Ah, but my larger point was, "cutting spending" has already cut into the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. We already have pockets of population who live an incongruous second-world life amid our wealth and prosperity. While in the short term, spending cuts will change the balance sheet, it will not solve problems long-term to do it the way we've been doing it.
So, while you didn't come right out and *say* that "cutting spending" means increasing the population of working poor, starving children, and illiterate masses, the fact remains that "cutting spending" does usually have those implications, whether one is willing to discuss them or not.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China a.k.a. that you decided to imply I said something that I did not? Nothing you said here answers that point. I said that I didn't say what you implied I said, and that is a naughty (as in bad) thing to do. You reply that cutting spending sucks. Whatever. Perhaps you meant to respond to something else I said? Like where I said that spending can suck, if done poorly?
We couldn't afford to go to war in Iraq. We couldn't afford to let our banks run wild and get "too big to fail." We couldn't afford to gut our educational system with NCLB. We're stuck with a debt from those short-sighted, destructive decisions.
So, the answer is to spend more money? How about we spend money more wisely, and cut spending where it shouldn't be spent? Is that such a hard concept? Of course it is hard to implement. I've already said that. It's hard to figure out what's smart and stupid spending. But that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.
If we want to live the kind of lifestyle we've been living, it costs more money.
Agreed!
We can roll back to a semi-developed nation status, like much of Eastern Europe, and get our deficit under control that way...
That's ridiculous hyperbole, and I have a feeling you know it.
If someone has a good job, and is making only 60% of the median salary for their job, and finds their expenses rising beyond their means, is it somehow unethical for them to ask for a raise? Sure, they can just continue to live on the same amount of money, which (compared to others doing similar work) is being underpaid, and cut expenses. They can tell their kids no new shoes this year, they can eat beans and rice most of the time. But would you seriously suggest that they *should*?
You think this equates to the government's situation? That's pure B.S.! Our government takes in PLENTY of money. The problem is how it spends it. You've identified defense as an expenditure that likely should be cut. I agree! There are plenty of infrastructure projects, education projects, etc. that are supposed to be handled by the individual states, but which are funded by pork spending slipped in by congress. Sure, it's not a huge percentage of the budget - but for those of us who actually know how to budget, we understand that that kind of thing is exactly what needs to be considered when beginning to trim.
Let me sum up your argument so far, ignoring the numerous statements that you've made trying to pretend I'm saying something that I so clearly am not:
1. It's hard to figure out what to cut expenses on, so we shouldn't.
2. Instead, we should raise taxes - after all, we haven't ever raised taxes to handle raising costs.
3. Democracy means paying more and more taxes.
4. Saying "cut spending" is the same as saying "I want someone else to solve my problems"
5. If we cut spending, we'll be a third world nation, which is a horrible, horrible thing.
6. The government's job is to figure out everything we want and need and find some way to give it all to us.
So, you can't fight a rising deficit by cutting spending? Like we've done every other time we've come close to lowering the deficit? Don't ignore inconvenient truths, right?
This is what you implied I said:
The suggestion that we should be able to pay off the deficit simply by "cutting spending" is to suggest that we are living beyond our means by maintaining a first-world existence.
Naughty naughty. It looks silly to imply that I said something I didn't - especially when I said so little.
As for a response - sure, it's hard to cut spending. Most people in this country are finding that out right now. It's even harder to cut spending correctly. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? And yes, I would suggest that we are living beyond our means right now. That's why we are running a deficit, no shit!
As for your complaints about the tax code? I agree - it needs to be reformed.
Just reread the referenced threads - and noticed that both articles were roundly rejected as being complete bunk. Nice to see that this article has managed to get itself related to THOSE winners. Whoohoo!
So, you can't fight a rising deficit by cutting spending? Like we've done every other time we've come close to lowering the deficit? Don't ignore inconvenient truths, right?
I think, perhaps, you are a little confused (but maybe it is me). I work in this industry, so I have some exposure to these rules.
PCI stands for Payment Card Industry. PCI compliance means that you are following all the rules that have been setup by the PCI standards board. These standards apply to CREDIT CARDS. They do not apply to, for example, EFT's, etc.
However, the rules governing EFTs are actually WAY behind the PCI compliance rules. These are created by a group called NACHA. They recently came up with an update that puts them only ten years behind the PCI rules, instead of thirty.
