Re:great ....but there still a long road ahead
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
I can't disagree with them, having never observed "abstinence" except in boundary cases that would be better categorized as "deprivation", and the few individuals zealous enough to consider it -- and even they would fall in the "deprived" category if they had not framed it as being their own choice, I'm afraid.
Depravation by choice is abstinence yes- and it's perfectly possible to pratice both by willfull choice. Given STDs and the problems of birth control not being 100% effective- it's in fact a bad choice not to.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
More or less. How many powerful men have blown their careers because of their desires? Sure, they *can* be resisted, but your brain and body are fighting against you. How many times have you done something out of sexual desire, when the instant after orgasm you couldn't believe how stupid that was?
I can truthfully say only once- and even then, the object of my desires was not within 50 feet of me. Beyond that, I've been chaste all of my life, if not always appropriate....
Re:great ....but there still a long road ahead
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Had the chance, turned it down until I was married. Best way I know to prevent STDs is to not do the actions that spread STDs. I feel sorry for the people who weren't taught to have will power over biological functions- but that's not my fault, it's the fault of their parents.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Behaviour, yes; preferance, arguably no -- and expecting people to behave in a manner contrary to their preference is unreasonable.
Hetero or homo- you still have a choice when it comes to consensual sex. Stupid behavior on your part will lead to bad consequences regardless.
Presuming that you're heterosexual, I doubt it would alter your sexual behaviour in practice if the relative likelihoods of contracting HIV from heterosexual vs homosexual contact were reversed.
I doubt it would also- because in addition to being heterosexual, I am also chaste. My wife was the first person I ever had sex with, and divorce is not in our vocabulary. Abstinence before having a lifelong partner- and chastity after- makes a fine barrier for STDs.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
True enough- I forgot about it also. But certainly- gay behavior is largely voluntary. Hmm- I suppose for rapists in Africa, don't be a rapist would also be high on the list.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
African yes, gay no. Sexual behavior in human beings is voluntary. All human beings, not just heterosexuals. Race and where you live isn't.
But oddly enough, abstinence does prevent AIDS.
Re:great ....but there still a long road ahead
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
I've got news for you- abstinence can prevent AIDS. The only problem is certain cultures don't believe abstinence is possible.
Nope- not a chance. By the worst estimates, HIV will have only infected 120 million people by 2015- the world's population is pushing 7 billion, so this is less than 2% infected with HIV. If that's the reason you're giving for wanting AIDS to continue, sorry, it's just not contageous enough.
BTW, world population is already AT a managable level- the real question is are we willing to do what it takes to manage it at this level (things like accept a falling standard of living, stop charging money for basic human needs, choosing environmentally safe technology, and not using antibiotics). If we're not willing to do that, it doesn't matter what level the world population is at- we could be only 100,000 and still manage to kill ourselves off completely by environmental poison, starvation and superbugs.
No one said that the United States was a "developed" country by these standards. Most truly developed countries have a working welfare/hostel system to take care of such people, along with universal health care. In such countries, the poor truly do not have to work to eat.
And yet, obesity is a "national epidemic", and its incidence is higher among the poor. Funny, that.
Not funny at all when you go to a grocery store and look at what the cheapest foods on the shelf are- deep fried noodles and white bread.
Plus, it's a scientifically proven fact that if you eat every other day you WILL gain weight- you'll be throwing your body into a feast/famine cycle which will be stored as fat.
Thus, your example of obesity as a national epidemic among the poor is actually PROOF THAT THE POOR CANNOT AFORD GOOD NUTRITION.
Oregon Institute of Technology- I have 47 different languages on my resume, about half of which I only have academic experience in.
The real key to lots of languages means I can pick up just about anything new in a weekend, and still be a moderately good programer at it. Syntax is just what you turn the algorithims into- real programming is knowing which algorithims work well in what environments. Now if I could only type the letters properly and in the right order, I'd be an expert instead of a fair-to-middlin' programmer.
By that standard, the United States no longer counts as a developed country- we've got millions of people who work but don't earn enough to eat.
The point is that the excuse of accepting streess in order to hold the job is laughable. Any person in rich countires willing to work will be able to work.
