper.
The Catholic Church canonized a Bible to contain many of their beliefs.
Yup, it's a tight bit of circular logic that apologists like Keating attempt to ignore by making silly claims about a "lawful spiral" and other such nonsense.
Oh, you mean the modern scientific method that the Catholic Church basically wrote the book on how to do?
That's some specious reasoning, there. Of course Catholics were involved with the development of science. But it certainly wasn't a church function.
That being said, I think that the OP was not being clear. It is not that the pope doesn't accept the scientific method and reasoning in general. It's just that he uses compartmentalized thinking to avoid applying those principles to certain cherished beliefs. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is fairly common, even among those who understand science and skepticism, and it's not limited to religious thought.
Of course, that's going to require you to actually put fourth a little effort: Read the Bible.
Been there, done that. It's a fairy tale with no more validity than any other religion. Special pleading for your favorite deity is a fallacy. Waving hands and whispering "mystery" is silly.
Don't lay the blame solely on Christianity.
I didn't. I said that Christianity was instrumental in creating the cultural climate which enabled Hitler to scapegoat the Jews by tapping into existing prejudice. The fact that he also abused others has zero bearing on these facts.
Hitler's religion had nothing to do with his goals or implementation.
Yeah, it's not like he was drawing upon a rich history of persecution against the Jews. This doesn't sound the least bit familiar to you in this context?
The penalties for Jews accused of defiling hosts were severe. Many Jews, after accusations and torture, "confessed" to abusing hosts, and the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews in the community, as happened in Beelitz in 1243, in Prague in 1389, and in many German cities, according to Ocker's writings in the Harvard Theological Review. According to William Nichol in Christian Antisemitism, "over 100 instances of the charge have been recorded, in many cases leading to massacres."
Hitler's attempt to scapegoat the Jews was primed for success by European Christian society.