I believe the PIN transfer information is referring to PINs - not "card codes" (the little, usually three digit, numbers that are at the end of the credit card number on the back of the credit card). PINs, on the other hand, are used with debit cards, and are usually four digits, and chosen by the user. These are NOT governed by PCI rules.
Did anyone else notice that the article didn't bother to compare the solar cells with, I don't know, other solar cells? They didn't talk about efficiency compared to any other existing method of making solar cells, except for the exact same methodology minus the diatoms.
Sounds like they are "fishing" for some more funding. Oh yes I can.
have never been able to handle criticism. After all, no one has EVER criticized religion before Dawkins, right? Because the fragile religions out there, once exposed to the "truth" of criticism, just fall away like cobwebs, right? Thank goodness no one believes in these silly things any more - after thousands of years of criticism, no less!
Phew! Crisis averted!
I'd be more afraid of surviving the fail, then not surviving. And I'd be afraid of feeling the crunching of my body at the end of the fall, regardless of how short the indescribable pain would be. But yeah - the falling part? If I could ignore the potential pain of the end, I'd enjoy the hell out of it!
I'd argue that none of those business had genius, and zero of them failed because they "lost their genius". There are exceptions of course, but they are rare.
I have yet to encounter a situation where anyone is THIS good (or where every other employee is THAT bad). And if a business WAS in that situation? Better to put it out of its misery - it'll get killed off sooner or later, regardless.
I'm not sure why people feel a need to defend the "quirky" walking lawsuit that these "great" programmers are all about. Very few businesses need genius programmers in order to stay in business. And most of the time, these people keep your business one step away from being sued into an early grave - and they don't provide a good product. A good product isn't something that does things in really neat ways. It's a usable product, well documented, that does the job its designed for really well - and can be updated and maintained as necessary. None of these are true of any product worked on by the described programmer.
I have no interest in pretending that programmers need to wear ties to work and act like your average joe. However, being anti-social and incapable of writing a maintainable product? Not interested.
There is a possible explanation that, while stupid, makes sense here, people. If they are using Windows Authentication, which isn't supported by anything other than I.E., then using anything but I.E. poses a security risk. Why, you might ask? Because you can use Windows Authentication on I.E. and have the username/password sent over to the webserver without having to have an SSL certificate to encrypt the transmission. In Firefox, it asks for the username and password, and sends in clear text.
There, problem solved. Still not smart, but at least accurate.
Well, I'm done. Basically, you have no argument. You're still quibbling over the fact that I said "while perhaps not a choice".
Then, you pretend to know what Christians believe, and what Jesus commanded. Did he say to follow Jewish law? Show me a quote.
Ad hominem attacks? Yes, I've called you a fool. I don't like you. Big deal. Get over it - I've hardly used it to "prove my argument" - which, of course, means you are wrong to say I'm using ad hominem attacks (as usual) - feel free to actually look up what that means. I'm a little surprised I've bothered this far - but then again, I thought I was making progress (of course, an reasonable minded person would see that I've completely proven my point). And now you are in denial, which I have no investment in getting you out of. If you want to believe you made any valid points in your posts - enjoy your fantasy world.
Immorality is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder. Take some ethics courses. Read some philosophy. If you believe that what you think is immoral holds true for everyone, you are once again completely deluded. I made it clear why it would be considered moral for Jewish people to kill people - God told them so. Do I agree with that? NO! But Christians and Jews believe that all morality flows from God - and, just to make sure you understand how universal your morality perspective is - have you heard of the death penalty? You know, where we kill people for the immoral acts they have committed?
The Old Testament says that certain, specific sexual acts that we associate with homosexuality (primarily male homosexuality) are immoral. Therefore, these acts are sin. Those performing those acts are not monsters - they are people. Christians believe that everyone sins. Period. Therefore, your supposition that Christians believing that these acts are immoral makes Christians equate these people with monsters is wrong. QED.
It seems to me that you've lost sight of the original disagreement, and are now stuck arguing side issues. You've conceded that Christians view these sexual acts as sin. It follows that you've conceded the rest of the argument - that Christians therefore regard people who perform these acts as people, not monsters - people just like the Christians who view these acts as sin.
Don't embarrass yourself further here. You have no argument. It would, of course, be nice if you would man up and admit that you were mistaken. Take a look at my posting history. You'll see that my suggestion isn't a hypocritical one.