If they all left, all we'd have left is a sitting president who can't complete a sentence or a thought on his own. On second thought- that might be a good thing.
The point is that this is not a foolproof way to track either people getting through school or college students. Or for that matter- even whether or not somebody needs to register with Selective Service.:-)
Jesus doesn't day-trade. You're not going to find a cure for economic problems in religion. What, are we all going to band together to build a cathedral?
Actually, I guess it's time for some assigned reading. I'd suggest starting with Acts Chapter 4 and 5- see what kind of economic system the very first followers of Christ came up with. Follow that with a good dose of the entire first book in the pair, the Gospel of Luke, and Matthew Chapter 25. There's a truly amazing amount of economics in the Bible.
You're right, I don't see a problem. I don't believe in the seven deadly sins (outside of a literary context, in which case it's an interesting idea) or in any other tenet of any organized religion, except for where my personal moral code intersects with what happens to be preached by a religion.
And by doing so, you exhibit some of the worst behavior of those sins in yourself. But that's not unusual- since after all, those "sins" are just a couple of thousand years of experimental biology.
So if these reasons don't exist, how can I have a problem with them?
Oh, they exist all right- you just fail to see that they exist. Personal lack of evidence is not a lack of existance.
You're going to say that I'm the one who brought up pride. Pride exists because it is an emotion.
True enough.
The concept of sin, offending a god, is foreign to me.
It's foreign to me too- because that's a modern Protestant definition of sin. The Deadly Sins are different- they don't offend in and of themselves. They are motivators that cause us to do things that offend OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. Has nothing to do with God or the concept of God, it has to do with one of the things religion is really good at: experimental mob psychology.
If there are gods, they exist in a world entirely beyond us and could care less if we're proud or if we eat too much or who we want to fuck. Do you care if a fly is gay? Likewise from gods to us.
Actually I do- because I actually care about the world around me. But hey, that's a foriegn concept as well, right? The idea of using science to learn about the world around us and therefore DISCOVER God?
You have, in this conversation, stated flatly that you think that most people aren't moral and that everyone needs religion except for a rare few because they're too ignorant to behave in a moral fashion otherwise.
And right now, you're proving my point to a large extent. You've given up on an entire line of thought- ignored a ton of evidence- just because you don't like the concept of a "god" or "gods". A totally irrational- and immoral- way to behave.
All you have done is shown me that religion is an excuse for those who hold their fellow man in contempt to express that contempt.
And what have you done with your atheism, other than to hold your fellow man and 10,000 years of human history in similar contempt? Looks like holding others in contempt has NOTHING to do with religion, and everything to do with knowning the difference between right and wrong.
If you had other goals, sorry, but you failed.
I succeeded more than you know- because I got you to admit that your atheism is the reason for your belief that Pride is just another emotion.
Not everybody who turns 18 has to register with Selective Service- OR go to college- so that's not a good indicator of college students.
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 1
Which do we need more? Morals or Scruples?
Why must it always be a choice? If we get rid of corporate campaign contributions and stop treating corporations as some form of special-rights minority human being, we can have both.
I see your point but I think it's a lot more valuable to have freedom than a shared set of values. When people can arrive at those values by choice rather than fiat, there is not only a sharing of values, but pride in them, that you got there on your own, rather than the state telling you to.
But what to do about the parasites is the problem- those people who evolve on their own to use other people's values to take advantage of them? Televangelists, C-level executives, stock brokers, lawyers- we've got entire industries devoted to earning money off of other peple's work.
Are you saying that the USA should institute a state religion?
Maybe not that far- but it's easy to see that our entire economy is begining to melt down from a lack of any shared values at all. For without shared values- human instinct takes over, and the seven deadly sins becaume the default motivation for doing anything at all.
You apparently don't see a problem with that- you quote pride above as a motivator for behavior. Greed is also used as a motivator for behavior. But both of these have their destructive side- the problem with freedom is that we can't actually trust each other to avoid the seven deadly sins.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't disagree with them, having never observed "abstinence" except in boundary cases that would be better categorized as "deprivation", and the few individuals zealous enough to consider it -- and even they would fall in the "deprived" category if they had not framed it as being their own choice, I'm afraid.