1. No, I did NOT equate immoral behavior to sin. I said that all immoral behavior is sin, but that not all sin is immoral behavior.
2. I've never refused to say sexual orientation is considered a choice by many people. If that was your understanding of what I meant to say - well, consider it corrected.
3. Immoral behavior is defined by the user. If you consider stoning a homosexual to death immoral (and here is an important distinction - there was no such thing as a homosexual, only immoral sexual acts - so they were stoning someone who had performed immoral sexual acts), then it is, for you. The Jews (the only people required to follow the Law of the Old Testament) feel differently. Christians are not required to follow the Ten Commandments, or any other law of the Old Testament. On that, your mileage may vary. Regardless, following God's law is not immoral - it's the opposite - to any who believe that its God's law. Therefore, your point is moot.
Where does that leave us? Oh yeah - I'm right, and your wrong, and you've conceded every single point, except that, in your bizarre world, you still don't believe that you can consider all immoral behavior to be a sin. Everything else you've conceded. Right? If nothing else, will you finally concede that immoral sexual acts are considered sin by Christians (and Jews, for that matter)?
You are, of course. Any objective reader of this thread could see it.
1. I didn't say that sin is immoral behavior - I said that immoral behavior is sin. I later even made it more clear what I meant - sin ENCOMPASSES immoral behavior. That means, for stupid people's benefit (and you know what I think of you, right now), that while all immoral behavior is sin, not all sin is immoral behavior.
2. I've never said that I personally believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I've said, over and over and over and over again that some people DO believe - even a great number of people. You've tried to pretend that a choice is always a "simple choice, a whim" - which is what I've disagreed with. No one has called sexual orientation a "simple choice, a whim" anywhere in this thread. Not understanding the difference isn't scoring you any points, little weasel.
Next?
Immoral behavior is called sin, in Christianity? This certainly is not true. Are babies immoral upon birth? Or committing some immoral act by coming into the world? Sin in Christianity is only related to morality, not equivalent to it.
Source? Why do you believe this is true? Immoral behavior is actually, factually, sin in Christianity. MOST Christians are quite aware of this, your baseless assertion irregardless. Can you show, in any way, that sin doesn't encompass immoral behavior?
Also, you are weaseling out of the things you have already said. I define "fundamental trait" however I like? If you are using my definition (explained above), then you ARE IN FACT saying that many people view sexual orientation as a simple choice, a whim. A minute ago you said it was insulting to even CONSIDER that anyone thought that.
I am IN FACT, saying that many people view sexual orientation, in general, as a choice (nice hyperbole on the "a whim" - as if I had ever trivialized the choice). I have said so from the very beginning - the only thing I rightfully called you on (because it's an asshole, piece of shit way to try to twist an argument) is when you, as you keep doing, pretend I ever said it was a
simple choice, a whim
You understand that there is a whole SPECTRUM of difficulty when making a choice, right? I said, simply, that some people believe that sexual orientation is a choice. And lo and behold! You even proved it:
the American Psychological Association has stated "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
*emphasis mine*
Try not to lead with your jaw. I'm still waiting for you to come up with an reasonable argument against anything I've actually said. Stop being a weasel (your words, of course), and man up for once.
Only if you completely ignore my point. Arguing semantics with me doesn't touch my central point - which was obvious:
1. Many people don't see homosexuality as a "fundamental trait" - define it however you like. It's not universal - it's not even "widely accepted". It's certainly not proven, nor does it have a basis in anything scientific or provable. It's your opinion. Other people have different opinions. Do you honestly believe otherwise? If so, show me why.
2. The FACT that many people don't view it as a "fundamental trait" means that they don't have to see homosexuals as monsters. QE fucking D.
Your argument is specious, in that it assumes an understanding of the people who view homosexuality as immoral. As show many times throughout the entire forum response to this article, a huge number of people who see homosexuality as immoral also believe that other behavior is immoral. Immoral behavior is called sin, in Christianity. A fundamental principle of Christianity is that we are all sinners. Do Christians believe that all people are monsters? No. Again, your ignorant argument fails. Do you see what I'm saying here, finally?
Is this supposed to be a counter argument? You want to redefine what I said to be what you think it should mean? When you never used the definition or statements that I made as a counter?
Feel free to post a counter argument - we'll talk more then.