Depravation by choice is abstinence yes- and it's perfectly possible to pratice both by willfull choice. Given STDs and the problems of birth control not being 100% effective- it's in fact a bad choice not to.
More or less. How many powerful men have blown their careers because of their desires? Sure, they *can* be resisted, but your brain and body are fighting against you. How many times have you done something out of sexual desire, when the instant after orgasm you couldn't believe how stupid that was?
I can truthfully say only once- and even then, the object of my desires was not within 50 feet of me. Beyond that, I've been chaste all of my life, if not always appropriate....
Had the chance, turned it down until I was married. Best way I know to prevent STDs is to not do the actions that spread STDs. I feel sorry for the people who weren't taught to have will power over biological functions- but that's not my fault, it's the fault of their parents.
Behaviour, yes; preferance, arguably no -- and expecting people to behave in a manner contrary to their preference is unreasonable.
Hetero or homo- you still have a choice when it comes to consensual sex. Stupid behavior on your part will lead to bad consequences regardless.
Presuming that you're heterosexual, I doubt it would alter your sexual behaviour in practice if the relative likelihoods of contracting HIV from heterosexual vs homosexual contact were reversed.
I doubt it would also- because in addition to being heterosexual, I am also chaste. My wife was the first person I ever had sex with, and divorce is not in our vocabulary. Abstinence before having a lifelong partner- and chastity after- makes a fine barrier for STDs.
True enough- I forgot about it also. But certainly- gay behavior is largely voluntary. Hmm- I suppose for rapists in Africa, don't be a rapist would also be high on the list.
African yes, gay no. Sexual behavior in human beings is voluntary. All human beings, not just heterosexuals. Race and where you live isn't.
But oddly enough, abstinence does prevent AIDS.
I've got news for you- abstinence can prevent AIDS. The only problem is certain cultures don't believe abstinence is possible.
Nope- not a chance. By the worst estimates, HIV will have only infected 120 million people by 2015- the world's population is pushing 7 billion, so this is less than 2% infected with HIV. If that's the reason you're giving for wanting AIDS to continue, sorry, it's just not contageous enough.
BTW, world population is already AT a managable level- the real question is are we willing to do what it takes to manage it at this level (things like accept a falling standard of living, stop charging money for basic human needs, choosing environmentally safe technology, and not using antibiotics). If we're not willing to do that, it doesn't matter what level the world population is at- we could be only 100,000 and still manage to kill ourselves off completely by environmental poison, starvation and superbugs.
No one said that the United States was a "developed" country by these standards. Most truly developed countries have a working welfare/hostel system to take care of such people, along with universal health care. In such countries, the poor truly do not have to work to eat.
And yet, obesity is a "national epidemic", and its incidence is higher among the poor. Funny, that.
Not funny at all when you go to a grocery store and look at what the cheapest foods on the shelf are- deep fried noodles and white bread.
Plus, it's a scientifically proven fact that if you eat every other day you WILL gain weight- you'll be throwing your body into a feast/famine cycle which will be stored as fat.
Thus, your example of obesity as a national epidemic among the poor is actually PROOF THAT THE POOR CANNOT AFORD GOOD NUTRITION.
Oregon Institute of Technology- I have 47 different languages on my resume, about half of which I only have academic experience in.
The real key to lots of languages means I can pick up just about anything new in a weekend, and still be a moderately good programer at it. Syntax is just what you turn the algorithims into- real programming is knowing which algorithims work well in what environments. Now if I could only type the letters properly and in the right order, I'd be an expert instead of a fair-to-middlin' programmer.
By that standard, the United States no longer counts as a developed country- we've got millions of people who work but don't earn enough to eat.
The point is that the excuse of accepting streess in order to hold the job is laughable. Any person in rich countires willing to work will be able to work.
But at what wage?
My degree is software engineering- I'd be eccstatic to have the same job for 2 years in a row.
If they all left, all we'd have left is a sitting president who can't complete a sentence or a thought on his own. On second thought- that might be a good thing.
Nice to hear somebody else say it- I noticed it only recently though- when my own profession fell to the scam du jour.
What makes you think that the universe and the creator are actually separate? We grow our hair, don't we?
Also- even Marketing can become overbalanced to the point that it's worthless.
The point is that this is not a foolproof way to track either people getting through school or college students. Or for that matter- even whether or not somebody needs to register with Selective Service. :-)
Not only that- not all males have to register. Only living sons of resident foreign nationals, for instance, are exempt.
Jesus doesn't day-trade. You're not going to find a cure for economic problems in religion. What, are we all going to band together to build a cathedral?
Actually, I guess it's time for some assigned reading. I'd suggest starting with Acts Chapter 4 and 5- see what kind of economic system the very first followers of Christ came up with. Follow that with a good dose of the entire first book in the pair, the Gospel of Luke, and Matthew Chapter 25. There's a truly amazing amount of economics in the Bible.
You're right, I don't see a problem. I don't believe in the seven deadly sins (outside of a literary context, in which case it's an interesting idea) or in any other tenet of any organized religion, except for where my personal moral code intersects with what happens to be preached by a religion.
And by doing so, you exhibit some of the worst behavior of those sins in yourself. But that's not unusual- since after all, those "sins" are just a couple of thousand years of experimental biology.
So if these reasons don't exist, how can I have a problem with them?
Oh, they exist all right- you just fail to see that they exist. Personal lack of evidence is not a lack of existance.
You're going to say that I'm the one who brought up pride. Pride exists because it is an emotion.
True enough.
The concept of sin, offending a god, is foreign to me.
It's foreign to me too- because that's a modern Protestant definition of sin. The Deadly Sins are different- they don't offend in and of themselves. They are motivators that cause us to do things that offend OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. Has nothing to do with God or the concept of God, it has to do with one of the things religion is really good at: experimental mob psychology.
If there are gods, they exist in a world entirely beyond us and could care less if we're proud or if we eat too much or who we want to fuck. Do you care if a fly is gay? Likewise from gods to us.
Actually I do- because I actually care about the world around me. But hey, that's a foriegn concept as well, right? The idea of using science to learn about the world around us and therefore DISCOVER God?
You have, in this conversation, stated flatly that you think that most people aren't moral and that everyone needs religion except for a rare few because they're too ignorant to behave in a moral fashion otherwise.
And right now, you're proving my point to a large extent. You've given up on an entire line of thought- ignored a ton of evidence- just because you don't like the concept of a "god" or "gods". A totally irrational- and immoral- way to behave.
All you have done is shown me that religion is an excuse for those who hold their fellow man in contempt to express that contempt.
And what have you done with your atheism, other than to hold your fellow man and 10,000 years of human history in similar contempt? Looks like holding others in contempt has NOTHING to do with religion, and everything to do with knowning the difference between right and wrong.
If you had other goals, sorry, but you failed.
I succeeded more than you know- because I got you to admit that your atheism is the reason for your belief that Pride is just another emotion.
Not everybody who turns 18 has to register with Selective Service- OR go to college- so that's not a good indicator of college students.
Which do we need more? Morals or Scruples?
Why must it always be a choice? If we get rid of corporate campaign contributions and stop treating corporations as some form of special-rights minority human being, we can have both.
I see your point but I think it's a lot more valuable to have freedom than a shared set of values. When people can arrive at those values by choice rather than fiat, there is not only a sharing of values, but pride in them, that you got there on your own, rather than the state telling you to.
But what to do about the parasites is the problem- those people who evolve on their own to use other people's values to take advantage of them? Televangelists, C-level executives, stock brokers, lawyers- we've got entire industries devoted to earning money off of other peple's work.
Are you saying that the USA should institute a state religion?
Maybe not that far- but it's easy to see that our entire economy is begining to melt down from a lack of any shared values at all. For without shared values- human instinct takes over, and the seven deadly sins becaume the default motivation for doing anything at all.
You apparently don't see a problem with that- you quote pride above as a motivator for behavior. Greed is also used as a motivator for behavior. But both of these have their destructive side- the problem with freedom is that we can't actually trust each other to avoid the seven deadly sins.
Trying NOT to do that one again. He and I live in different universes- he sees different meanings in words than I do.
You're posting on Slashdot (essentially a huge blog) and you claim you don't dedicate your time to blogging?