Bullshit. There are still plenty of people that believe homosexuality, while perhaps not a choice, is not innate to one's nature. And there is no scientific consensus that shows otherwise - there cannot be - we cannot scientifically determine whether something is innate. Ever heard of nature vs. nurture?
Also, you're an ass for pretending that I ever said that I believed that gays choose their sexuality on a whim - or that I ever said anyone believed that. Taking things to an extreme in order to prove a point - when practically no one holds that extreme position - is idiotic, childish, and SHOULD BE below you.
You need to be more clear when you are expanding your topic. The THREAD was about Christians - if you want to expand the focus, say so. The "hierarchy of sin" is a Catholic concept, by the way.
Also, my comment, in specific about CHRISTIANS, is a direct rebuttal to the idea that "branding someone immoral" can make them "other" in the eyes of Christians - since EVERYONE is immoral. Other religions? Those ARE different.
Slashdot Mirror
I have exactly the same problem. Very annoying, because the movies look like shit without two eyes.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China a.k.a. that you decided to imply I said something that I did not? Nothing you said here answers that point. I said that I didn't say what you implied I said, and that is a naughty (as in bad) thing to do. You reply that cutting spending sucks. Whatever. Perhaps you meant to respond to something else I said? Like where I said that spending can suck, if done poorly?
So, the answer is to spend more money? How about we spend money more wisely, and cut spending where it shouldn't be spent? Is that such a hard concept? Of course it is hard to implement. I've already said that. It's hard to figure out what's smart and stupid spending. But that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.
Agreed!
That's ridiculous hyperbole, and I have a feeling you know it.
You think this equates to the government's situation? That's pure B.S.! Our government takes in PLENTY of money. The problem is how it spends it. You've identified defense as an expenditure that likely should be cut. I agree! There are plenty of infrastructure projects, education projects, etc. that are supposed to be handled by the individual states, but which are funded by pork spending slipped in by congress. Sure, it's not a huge percentage of the budget - but for those of us who actually know how to budget, we understand that that kind of thing is exactly what needs to be considered when beginning to trim.
Let me sum up your argument so far, ignoring the numerous statements that you've made trying to pretend I'm saying something that I so clearly am not:
1. It's hard to figure out what to cut expenses on, so we shouldn't.
2. Instead, we should raise taxes - after all, we haven't ever raised taxes to handle raising costs.
3. Democracy means paying more and more taxes.
4. Saying "cut spending" is the same as saying "I want someone else to solve my problems"
5. If we cut spending, we'll be a third world nation, which is a horrible, horrible thing.
6. The government's job is to figure out everything we want and need and find some way to give it all to us.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
This is what you implied I said:
Naughty naughty. It looks silly to imply that I said something I didn't - especially when I said so little.
As for a response - sure, it's hard to cut spending. Most people in this country are finding that out right now. It's even harder to cut spending correctly. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? And yes, I would suggest that we are living beyond our means right now. That's why we are running a deficit, no shit!
As for your complaints about the tax code? I agree - it needs to be reformed.
Just reread the referenced threads - and noticed that both articles were roundly rejected as being complete bunk. Nice to see that this article has managed to get itself related to THOSE winners. Whoohoo!
So, you can't fight a rising deficit by cutting spending? Like we've done every other time we've come close to lowering the deficit? Don't ignore inconvenient truths, right?
Did a little research, and you are correct. Color me mistaken! Thanks!
I think, perhaps, you are a little confused (but maybe it is me). I work in this industry, so I have some exposure to these rules.
PCI stands for Payment Card Industry. PCI compliance means that you are following all the rules that have been setup by the PCI standards board. These standards apply to CREDIT CARDS. They do not apply to, for example, EFT's, etc.
However, the rules governing EFTs are actually WAY behind the PCI compliance rules. These are created by a group called NACHA. They recently came up with an update that puts them only ten years behind the PCI rules, instead of thirty.
I believe the PIN transfer information is referring to PINs - not "card codes" (the little, usually three digit, numbers that are at the end of the credit card number on the back of the credit card). PINs, on the other hand, are used with debit cards, and are usually four digits, and chosen by the user. These are NOT governed by PCI rules.
Actually, no - it can charge in as little as 3.5 hours: http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/teslaroadster_specsheet.pdf
Did anyone else notice that the article didn't bother to compare the solar cells with, I don't know, other solar cells? They didn't talk about efficiency compared to any other existing method of making solar cells, except for the exact same methodology minus the diatoms.
Sounds like they are "fishing" for some more funding. Oh yes I can.
have never been able to handle criticism. After all, no one has EVER criticized religion before Dawkins, right? Because the fragile religions out there, once exposed to the "truth" of criticism, just fall away like cobwebs, right? Thank goodness no one believes in these silly things any more - after thousands of years of criticism, no less! Phew! Crisis averted!
I'd be more afraid of surviving the fail, then not surviving. And I'd be afraid of feeling the crunching of my body at the end of the fall, regardless of how short the indescribable pain would be. But yeah - the falling part? If I could ignore the potential pain of the end, I'd enjoy the hell out of it!
You can be afraid of pain, but not of death, and have the same reaction. Your test is poorly designed.
I'd argue that none of those business had genius, and zero of them failed because they "lost their genius". There are exceptions of course, but they are rare.
I have yet to encounter a situation where anyone is THIS good (or where every other employee is THAT bad). And if a business WAS in that situation? Better to put it out of its misery - it'll get killed off sooner or later, regardless.
I'm not sure why people feel a need to defend the "quirky" walking lawsuit that these "great" programmers are all about. Very few businesses need genius programmers in order to stay in business. And most of the time, these people keep your business one step away from being sued into an early grave - and they don't provide a good product. A good product isn't something that does things in really neat ways. It's a usable product, well documented, that does the job its designed for really well - and can be updated and maintained as necessary. None of these are true of any product worked on by the described programmer.
I have no interest in pretending that programmers need to wear ties to work and act like your average joe. However, being anti-social and incapable of writing a maintainable product? Not interested.
Agreed.
There is a possible explanation that, while stupid, makes sense here, people. If they are using Windows Authentication, which isn't supported by anything other than I.E., then using anything but I.E. poses a security risk. Why, you might ask? Because you can use Windows Authentication on I.E. and have the username/password sent over to the webserver without having to have an SSL certificate to encrypt the transmission. In Firefox, it asks for the username and password, and sends in clear text. There, problem solved. Still not smart, but at least accurate.
Well, I'm done. Basically, you have no argument. You're still quibbling over the fact that I said "while perhaps not a choice".
Then, you pretend to know what Christians believe, and what Jesus commanded. Did he say to follow Jewish law? Show me a quote.
Ad hominem attacks? Yes, I've called you a fool. I don't like you. Big deal. Get over it - I've hardly used it to "prove my argument" - which, of course, means you are wrong to say I'm using ad hominem attacks (as usual) - feel free to actually look up what that means. I'm a little surprised I've bothered this far - but then again, I thought I was making progress (of course, an reasonable minded person would see that I've completely proven my point). And now you are in denial, which I have no investment in getting you out of. If you want to believe you made any valid points in your posts - enjoy your fantasy world.
Immorality is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder. Take some ethics courses. Read some philosophy. If you believe that what you think is immoral holds true for everyone, you are once again completely deluded. I made it clear why it would be considered moral for Jewish people to kill people - God told them so. Do I agree with that? NO! But Christians and Jews believe that all morality flows from God - and, just to make sure you understand how universal your morality perspective is - have you heard of the death penalty? You know, where we kill people for the immoral acts they have committed? The Old Testament says that certain, specific sexual acts that we associate with homosexuality (primarily male homosexuality) are immoral. Therefore, these acts are sin. Those performing those acts are not monsters - they are people. Christians believe that everyone sins. Period. Therefore, your supposition that Christians believing that these acts are immoral makes Christians equate these people with monsters is wrong. QED.
It seems to me that you've lost sight of the original disagreement, and are now stuck arguing side issues. You've conceded that Christians view these sexual acts as sin. It follows that you've conceded the rest of the argument - that Christians therefore regard people who perform these acts as people, not monsters - people just like the Christians who view these acts as sin.
Don't embarrass yourself further here. You have no argument. It would, of course, be nice if you would man up and admit that you were mistaken. Take a look at my posting history. You'll see that my suggestion isn't a hypocritical one.
1. No, I did NOT equate immoral behavior to sin. I said that all immoral behavior is sin, but that not all sin is immoral behavior.
2. I've never refused to say sexual orientation is considered a choice by many people. If that was your understanding of what I meant to say - well, consider it corrected.
3. Immoral behavior is defined by the user. If you consider stoning a homosexual to death immoral (and here is an important distinction - there was no such thing as a homosexual, only immoral sexual acts - so they were stoning someone who had performed immoral sexual acts), then it is, for you. The Jews (the only people required to follow the Law of the Old Testament) feel differently. Christians are not required to follow the Ten Commandments, or any other law of the Old Testament. On that, your mileage may vary. Regardless, following God's law is not immoral - it's the opposite - to any who believe that its God's law. Therefore, your point is moot.
Where does that leave us? Oh yeah - I'm right, and your wrong, and you've conceded every single point, except that, in your bizarre world, you still don't believe that you can consider all immoral behavior to be a sin. Everything else you've conceded. Right? If nothing else, will you finally concede that immoral sexual acts are considered sin by Christians (and Jews, for that matter)?
You are, of course. Any objective reader of this thread could see it. 1. I didn't say that sin is immoral behavior - I said that immoral behavior is sin. I later even made it more clear what I meant - sin ENCOMPASSES immoral behavior. That means, for stupid people's benefit (and you know what I think of you, right now), that while all immoral behavior is sin, not all sin is immoral behavior. 2. I've never said that I personally believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I've said, over and over and over and over again that some people DO believe - even a great number of people. You've tried to pretend that a choice is always a "simple choice, a whim" - which is what I've disagreed with. No one has called sexual orientation a "simple choice, a whim" anywhere in this thread. Not understanding the difference isn't scoring you any points, little weasel. Next?
Source? Why do you believe this is true? Immoral behavior is actually, factually, sin in Christianity. MOST Christians are quite aware of this, your baseless assertion irregardless. Can you show, in any way, that sin doesn't encompass immoral behavior?
I am IN FACT, saying that many people view sexual orientation, in general, as a choice (nice hyperbole on the "a whim" - as if I had ever trivialized the choice). I have said so from the very beginning - the only thing I rightfully called you on (because it's an asshole, piece of shit way to try to twist an argument) is when you, as you keep doing, pretend I ever said it was a
You understand that there is a whole SPECTRUM of difficulty when making a choice, right? I said, simply, that some people believe that sexual orientation is a choice. And lo and behold! You even proved it:
*emphasis mine*
Try not to lead with your jaw. I'm still waiting for you to come up with an reasonable argument against anything I've actually said. Stop being a weasel (your words, of course), and man up for once.
Only if you completely ignore my point. Arguing semantics with me doesn't touch my central point - which was obvious: 1. Many people don't see homosexuality as a "fundamental trait" - define it however you like. It's not universal - it's not even "widely accepted". It's certainly not proven, nor does it have a basis in anything scientific or provable. It's your opinion. Other people have different opinions. Do you honestly believe otherwise? If so, show me why. 2. The FACT that many people don't view it as a "fundamental trait" means that they don't have to see homosexuals as monsters. QE fucking D. Your argument is specious, in that it assumes an understanding of the people who view homosexuality as immoral. As show many times throughout the entire forum response to this article, a huge number of people who see homosexuality as immoral also believe that other behavior is immoral. Immoral behavior is called sin, in Christianity. A fundamental principle of Christianity is that we are all sinners. Do Christians believe that all people are monsters? No. Again, your ignorant argument fails. Do you see what I'm saying here, finally?
Is this supposed to be a counter argument? You want to redefine what I said to be what you think it should mean? When you never used the definition or statements that I made as a counter? Feel free to post a counter argument - we'll talk more then.
Bullshit. There are still plenty of people that believe homosexuality, while perhaps not a choice, is not innate to one's nature. And there is no scientific consensus that shows otherwise - there cannot be - we cannot scientifically determine whether something is innate. Ever heard of nature vs. nurture? Also, you're an ass for pretending that I ever said that I believed that gays choose their sexuality on a whim - or that I ever said anyone believed that. Taking things to an extreme in order to prove a point - when practically no one holds that extreme position - is idiotic, childish, and SHOULD BE below you.
You need to be more clear when you are expanding your topic. The THREAD was about Christians - if you want to expand the focus, say so. The "hierarchy of sin" is a Catholic concept, by the way. Also, my comment, in specific about CHRISTIANS, is a direct rebuttal to the idea that "branding someone immoral" can make them "other" in the eyes of Christians - since EVERYONE is immoral. Other religions? Those ARE different.
Only if: (a) it is a fundamental character trait; AND (b) they know and believe that. asshat.